On False Testimony (and other incriminating statements)

[reedus23]

Fogleman simply elaborated on what Crow already said:


Arguing to the contrary is absurd.

What absurd is thinking no discovery was done during the pendency of the case. What is also absurd is to think Fogelman only knew what a witness was going to testify to because of what defense counsel said.

 

[kyleb]

Seriously? I have a pretty damn good idea what every witness is going to testify to before every trial.

Oh really? How could you accomplish such a thing when in fact:

The government doesn't usually have to disclose statements made by prospective witnesses before trial. Such statements aren't open for disclosure until after the witness has testified on direct examination.

Are you even actually a lawyer, or do you just like to play on on forums?

What is also absurd is to think Fogelman only knew what a witness was going to testify to because of what defense counsel said.

Yet you're the only one here whose made such an absurd suggestion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What absurd is thinking no discovery was done during the pendency of the case. What is also absurd is to think Fogelman only knew what a witness was going to testify to because of what defense counsel said.

Exactly. They had the right to investigate witnesses they knew who was going to be on the stand and what they were there to say.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I start to re-read that statement and just couldn't get much past that. Got as far as him saying "He's the leader, Misskelley is" and I just quit reading it again. Misskelley is about as far from a leader of anything as one can get IMO.

Yes. yes and yes!

I think that anything misskelley said then, after ,and now, has to be weighed against his capabilites and influences. I believe him to be someone who was used as a means to an end. Not someone who was malicious nor involved in this crime either.

 

[kyleb]

They had the right to investigate witnesses they knew who was going to be on the stand and what they were there to say.

Not on this planet. Again, as lawyers.com explains:

The government doesn't usually have to disclose statements made by prospective witnesses before trial. Such statements aren't open for disclosure until after the witness has testified on direct examination.

As for this:

I start to re-read that statement and just couldn't get much past that. Got as far as him saying "He's the leader, Misskelley is" and I just quit reading it again. Misskelley is about as far from a leader of anything as one can get IMO.

It's a ridiculous double standard to disregard everything someone else says based on one incredulous statement while making one demonstratively false statement after another, the notion that the defense has discovery rights to what prosecution witnesses will testify to being just the latest in a long chain of such.

 

[primitivefuture]

Oh really? How could you accomplish such a thing when in fact:


Are you even actually a lawyer, or do you just like to play on on forums?

Defense investigation methods can be as informal as talking to potential witnesses on the telephone or as formal as serving a cellphone company with a subpoena demanding call logs. One method that’s often effective is in-person interviews of those who know about either the events underlying the charges or the people involved in the case. This includes interviewing even those who might testify for the prosecution.

It’s perfectly legal for defense attorneys and their investigators to interview prosecution witnesses in most instances. (Among the instances in which it’s not are those involving harassment or threats.) And even though prosecutors might not want their witnesses—including police officers and victims—to talk to the defense, they typically can’t stop them (though they may “inform” them that they don’t need to).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm pretty sure Ron Lax interviewed Vicky Hutcheson, iirc she spoke about it in her 2002 affidavit. And while Lax was working for Damien's defense team, that doesn't mean he didn't communicate with Stidham and Crowe.

 

[primitivefuture]

I'm pretty sure Ron Lax interviewed Vicky Hutcheson, iirc she spoke about it in her 2002 affidavit. And while Lax was working for Damien's defense team, that doesn't mean he didn't communicate with Stidham and Crowe.

The defense lawyer might hire a private investigator who specializes in finding and interviewing reluctant witnesses.

Seems there are several ways the defense could have found out what yarns Vicki was planning to spin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

I start to re-read that statement and just couldn't get much past that. Got as far as him saying "He's the leader, Misskelley is" and I just quit reading it again. Misskelley is about as far from a leader of anything as one can get IMO.

I know, but I had to post it for the lol factor, it's like a comedy script in places. But mainly - this is what the police were hearing, day and day out. Just ridiculous rubbish. But what's NOT funny is that they considered some of it seriously. Some of this sort of rubbish made it to court. That is how desperate they were to make a case. That is how brainwashed by Driver's witchfinder general act they were.

 

[reedus23]

Oh really? How could you accomplish such a thing when in fact:


Are you even actually a lawyer, or do you just like to play on on forums?


Yet you're the only one here whose made such an absurd suggestion.

Really don't give a damn which one you want to believe. If it makes you feel better, I only play one on forums. And while you're at it, continue on with your absolutely absurd contention that defense attorneys don't do their job and have no clue what a witness is going to testify to before trial. It is no more absurd and "bury your head in the sand" type of mentality that you seem to approach all issues with.

 

[reedus23]

Exactly. They had the right to investigate witnesses they knew who was going to be on the stand and what they were there to say.

What is so blatantly absurd about the whole issue is that half the time, all it takes is a phone call to the prosecuting attorney and shooting the sh*$ with him to find out. They may not give you every juicy tidbit, but you can find out. And that's not to mention their own investigation. Are they entitled to their work product? No. Hell, I knew generally what Trayvon Martin's friend was going to testify about before she took the stand even though I never followed that case. I guess that means I had to be there and witnessed what she saw in order for me to know. :banghead:

 

[reedus23]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hell, they don't even have to talk to the witness. They can talk to people around the witness to find out what she was saying to LE. Hell, she was an attention wh*$e and I'm sure was spouting it from the rooftops. I seriously cannot believe that someone would try to assert that it was some grand secret what she was going to say.

 

[primitivefuture]

Hell, they don't even have to talk to the witness. They can talk to people around the witness to find out what she was saying to LE. Hell, she was an attention wh*$e and I'm sure was spouting it from the rooftops. I seriously cannot believe that someone would try to assert that it was some grand secret what she was going to say.

Especially when rumors, gossip and information were flying every which way.

She could have even told Jessie herself. She was friends with Jessie. He spent the night at her house the night before he was arrested, in order to "protect" her. A fact which is insane if you believe she thought he was a killer of 8 year olds who were friends with her 8 year old.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cappuccino]

Vicky could have also gossipped to her neighbours and the story got carried back to Stephanie Dollar or Jessie Sr. or someone else who would go straight to the defense. Although knowing Vicky, I wouldn't be all that surprised if she sold the story to the press and Greg Crowe simply read it on the front page of the Commercial Appeal.

How did Miskelley's defense know Vicky's story is probably one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen from someone who I would regard as a mainstream non, (as opposed to the wilder shores of non-dom where people believe Domini and/or JMB and/or Satanic mind controlling Jews were involved).

 

[kyleb]

She was friends with Jessie. He spent the night at her house the night before he was arrested, in order to "protect" her. A fact which is insane if you believe she thought he was a killer of 8 year olds who were friends with her 8 year old.

What's insane is arguing as if someone thinks that Hutcheson believed Misskelley was involved in the murders before he confessed, as nobody here has suggested anything of the sort. Granted, it's no more insane than believing Hutchinson was part of some vast conspiracy to fabricate evidence implicating her close friend Misskelley in cult activity with Echols before there was any evidence implicating Misskelley in the murders, particularly while also imagining the conspirators wouldn't keep that evidence under wraps until she testified.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Vicky could have also gossipped to her neighbours and the story got carried back to Stephanie Dollar or Jessie Sr. or someone else who would go straight to the defense. Although knowing Vicky, I wouldn't be all that surprised if she sold the story to the press and Greg Crowe simply read it on the front page of the Commercial Appeal.

How did Miskelley's defense know Vicky's story is probably one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen from someone who I would regard as a mainstream non, (as opposed to the wilder shores of non-dom where people believe Domini and/or JMB and/or Satanic mind controlling Jews were involved).

BBM

That made my day!:floorlaugh:

 

[Ghetto Spaghetti]

My comment is so far after the fact that it might be useless, however........

By the time this softball event rolled around, Jerry Driver had already been combing WM asking about Damien. Do you think he could've killed those kids, he'd ask anyone he saw anywhere ever? How long do you think it took for a bunch of kids to get in on this and start blah-blah'ing? Let's see, a bunch of teenagers wanting to appear in the know about the crime of the century, possibly DE spouted off some crap about being a child killer.......if all that happened without Jerry Driver, I might think it was damning. But since Driver was about making this an occult thing from Day 1, zeroed in on DE, AND had the audacity to question, unauthorized, a bunch of kids about DE specifically, to me, makes the softball chick circle completely unbelievable.

 

[Graznik]

Well, yeah, the softball girls were just a bunch of "he said, she said". Once you start to actually compare the individual statements to each other they make no sense whatsoever.