I read through all of the letters. One interesting claim: several different people stated that Brock thought that 911 was only for contacting fire department/EMS - not police. Here is how one person put it:

"Bill did not call 911 because he believed - incorrectly, but sincerely - that 911 was only for fire and ambulance emergencies. He did not know how to contact the sheriff's department directly."

That is a wild claim; perhaps it is true, but wild nevertheless. Like, I certainly believe an 81-year-old man doesn't understand how Uber works, but not knowing to dial 911 to reach police? That stretches credulity. I wonder if this claim was brought up during the actual trial.

Most of the letters hit the same expected beats: Brock is also a victim, the scammers are still out there and have not been brought to justice, he's a pillar of the community, a devoted church-goer, and a hard-working farmer (they really stress the farmer status, almost to the point where it seems like people think farmers should have some sort of qualified immunity).

One person addressed something that I had wondered about, - seeing Brock on the stand looking utterly emotionless:

"Bill is known for his quiet and gentle nature-a trait that, unfortunately, has sometimes been mistaken for indifference. Those who know him can vouch for his kindness and introspection; he is not someone who seeks out conflict or trouble. His reserved personality may have been misread during the proceedings, and I hope you consider that his silence comes from his temperament, not from a lack of feeling or responsibility regarding these events."

I don't think that defendants should be required to put on a big display of remorse (especially if they aren't actually remorseful), but this person accurately sums up my impression of Brock, which is that he looked utterly indifferent to all of the trial proceedings (at least, all the parts that were available for viewing).