Clark County District Attorney Steve "Wolfson, an elected Democrat, dismissed as ludicrous Telles' claims that a broad conspiracy of people -- including Wolfson -- framed him for blame for German's killing in retaliation for his effort to root out corruption he saw in his office." WTF?
Did Las Vegas D.A. Steve Wolfson and Sheriff Joe Lombardo cover up corruption?
In 2019 the Baltimore Post-examiner reported that "Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson and Sheriff Joe Lombardo stopped a further inquiry into allegations of police and prosecutorial corruption that could have been exposed through court testimony in 2018, according to records reviewed by the Baltimore Post-Examiner and interviews with confidential sources."
"The last major FBI investigation into political corruption in Las Vegas was the Bureau’s 2004 “Operation G-String.” Michael Galardi, a former owner of Las Vegas topless clubs pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges involving fraud and racketeering. He told the FBI that dozens of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers and prosecutors from the Clark County District Attorney’s Office had frequented his establishments and received free drinks, lap dances and sexual favors from strippers over the years. Eleven police officers and 20 prosecutors were named by Galardi. The FBI said at the time that none of the activities rose to the level of a crime. However, the investigation resulted in more than a dozen political corruption convictions."
Lombardo, Wolfson ignored law in attempt to disqualify judge
In 2021 Nevada Current reported that "Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo enlisted District Attorney Steve Wolfson in an April 2018 effort to remove then-Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Melanie Tobiasson from cases involving Metro’s vice detail after she publicly criticized Metro and the District Attorney, according to audio recordings obtained by the Current of Judicial Discipline Commission interviews with Lombardo and Wolfson."
This is his full testimony which includes his whistleblowing. His wife and his ex testified to his character. So did his siblings. Tellus clearly claims he is innocent and was framed.
Update: I'm going to look into this a bit more but I'm going to start off by saying I don't think he did it. I'm not going to proclaim his innocence like I did for Cameron Ortis and William Majcher but I will say I don't think the case against Robert Telles is plausible.
He claimed he didn't do it and was framed. That means we have no confession. Just because he claimed he didn't do it doesn't mean he is innocent. Before we investigate the claim we need to check the credibility of the witness. First of all the suspect is a lawyer. He stopped being a lawyer when he ran for office. When he was arrested he was disbarred but before his arrest he was a member in good standing of the bar. At first he wanted to represent himself.
Why is that? He's good and he's free. Lawyers for a trial like this would be very expensive and he has three kids to support. He also believes his innocence. That's kind of important. There's no sense paying another lawyer to represent your when they don't believe you're innocent.
So to start off, the fact that he is a lawyer gives himself a certain amount of credibility. We all know some lawyers are shady and launder drug money. It doesn't sound like he was that kind of a lawyer. He was a devote father who was very active in his kids lives. That also gives him more credibility. His wife and his ex wife both took to the stand and both testified of his devotion to his kids saying he was a very good provider and was very involved with their lives.
Not only did he attend all his kids functions, both his wife and his ex wife said he would help his children with their homework since he was educated and had the patients for it. Again this speaks to his character but it also speaks to something else. A guy like that is less likely to do something rash that would affect his relationship with his kids. Killing someone would be a crime of passion and it just doesn't seem to me he was the type.
We know a lot of guys out there do some pretty bizarre things when they are having an affair or when they catch their spouse having an affair. This doesn't appear to be a crime of passion. If he is accused of killing the journalist because of what he wrote, I'm going to have to find out what the journalist wrote about him, the DA and about the probate fraud he was blowing the whistle on. Who was benefiting from that? The DA does have a shady history.
CNN fake news quoted the prosecution who mocked the conspiracy theory claiming it didn't make sense because everyone would of had to have been in on it. That is not true. If the DA hired someone to kill the journalist, the Police for his coworkers didn't have to be involved. If the DA did it, the police wouldn't even investigate that possibility. Doing so would be a career killer.
If the DA did it it would be highly unlikely he would let anyone of Jeff's coworkers know. Why would he do that? Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. If the DA hired someone to do it, letting anyone else in on that conspiracy would be unwise and unlikely.
CNN fake news claimed Robert killed the journalist because of what the journalist was writing about him. CNN claimed that Robert lost the Democrat primary in his reelection bid because of what the journalist wrote. I have two problems with that theory.
First of all, if Robert lost the primary it was more likely because of lobbying from the DA and his party behind his back. Newspaper articles would have little impact over that. Behind the scenes party politics would play the primary role. Robert was investigating things they didn't want him to investigate so they withdrew their support in the primary caucus.
The other problem I have with that theory is the fact that he was a member in good standing of the bar. If he lost his job in public office, he had a great paying job waiting for him. When someone does something desperate it's because they lose hope. The fact that he had another high paying job waiting for him meant that he had plenty of hope.
The reason why that matters is because he was a devote father who cared about his kids and cared about their welfare. Being a good provider was important to him. If he lost his job in public office, his devotion to his kids would prevent him from doing anything rash. Throwing his high paying job as a lawyer away and making his kids suffer financially over a crime of passion doesn't make sense. It's not believable.
Robert testified that he was shown pictures of the murder victim. He was surprised to see the journalist had his throat slit and was stabbed in the heart. Robert said, in his opinion, that was a professional hit. It was someone who knew what they were doing. Robert said he didn't have combat training. What Robert said makes sense.
The reason why that matters is because he was a devote father who cared about his kids and cared about their welfare. Being a good provider was important to him. If he lost his job in public office, his devotion to his kids would prevent him from doing anything rash. Throwing his high paying job as a lawyer away and making this kids suffer financially over a crime of passion doesn't make sense. It's not believable.
Slitting someone's throat is nasty. I have martial arts training and that is not something I would choose to do. I don't like knives because of the damage they can do. I've been trained to disarm knives not commit murder with knives. The whole idea of slitting someone's throat give me the heepie jeebies. In the movie Braveheart the villain slit his wife's throat. That was nasty.
In battle warriors sometimes slit their enemy's throat. Yet real life is rarely like the movies. I'd be too afraid of having to watch the person bleed out or choke on their own blood. In wartime I'd want an ethical kill not a slow and painful one. I don't think Robert had that in him. I know I don't.
As for being framed, one of the pieces of evidence the police found in Robert's home was the victims hat cut into peices. Why one earth would he take the victim's hat home with him and keep it? Locally when gang members do a hit, they burn everything. They burn the car, they burn their clothes they destroy all the evidence. Keeping the hat as a souvenir makes no sense.
The only piece of evidence that is significant is the DNA under the journalists finger nails but even that is highly peculiar. This wasn't a woman being raped. This was a man being stabbed. When men fight they punch each other. They struggle for the knife. They don't scratch each other. That is highly unusually. Yet in my opinion the presence of that evidence is highly suspicious because it's all too convenient. Under normal circumstances that would be a slam dunk.
Yet as I've outlined, these aren't normal circumstances, there is enough credibility and inconsistencies to warrant a proper investigation. If he was set up, the only one that could have planted that kind of evidence would be the CIA. They are the ones meddling in US elections and using fraud to raise money for the New Democrat Agenda. The CIA is the Octopus.
Here's my beef. The Five Eyes won't hesitate to completely destroy a good man's life like Cameron Ortis or William Majcher, but in this case not only did they completely destroy a good man's life, they also destroyed three good kid's lives. All of a sudden those kids have no child support or income. That is shameful.
