Tony Padilla Q&A

[lin]

I now wonder if the "possibility of being arrested" was real, or manufactured by someone who wanted to create confusion that day.

Wow! I hadn't even considered that and we all know how "cynical" (to put it mildly) I am about JB.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Forgive me I haven't read this whole thread. I know the important question is whether or not JB forged this agreement, But is the notory's name really "Gonzelez"? Geesh!!

MOO

I realize this is a serious topic with the implications against JB...but I have to say this made me spew my coffee! LOL Oh, the irony!

 

[lin]

Is it possible that JB had the contracts made up ahead of time, with the signature pages looking the way the do now. Everyone signed, except TP, leaving his part blank. Then a new set was made for TP, which he did sign.

That would mean that only the section where he was suppose to sign, was covered with what he did sign. That would be the only section that would need to be 'copy and paste'. The numbers would all match, etc.

It would be what The others did sign, he just didn't sign it. IF they have a copy, it wouldn't include his signature, but it would include everyone elses. Showing, he didn't sign that agreement.

If that is what he did, then the orginal might be damaged from cutting and pasting.

I have had to do some of that when making layout, blue prints, etc. His signature section would have to be folded, or cut off of the paper, and taped onto a different paper. One that all ready has LP's signature on. Then the edges would have to be taped down, so it wouldn't show when it's photo copied.

IF that is what he did, then it would seem that he made the original contract void, by destroying the original. Leaving him and KC unprotected from LP, Tracy, etc.

I understand what you're saying and agree but consider this: TP's signature should be alone or include just JB's signature. Then there is perhaps another page that has the signatures of the other three. One could just place the second page on top of and below TP's signature without damaging either page. If JB signed under TP on the same page, a white sheet in between the pages would sufficiently block his signature from showing through on the dummied copy. Then, JB could take the same original with TP's signature and JB's signature and make a copy of just JB's signature and notary stamp by aligning the page in the copier to redact TP's signature so as to put JB's on a page alone and without involving scissors or a 2nd notary stamp.

I really think the proof will be in whether or not he can come up with a document that has original ink signatures in the form filed with the court. Even if he has this, as has already been suggested, he could have changed the text of the agreement in any way he chose as those pages were not initialed or otherwise documented as being part of the agreement. If any of the others has a copy of what they signed then this will show whether or not TP's signature is on their copy. If none of the others retained a copy of the agreement then as Lambchop suggested, I think it will tend to show that the failure to deliver copies to the parties was deliberate. Also, if any of the others agree with TP that what was presented to the court is not what they signed, that would tend to show deliberate fraud upon the court.

Furthermore, we need to know the order in which the signatories appeared. It could be that TP came in and signed a document and assumed the matter concluded but then later JB added the other lines to be signed by the other parties. What I mean is, if TP went first, JB could have manipulated this any way he chose before the others arrived and if they have a copy it may very well show TP's signature, although TP's understanding was that he signed a final document; one that wasn't to be altered, amended or have other signatories added.

This is going to be verrrrry interesting if TP's memory is correct and JB didn't somehow have this ball rolling the very day TP was there, kwim?

 

[RR0004]

That's a good point. Normally lawyers do see to it that the copies are mailed out if nothing else. It does seem suspicious. I agree.

...and it wasn't like Baez wasn't at the house with him the first night! He could have brought it himself.

 

[CuriousTwo]

Lenny has a law degree. That should cover it.

It really came in handy in this case! LOL!

 

[Intermezzo]

The original is with the lost cell phone in KCs Universal office.

ZG is sitting in said office, reading it (or editing it) as we speak.

:rotfl:

 

[Intermezzo]

Well, I live in California.

A juror once arrived in a Star Trek costume.

A "beam me up Scotty" :beamup: moment

 

[RR0004]

Lenny has a law degree. That should cover it.

I just think he has a degree not license to practice...but I was wondering why they didn't consider having someone look over the docs for them. Not so much, TP...he's a bailbondsman afterall....he probably signs lots of papers...which leads me to believe he knows exactly what should be contained in them. If he says that's not the doc he signed, I believe him. But, the others should definitely have had their own attorney present IMO.

 

[lin]

Why would JB's word be more credible than TPs? There is only JBs word for JBs story.

...and the lack of originals and the lack of providing copies to the signatories to contradict JB's word, if TP's memory is correct.

 

[Brini]

Testimony IS evidence. TP's sworn word will carry a lot of weight with the court absent impeachment of his credibility which I don't think will be found. His story is very credible, imo, and the reasoning for the separate agreement is very sound. Of course he would insist on a separate agreement even if the text was substantially the same.

As has already been suggested, it is not up to TP to prove that he did not sign the filed document. JB has been challenged in court to produce the original. If he cannot, then that adds to TP's credibility. The absence of an original identical to the document filed is evidence, so to speak. IF, just for the sake of discussion, JB does produce something that he claims is the original and it appears to be the same as what was filed, then the burden will shift back to TP/LDB to show TP didn't sign it or that it's an altered doc. Otherwise, it's a he said/he said but JB would have an original doc to back up his word, kwim?

I'm mostly posting here to point out the multi-quote feature to you. It's an unusual feature that WS has and is located near the quote button. It has " marks on it. When you click that button with the " on it, you have copied the text of the post you want to quote but have not opened a reply window. You can click that button on several posts and then click on the quote button when you're ready to reply. I appreciate you taking the time to quote multiple posts to illustrate your points/questions and hope this makes it easier for you to continue doing so.

Thanks! That is GREAT information. Never knew how to do multi=quotes.

Another thing that will not help JB is that ther Padilla team has been on TV, spoken to the press, and has never been held to stringent confidentiality.

Judge S has already brought that up. JB's response,
"I was busy." For months and months and months, apparently.

 

[Brini]

I just think he has a degree not license to practice...but I was wondering why they didn't consider having someone look over the docs for them. Not so much, TP...he's a bailbondsman afterall....he probably signs lots of papers...which leads me to believe he knows exactly what should be contained in them. If he says that's not the doc he signed, I believe him. But, the others should definitely have had their own attorney present IMO.

I believe him, too. He's done that work almost since he could shave.

And, we know how "careless" JB can be. Then, there is the quality and applicability of JBs many motions.....

 

[Brini]

I think he is experienced enough to know that he can speculate to the world, but under oath, it's a different ball game.

The A's have been playing the same game. They can say what they want to the public. they will only be held liable for what they say under oath.

But, they CAN be held liable to lying to LE.

 

[lin]

Given that Tracy is part of the Padilla group and this issue surrounding them is approached as a group: I ponder if Leonard's love for making stuff up to get on tv about the case, could cause a credibility issue with anything she, or anyone else associated with LP's handling of the case, says on the stand (if they are put on the stand).

That was something I had wanted to ask Tony: if he thinks LP's love of making things up could come back to bite the whole group on the tail, when it comes to being considered credible, if any of them are put on the stand.

Maybe I've missed a lot or forgotten a lot (and I certainly am not trying to turn this thread into a discussion of LP's credibility) but my memory is that LP will have little to add as far as testimony because he had very little direct contact. It's also my recollection that while LP threw out a lot of theories that ended up being disproved, that's all they were: theories. That's happened a lot here but I don't respect any posters less because more info came out that disproved a part of their working theory(ies). Maybe some expected more from LP or believed he had more access than he did but I don't recall him saying other than the 2 minute exchange that caused KC to throw him out of her (parent's) house. Other than that, like us, he was trying to put pieces together. In fact, for a short time, he was one of us and got at least some of his info and theories from here, I believe.

 

[RR0004]

I believe him, too. He's done that work almost since he could shave.

And, we know how "careless" JB can be. Then, there is the quality and applicability of JBs many motions.....

If I was the SA I would have followed JB back to the office and retrieved the doc right then and there! The fact that it is going to be submitted directly to the SA leads me to believe that JB's motion is going absolutely nowhere. TP, LP, and Tracy were not an extension of the defense. Period. I really do think it's up to TP to bring this matter to the Florida Bar...if he so chooses.

 

[lin]

I hear the networks may cancall all the soaps, when the trial starts.

It will be called, "As the Stomach Turns."

too funny; guess we'll all have to get those 3-D glasses and 3-D barf bags.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank View Post
Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
Did he not think that TP wouldn't notice?

Tony Padilla's comment:
'Again we were never formally made of aware of the motion and its contents. I have really narrowed my group of media people I talk to because they are so selfish. They (the select media) told me about it. This case really went to some peoples heads thinking they were a huge part of it including a past member of this site. It really went to her head."

Can someone provide a link to this comment by TP? I have been away and missed this conversation. Can't seem to locate this - is it in the Q&A with TP because I have not seen it here.

ETA typo
Thanks

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88008&page=9
Tony Padilla comment # 215
page 9 of this thread

 

[lin]

I think much of what LP said was speculation and was presented as such. Such as "you will be surprised a how such and such will play out in this matter." "Wait and see the dumpster will play an important part." We do not know as yet that certain things he may have said are not significant. Such as maybe LE did find something in a dumpster. But I think he did what we do here and guess about what could have actually happened because he wanted to voice his opinion. JMO

gmta and so do we! <joking; we all know you're a gm>

 

[ThinkTank]

If I was the SA I would have followed JB back to the office and retrieved the doc right then and there! The fact that it is going to be submitted directly to the SA leads me to believe that JB's motion is going absolutely nowhere. TP, LP, and Tracy were not an extension of the defense. Period. I really do think it's up to TP to bring this matter to the Florida Bar...if he so chooses.

I wholeheartedly agree - if Tony P. does not file a complaint with the FL Bar - I believe it will get swept under the carpet. If he has evidence that fraud was committed, he should report it - in my opinion.

 

[lin]

Thank you for clearing that up, Bree.

Lambchop: I'm going by what Tony said about LP making stuff up to get on camera. But I will say that LP has weaved so many different tales in various media outlets that it is almost hard to decipher fact from fiction, and speculation from actuality. Credibility will sink LP if he is put on the stand, that is why I ponder if it will reflect onto the rest of the group.

I didn't read TP's post to mean he felt LP was lying about facts; perhaps he can clear that up for us. I read his remark to mean that LP would make up theories. There is one in particular that I think TP found very offensive, which we don't discuss but was disproved by a DNA test. LP was also very forthcoming when proven wrong on a theory, iirc. He didn't shirk or hide from mistakes in judgment or reasoning, iirc. I respect that.

 

[ZsaZsa]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..