Dot Connections

A public statement made last year by Fort Lauderdale Attorney David Bogenschutz on behalf of his client former Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne does not appear to square with the facts.

However, according to the Sun-Sentinel on September 5, 2007:

Jenne will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and
three counts of tax evasion. Another key concession: Jenne will admit that
he abused the public trust, which increases the odds he will lose his public
pension.

In light of Jenne's admission that he broke the law and abused the public trust, how does Bogenschutz retain any credibility after publicly vouching for Jenne's honesty and declaring that Jenne never violated the public trust? Bogenschutz's statement was more than declaring his client is innocent until proven guilty. Bogenschutz's statement implied that Bogenschutz himself had personally investigated every allegation of wrongdoing that had ever been made against his client and was personally vouching for his client's innocence.

Perhaps Bogenschutz does not believe that anything Jenne did was dishonest? Perhaps Bogenschutz does not believe what Jenne did violated or abused the public trust? Perhaps Bogenschutz, at the time he issued his statement, did not know what Jenne had done and simply accepted at face-value Jenne's protestations of innocence? Perhaps Bogenschutz simply did not tell the truth?

Perhaps Bogenschutz is a criminal defense attorney and saw it as his job to make a statement like that on behalf of his client? If so, then why should the public assume any such statement has any truth value?