sunshineray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 8,686
- Reaction score
- 68,557
My guess, being a witness to a killer still on the loose?I wonder what she told police what she may have been afraid of? Moo
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My guess, being a witness to a killer still on the loose?I wonder what she told police what she may have been afraid of? Moo
I guess I'm just wondering if the defense's allegations are incorrect and SC says bloody blue jacket or any alternative that could be described as bloody blue jacket, why Nick doesn't directly respond to the defense's allegations and correct them with what she actually said.It's always left out but I believe, IIRC, SC also stated (paraphrasing) he looked like he'd been in a fight. That's why waiting to hear her testimony is so important. MO
BBMThat would be crazy if a lawyer said “the witness actually said the man was wearing a tan jacket, not blue, and the witness never said the man was bloody” and then the lawyer attaches the videotape of the witness statement and have none of that be true. I don’t see Gull just letting that slide.
It’s come up in a few filings so I’d like to see if Nick has ever directly addressed the witness statement discrepancies in his responses. I only recall the vague “Tony didn’t lie” responses.
All MOO
my point was if the defense was actually lying in their motion about what the videotape showed - I don't see how Gull could pass up that opportunity to admonish them for "lying". Not just the classic rubber stamp "denied without hearing".BBM
Gull’s response to defense prevarication:
- Denied without hearing.
There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD.audio or video recording is definitely preferred so any 3rd party can be absolutely certain of what was said since the written word can be an incorrect interpretation. Like who is Rick Whiteman ?
There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD.JMO
It would to me the reason he doesn't is the gag order.I guess I'm just wondering if the defense's allegations are incorrect and SC says bloody blue jacket or any alternative that could be described as bloody blue jacket, why Nick doesn't directly respond to the defense's allegations and correct them with what she actually said.
Don't be silly. He simply misspoke that time. But the timeframe....that part was correct. Because, reasons.There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD.JMO
Because she's not biased and doesn't want to compromise a fair trial?my point was if the defense was actually lying in their motion about what the videotape showed - I don't see how Gull could pass up that opportunity to admonish them for "lying". Not just the classic rubber stamp "denied without hearing".
In all fairness to DD, we don't know yet, by his testimony, if it was written in DD's report like that or transposed by someone else like that in error. MOThere is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD.JMO
Yes and changed his original statement greater, putting himself as leaving the trails before Abby and Libby ever got there. That also contradicts the witnesses who saw him and his own words about seeing them.Will that even be used in the trial? Didn't RA talk to LE a second time or am I mistaken?
'Call her as a witness ' how? When? Do you mean during the trial? The attorneys have no legal power to 'call' the sitting judge as a witness. IMOIf they called her as a witness, how could she not be required to recuse herself? She surely can’t preside over her own questioning and answering can she? Not sure how either side could compel her to be a witness though. Interesting idea.
MOO I think they need the DD note in as that’s when they say RA (or Rick Whiteman) said he was on the trails between the hours of 1:30-3:30. The subsequent LE interviews that were videotaped have RA saying he left at 1:30. MOOWill that even be used in the trial? Didn't RA talk to LE a second time or am I mistaken?
Nobody is suggesting he speak to the media, which would be a violation of the gag order. He has disputed claims made by the defense in other responses to their motions, so why not this particular thing? Responding in an official filing, like he's done before, would not be a violation of the gag order.It would to me the reason he doesn't is the gag order.
Yes and changed his original statement greater, putting himself as leaving the trails before Abby and Libby ever got there. That also contradicts the witnesses who saw him and his own words about seeing them.
I'm not very far into it, but it has been a good read to remember where this all started.What are your thoughts so far?
I’m talking about in his court filings. Response to the 3rd Franks for example, the defense had brought up the witness statements, geofencing and the professor. NM responds in detail about the geofencing and the professors report but says nothing about the witness statements other that Tony didn’t lie and no details correcting what the defense is alleging. MOOIt would to me the reason he doesn't is the gag order.
We don't know how that informal meet up occurred. RA didn't go to the police department, he met up with DD at a store, where DD took notes. No recording because IMO it was informal and LE would follow up. He didn't know they didn't, didn't know his notes got misfired, likely a clerical error, and in reviewing how ever many recorded interviews he did, he would not have happened upon one with RA or RAW because there never was a recording. Nor a follow up at the time because of the surname error.The first statement he gave to the conservation officer…. Did the officer ever find the recording he thought he made of it but couldn’t find? No link so moooo.