Hacker News Reader

Comment by gkoberger | Hacker News Reader

I feel like this isn't going to go anywhere- after all, you can't prosecute someone based on vague tweets and a witness (Arrington) that felt awkward. It's possibly a few of the "uncomfortable" Angels will step forward with more evidence, but I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to make a real case out of it.

But then again, all I really know comes from TechCrunch blog posts.

View on HN

You can however investigate based on such evidence. There are at least 10 people involved. Each of them can be interviewed and they will have extensive cell phone records, email, personal correspondence and financial transactions that can be subpoenaed.

Evidence for many (maybe most) cases is gathered at the interrogation stage. The larger the group the likelier it is that an investigation involving talking to the people there will uncover everything.

Cops can be good at their jobs.

I would have thought that top VC's would be smart not to say a word about this that isn't vetted by their lawyers. Except maybe Dave McClure :-P

Err, the other obvious explanation is that whoever was at these meeting really don't have anything to hide, and Arrington is grossly exaggerating the few anonymous tips he's gotten.

Not only that, you would be amazed at how many people who have done something wrong end up with a guilty conscience and just tell the truth. Especially if there was something wrong going on here and the FBI hangs the "first to tell me what happened won't be prosecuted".

All depends on whether what's come out so far is enough to convince a judge to issue subpoenas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com