Question for AZL: What would have happened if Juan had sat on the info about Tony/Dell and just used it in the hearing that JSS will eventually have about it? "So your expert says this is the proof that Travis had child *advertiser censored*?" "Yes." "Your honor, you may be as shocked as I was to see this, but...."
I suppose she would have tossed it at that point, but would let him start the nonsense all over again once "Tony" gets his act together - if he even can.
In any case, what could this mean in terms of sanctions. Dr F testified about having "other evidence" about Travis, America's most well-known non-pedophile pedophile. Could it lead to something like JSS reading a statement to the jury that they are to disregard her testimony to that effect? That would be the worst possible thing from a defense viewpoint, and no doubt something she would be loathe to do.
There would have been no point in sitting on the information. Juan wants to get the right hard drive and figure this out ASAP. He has his eye on the ball and doesn't get distracted with games as far as I can see.
The sanctions he's asking for is just to drop the defense's motion about *advertiser censored* and move on. Dr. F's comment re "other evidence" was, I thought, just a reference to the other silly evidence she mentioned--e.g., Travis once sent a mass email that included a child's email address by mistake, and her dad said to take her off the list. And Travis liked JA to wax. Forgive me if I forgot some other compelling evidence of pedophilia.
I don't think she suggested anything about the *advertiser censored*.
If this is not totally illegal for the witness to imply pedophilia when she admits to knowing otherwise, then couldnt the judge at least admonish the defense witness openly in front of the jury by saying something like..."Since it appears the witness admitted that it could be from a mass mailing then it is wrong to imply otherwise if the witness already knows this. I would strongly urge the witness to do thorough research before making potentially false allegations, since you could be sued for slander by the affected parties at a minimum and could possibly face perjury charges at a maximum".
The witness all but admitted to it being a mass email. I listed the tweets earlier if they accurately stated what she said and she used the words "mass email" in her own words.
JM will never ask the judge to do that. It would weaken his cross. He WANTS the defense team to say things like this.
There is an exception to the slander laws for things said in court. Also for dead people. Dr. F has no concerns in that regard. Perhaps there shouldn't be such an exception, as to deceased victims in criminal cases, and that would help with the problem KCL has expressed.
She also will not face perjury charges. Everything she said about that email was true. Misleading, but true. JM is thrilled about it, I promise.
And might this be the problem? What is the "job" of a judge?
To rule correctly on legal issues. To keep the trial moving along. :facepalm: To protect the public's right of access.... OK nevermind.
Are you saying perjury is not a criminal offence in the U.S.?
Of course it is. I was saying that a judge, during a trial, cannot decide a witness is committing perjury and stop them from testifying. It is the jury's job to decide whether a witness is telling the truth.
She could sustain objections by JM....but, she won't. KN and JW run up there and do whatever they do, and she wilts. Mainly, it's JW doing the talking in the sidebars we've seen. I see blatant bias in JSSs body language and facial expressions while dealing with the defense team....sorry, I know you strongly disagree. But, it's what I see.
She all the time sustained objections from JM during the guilt phase. I think I've seen only one ruling on an objection tweeted during this phase, and IIRC it was "sustained" on a JM objection.
Interesting information on how to get perjury charges filed. Sounds as if anyone can initiate the proceedings. The witnesses tend to be careful in how they actually word things to avoid blatantly saying something is fact but they sure do imply things. That is the part that gets "sticky". However even false implications are serious and may hold up in a court of law possibly.
http://www.ehow.com/how_8236420_file-criminal-charges-perjury.html
The most likely witness to have committed perjury was JA. I can't see any prosecutor caring about pursuing that case, since she'll be in prison for life anyway.
