2010.08.30 - Status Hearing

[pip]

I also love that HHJP has put a 2 week cap on when new motions must be heard. Baez looked worried about that, since he uses motion after motion as lingering stall tactics. He will be less likely to file so many frivolous motions and waste the courts time and push HHJP's buttons. If he is going to jam the docket with all these stupid motions, he best be ready to argue them pronto! (which he won't be).. Hoping this will curtail his nonsense.

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.wftv.com/video/24825363/index.html

Beginning right before the 10 minute mark in the video. LDB comments that JB stated that the defense had photos from a yard sale that would negate some of the evidence taken from the house. Then JB stated it was a joke.

I think that this poor attempt at humor pretty much negates any appearance of professionalism that he thought the pocket squares would demonstrate. In his words this case is different, it's a mega case, it's about saving a life. JB should know.......this is NOT the time for stand up. He needs to stop coloring (BTW don't color coded charts usually have a legend at the bottom?), schedule depos and stop trying to be funny. BTW........most are laughing AT him not WITH him! Maybe someone could let him know.

regarding BBM
Sorry to quote my own post.....waited to long to add info......consider this a post edited to add...

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php

Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject.

 

[wonders]

http://www.wftv.com/video/24825363/index.html

Beginning right before the 10 minute mark in the video. LDB comments that JB stated that the defense had photos from a yard sale that would negate some of the evidence taken from the house. Then JB stated it was a joke.

I think that this poor attempt at humor pretty much negates any appearance of professionalism that he thought the pocket squares would demonstrate. In his words this case is different, it's a mega case, it's about saving a life. JB should know.......this is NOT the time for stand up. He needs to stop coloring (BTW don't color coded charts usually have a legend at the bottom?), schedule depos and stop trying to be funny. BTW........most are laughing AT him not WITH him! Maybe someone could let him know.

His humor is tasteless at best.
RE BOLDING:
Yes they should and futher more you can hide "work product" columns before you print them out to hand over to a Judge and State. Part of his appeal scheme if ya ask me. He just thinks he's so smart and that nobody can see how transparent he is. Geessshhhh.

 

[LambChop]

Can't watch the status hearing again but did I hear the judge say no more filings at 5:00 on a Friday???? Or something to that effect?

 

[ThinkTank]

Can't watch the status hearing again but did I hear the judge say no more filings at 5:00 on a Friday???? Or something to that effect?

I did not hear a time limit set.
All I heard Judge P say is no more motions just sitting in the case file clogging it up - that when a motion is filed from now on, it WILL BE heard within 15 days - so don't file a motion unless you intend to have a Hearing and argue it before the Judge within 15 days.

The Judge said he has been known to set appointments for depositions after 5:00pm....

 

[joypath]

I also love that HHJP has put a 2 week cap on when new motions must be heard. Baez looked worried about that, since he uses motion after motion as lingering stall tactics. He will be less likely to file so many frivolous motions and waste the courts time and push HHJP's buttons. If he is going to jam the docket with all these stupid motions, he best be ready to argue them pronto! (which he won't be).. Hoping this will curtail his nonsense.

So so so true! :woohoo:Why am I getting vibrations of Shakespearean quotes: "me thinks the "BAEZ" doth protest too much" and firstly, kill all the lawyers" (yeah, very very paraphrased!)! I'm also getting a VERY strong feeling that the "private pow-wow" :banghead:meeting before the Conway bailout included a very strong :innocent:"come to Jesus":innocent: meeting with HHJP providing the "sinners" JB & CM some well advised words of salvation that included "cut the:crazy: motion train:crazy:, boys" and "be ready to put your thoughts where the paper is". HHJP :snooty:has shown that HE MEANS BUSINESS! or he suffers from insomnia and needs something to keep him occupied 24/7!:twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

So so so true! :woohoo:Why am I getting vibrations of Shakespearean quotes: "me thinks the "BAEZ" doth protest too much" and firstly, kill all the lawyers" (yeah, very very paraphrased!)! I'm also getting a VERY strong feeling that the "private pow-wow" :banghead:meeting before the Conway bailout included a very strong :innocent:"come to Jesus":innocent: meeting with HHJP providing the "sinners" JB & CM some well advised words of salvation that included "cut the:crazy: motion train:crazy:, boys" and "be ready to put your thoughts where the paper is". HHJP :snooty:has shown that HE MEANS BUSINESS! or he suffers from insomnia and needs something to keep him occupied 24/7!:twocents:

Maybe it shades of Judge ITO keeping him awake and being so darned precise - love him!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Respectfully snipped by me. This is really interesting to me. I use the dots (over use them, I'm sure) to indicate a trailing thought. But that's certainly a stylistic use as opposed to a legal transcription. Although transcribers very well might use it in the same way to suggest pauses or disjointed syntax. Woe, could you please paste and copy an example of where it was done so we could develop a more informed opinion? TIA.

Yes dots can be used to indicate a trailing thought but they wouldn't show up all that often. From what I can tell disjointed syntax would be indicated by using a dash.
Below is an example of a word-for-word interview - notice no dots for any reason.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kimmehea/purdue/421/exampleinterview.htm

I'll go look for an interview that shows what I'm tallking about - I'll be back shortly.

It's interesting that I just tried to access AD's police interview (I reread the whole thing two days ago) and it's gone - the link is still there in our Official Documents thread but the interview is down - unaccessable.

Here is an interview of AD conducted by Lawyer Morgan. Nothing is omitted and dashes are used for incomplete thoughts, etc.
No part of the interview has been redacted.

http://www.forthepeople.com/Downing.pdf

Now I'm off to find an interview conducted by LE to illustrate my point ~ nothing is easy the saying goes!

http://www.wftv.com/blank/18974273/detail.html ~~~ this is an interview of DC. The transcribers LE uses do use dots after almost every sentence - they use them for interruptions when the speaker continues after someone else talks, etc. Dots are used all the time. But go to pdf. page 18, beginning at line 4. Begin reading back a little so you can get a flow going. By line 4, written page 4997 (when the subject matter gets good) there are dots but the sentences begin to no longer connect as if words are missing. Also there are several 'inaudibles' all of a sudden. Read at least two pages and let me know what you think. AD's interview had a few places where this seemed very apparent to me. Furthermore, I've heard that if LE is still investigating an aspect of a case, they don't have to release discovery relating to that yet. Maybe LE uses the dots (most transcription services use dashes) for the reason of hiding the redactions. On the other hand, I may be totally off base but I've noticed this all along as I've read the various interviews.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

regarding BBM
Sorry to quote my own post.....waited to long to add info......consider this a post edited to add...

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php

Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject.

Are you using lots of dots to make a point?
If so, if I were reading a transcript I'd think you were leaving a bunch of stuff out. . . .:waitasec: It's three . . . dots with spaces within a sentence though, not five, six or seven.

 

[Spangle]

Another possiblity you might want to consider. More then one person talking at once. Disrupting the flow of conversation, and when transcribing, keeping the words/what is said, in order it was said, etc.

When interrupted, the speaker doesn't always complete the sentence as they were expecting. Might go a totally different direction, Or just drop that thought all together.

the best way to figure out exactly what it means, is to listen to the tape, while reading the transcription.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Are you using lots of dots to make a point?
If so, if I were reading a transcript I'd think you were leaving a bunch of stuff out. . . .:waitasec: It's three . . . dots with spaces within a sentence though, not five, six or seven.

I am not a court reporter and my post should not be read by transcription standards. Thanks for the info on dots....................................................

 

[pip]

I am not a court reporter and my post should not be read by transcription standards. Thanks for the info on dots....................................................

As a prolific..dot dot dotter...myself......
no worries... it's all good.. :dance:
don't be hatin' on us Dottie dotters now, ya hear?

 

[sedna99]

.Hmmmmm.....I wonder is Baez is now sorry he asked for a different Judge...??

'Cause this one is NOT going to take ANY of his pathetic excuses!!!

I'll bet JB just wishes he could jump in the old time machine to the day before he complained about Judge Strickland and the blogger.

 

[pip]

I'll bet JB just wishes he could jump in the old time machine to the day before he complained about Judge Strickland and the blogger.

Baez will probably just try to get Judge # 3, then 4...

 

[ThinkTank]

Credit InSession:
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=371975&page=16
Sept 2, 2010

Originally Posted by bluwaters
A former beloved poster asked back in April:
Scampi
Can someone help me do a little research? I am trying to find out if Belvin Perry, Jeff Ashton and Cheney Mason ever participated in a trial together. I think I found one, but I'm not sure. It's the John Huggins case. I think this is the case where Jeff held back a video of a witness from the defense, causing a new trial for the convicted murderer Huggins.

 

[logicalgirl]

Many thanks to ThinkTank for finding, organizing and bringing all this information over to us. Now we know why HHJP jiggles in his chair and has an edge of impatience to his voice - ICA's case must seem pretty routine to him. And why he says there will be a trial in May of 2010.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I am not a court reporter and my post should not be read by transcription standards. Thanks for the info on dots....................................................

It was an attempt at making a joke, anyway .........................:crazy:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Many thanks to ThinkTank for finding, organizing and bringing all this information over to us. Now we know why HHJP jiggles in his chair and has an edge of impatience to his voice - ICA's case must seem pretty routine to him. And why he says there will be a trial in May of 2010.

That's interesting what ThinkTank posted. How do they decide what has to be used and what doesn't then? Are they saying that the witnesse's input was not revealed through the Sunshine Laws or that Ashton did not call the witness to the stand? I guess that shows that everything they have must be shared - no use skirting around it or something like this could happen.

There is a term for what you are saying that always eludes me - when people who work in certain professions - like doctors, lawyers and morticians - become so familiar with their serious tasks at hand that they crack jokes and say things that sound inappropriate to someone outside their field and can sound insensitive to especially somebody who is personally involved. When JP has his exchanges with CM, that may be what's going on - just a little comic relief in their same 'ol, same 'ol day.

 

[logicalgirl]

That's interesting what ThinkTank posted. How do they decide what has to be used and what doesn't then? Are they saying that the witnesse's input was not revealed through the Sunshine Laws or that Ashton did not call the witness to the stand? I guess that shows that everything they have must be shared - no use skirting around it or something like this could happen.

There is a term for what you are saying that always eludes me - when people who work in certain professions - like doctors, lawyers and morticians - become so familiar with their serious tasks at hand that they crack jokes and say things that sound inappropriate to someone outside their field and can sound insensitive to especially somebody who is personally involved. When JP has his exchanges with CM, that may be what's going on - just a little comic relief in their same 'ol, same 'ol day.

You are being very kind today woe.be.gone.:innocent:

 

[Hell's Belle]

That's interesting what ThinkTank posted. How do they decide what has to be used and what doesn't then? Are they saying that the witnesse's input was not revealed through the Sunshine Laws or that Ashton did not call the witness to the stand? I guess that shows that everything they have must be shared - no use skirting around it or something like this could happen.

There is a term for what you are saying that always eludes me - when people who work in certain professions - like doctors, lawyers and morticians - become so familiar with their serious tasks at hand that they crack jokes and say things that sound inappropriate to someone outside their field and can sound insensitive to especially somebody who is personally involved. When JP has his exchanges with CM, that may be what's going on - just a little comic relief in their same 'ol, same 'ol day.

(1) In a criminal case the obligations of the prosecution and the defense are not "symmetrical." The prosecution must turn over all evidence in its possession that is potentially exculpatory to the defense, called "Brady materials" after the case of U.S. v. Brady. However, the defense is NOT obligated to turn over all potentially incriminating materials in its possession to the prosecution.

(2) Gallows humor.