Who is Vasco Thompson?

[Americka]

BBM
I think he did. In the back and forth ,Judge Perry says,(paraphrasing)" July 16th,July,15th and July 117th would be important days.I assume you had your computer expert regurgitate what was found on those days". Baez answers "Yes Sir"
I feel like I'm the only one who saw that :crazy:

I saw the exchange, but I felt Baez was lying about having researched those specific days. Like his client, Mr Baez and the truth are strangers...

 

[MsFacetious]

"The defense doesn't know that until they ask him and get proof. They can't just accept what he said on TV and move on."

http://twitter.com/#!/CFNews13Casey

Yeah... looking at the phone records after he says it on TV, to save themselves further humiliation, save Vasco further problems and save the taxpayers money... would be far too much work! :waitasec:

 

[pjmale]

"The defense doesn't know that until they ask him and get proof. They can't just accept what he said on TV and move on."

http://twitter.com/#!/CFNews13Casey

Yeah... looking at the phone records after he says it on TV, to save themselves further humiliation, save Vasco further problems and save the taxpayers money... would be far too much work! :waitasec:

I wonder why he didn't just release the phone records and prove the number was not his at the time in question?

 

[MsFacetious]

I wonder why he didn't just release the phone records and prove the number was not his at the time in question?

The phone company won't release the records to him, since the phone number wasn't his...

They will confirm on the phone that he didn't have the number until 2009... and of course Vasco has the bills starting in February 2009... but that doesn't prove that he isn't simply withholding the ones prior to that.

The phone company won't release the fact that it belonged to George's employer prior to that.


The defense could have gotten a court order for the records from the phone company, before even bothering Vasco. Not to mention they could have done it 2 years ago.

The defense has George's phone records and access to the databases. If they simply run the number through more than ONE database... they will see that it was simply incorrectly listed in one database.

OR they just didn't run it until after Vasco got it in 2009, so it was correctly listed when they ran it. Which is also possible. It doesn't seem they do things in a timely manner. :innocent:

 

[i.b.nora]

I wonder why he didn't just release the phone records and prove the number was not his at the time in question?

Perhaps because the phone number did not belong to him on June 17, 2008, therefore he has no legal standing to get the phone record. Just a guess.

 

[4Jacy]

Gotta disagree respectfully. If you drug me into this three-ring circus, besmirched my name by snidely attaching me to the murder of an innocent child by insinuation, and shined a spotlight on a past I had been doing my best to overcome, I would move heaven and earth to make you pay. You can bet on that. And as for making money, that's the least the guy is entitled to. Altruism only for the downtrodden? I don't think so.

You're my kind of Sleuth! I feel very sorry for this man and what the DT has put him through. You said it better than anyone. Who cares how many suits he has for God's sake!

 

[pjmale]

The phone company won't release the records to him, since the phone number wasn't his...

They will confirm on the phone that he didn't have the number until 2009... and of course Vasco has the bills starting in February 2009... but that doesn't prove that he isn't simply withholding the ones prior to that.

The phone company won't release the fact that it belonged to George's employer prior to that.


The defense could have gotten a court order for the records from the phone company, before even bothering Vasco. Not to mention they could have done it 2 years ago.

The defense has George's phone records and access to the databases. If they simply run the number through more than ONE database... they will see that it was simply incorrectly listed in one database.

OR they just didn't run it until after Vasco got it in 2009, so it was correctly listed when they ran it. Which is also possible. It doesn't seem they do things in a timely manner. :innocent:

Thanks for your answer.

I just think an easier way would have been his laywer asking the phone company for an affidavitt stating the phone number didn't belong to him during the period in question .

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

VT's attorneys (Morgan x2) on JVM:

According to VT's attorneys, the State Attorney(s) did not attend deposition today.

VT's attorneys re-iterating that the DT filed a motion in this case saying that VT has a relationship with George which is unacceptable and not true.

Vasco went in today and said that he doesn't know anyone in this case...never talked to anyone...GA, ICA, LA.

(just sharing)

 

[zadari]

the poor man is another victim of ica... its pretty bad when he isnt even connected to the family in any way ..