"The prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, told Swartz’s lawyer, Elliot Peters, that if Swartz pleaded guilty to all counts he would spend six months in jail; if he lost at trial, it would be much worse."
The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his lawyer.
The New Yorker doesn’t link to a citation. Rolling Stones does. Which links to a statement by lead prosecutor, Ortiz. Heymann was the assistant prosecutor.
My point was how do we know this is an “analysis”. Based off Rolling Stones, this is just the prosecutors words.
How about semi-straight from the horse's mouth? Was his defense attorney working with prosecutors to minimize the threats? Is the Boston Globe in on it? (Conspiracy theories are so much fun! Ever read Foucault's Pendulum?)
If I recall the prosecutor’s future political ambitions got derailed because of this. That makes it even more likely to not believe anything they are saying without more to go on.
So yes. Not just the plea deal and not just this case. In any situation, if the only evidence of something is the word of the state prosecutor, that only means so much.
The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his lawyer.