Mayweather camp did not lie: Inquiry was made, what if Pacquiao caught dirty

Had that Florida jury been given a strong charge on what weight to give to purely circumstantial evidence, accused baby killer Casey Anthony would not be free as a bird right now.

But the Sunshine State jurors had no such instruction and the widely-hated mother of innocent child Caylee Anthony walked if only to live a miserable, OJ Simpson like post-trial existence in the shadows.

I come armed tonight only with circumstantial evidence but please allow to begin to present my case.

I know it will be criticized as revisionist history since I staunchly and repeatedly defended Manny Pacquiao and his team from such allegations.

But I got with a lightning bolt today and that bolt made me realize that the infamous emails purportedly circulated in late 2009, purportedly sent by someone in Pacman’s Inner Circle, which were said to have been sent to Floyd Mayweather agents/representatives were not fiction, were not made up lies pushed to the media forefront, first through New York Daily News sportswriter Tim Smith and then by ESPN’s Teddy Atlas.

Remember, this email or plural emails supposedly asked:

1) What happens if Pacquiao comes up dirty on a random blood drug test?

2) If Pacquiao comes up dirty, can this be kept quiet?

I never called either Smith or Atlas a liar on this issue although I did chastise both for reporting it without ever seeing any such communication.

I stand by that criticism but the difference between January 8, 2010, when Atlas just parroted Smith’s earlier report from the tabloid newspaper over the ESPN airwaves is that I am now all but convinced that someone around Pacman did send such a moronic email or emails.

The person who I suspect did this was someone who was desperately trying to ingratiate himself with Pacquiao himself.

This person acted without any permission or authority from Pacquiao.

I have to think the Mayweather camp never “outed” the sender because they hoped for more damning communications or information to come their way.

You know, like when you have a reliable “spy” in the enemy camp. Why cut off your source, why reveal your confidential informant until you have milked that source completely dry?

Or, in this case, maybe I should say drained all “the juice” from said source until it is dry.

Tomorrow, I will reveal who the circumstantial evidence, and there is a mountain of same, points to as the unthinking miscreant in the Pacquiao camp.

I’ve got a strong feeling that even Pacman himself will be shocked to read this first installment and then my closing argument on Wednesday.

More to come…

Source: Examiner.com