2010.08.30 - Status Hearing

[Mrs G Norris]

Just watching this now.....this is the funniest thing I have ever seen! The CHART!! LOL, and HHJP is completely over his BS, gets straight to the point...he has had enough, this is great.

 

[darnudes]

YES!!!!
I use FF on a Mac. Same thing. It also goes from 2 minutes to 30 in a blink.

When it does that MissJames I refresh the page get the video to start playing again then move the cursor to the last place it was up to and it will start playing again with no problems.

Aha okay, well I just tried using IE and the same thing happens. I have the latest adobe flash player installed and I have the correct plugins for windows media player so I can only think it is a wftv problem. It started happening about a week or so ago.

If anyone has any solutions I'd be glad to hear them.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

When it does that MissJames I refresh the page get the video to start playing again then move the cursor to the last place it was up to and it will start playing again with no problems.

Aha okay, well I just tried using IE and the same thing happens. I have the latest adobe flash player installed and I have the correct plugins for windows media player so I can only think it is a wftv problem. It started happening about a week or so ago.

If anyone has any solutions I'd be glad to hear them.

Try Safari for a Mac, much faster....

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Not sure. Could the dots mean a pause in the conversation or a switch to another train of thought??? That is what I use them for....or because I like the dots.....but that is just me. Good question. Does anyone know for sure?

It means that text is omitted. That is what it really means. If you quote something but want to skip a chunk you put ... and then continue. It means we haven't read all the words that were spoken in the interview.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I had no problem viewing the hearing with the links nums24 provided in the Today's News thread, parts 1 and 2.

 

[darnudes]

Thanks Mrs G Norris, but I have a PC. Have tried google chrome and it keeps freezing in the exact same spots.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

That's what I've been wondering. It seems to me I read something about this awhile back here at WS. Is the defense's case under different rules versus the prosecutions? They touched on revealing exhibits prior to or at trial but I didn't really understand what JP was saying. He said the Sunshine Laws were put in place to alleviate chances of "Trial by Ambush". That was a good way to describe it imo. I'm still not clear who has to give what when though as both sides were complaining about getting their documents on time, etc.

Also I was pointing out earlier on another thread that the depositions and LE reports are riddled with dots .... which signify chunks of verbiage being left out. What's that about? It seems when anybody says anything meaningful we see ... :snooty:

I get that there are procedures and steps but for whatever reasons it takes a long time from the time LE has discovery, the state sees it, and all of the above before the defense sees it - and they don't know what's coming ahead of time. It does take longer than 15 to 30 days in most cases from what I can tell.

Problem is we can't tell. Depends on what they have to do to prepare the documents for release. As LDB mentioned in court yesterday they had to go through all of the emails from DC, read them, put them in order, etc. If they released them and found something was missing JB would be jumping all over them. Have we actually seen anything from defense? Didn't they do the depo of RK in November, 2009 and we still have not seen it or any other depos they have done? jmo

Let's drop it. Both sides - can take a long time.

 

[LambChop]

It means that text is omitted. That is what it really means. If you quote something but want to skip a chunk you put ... and then continue. It means we haven't read all the words that were spoken in the interview.

I worked in a law office and never heard that. It is possible. I thought it was for a pause or a sudden change in subject. Transcribers don't know what has to be redacted and what you are looking at is a deposition transcribed by a transcriptionist. If SA were trying to cover something up it would be blacked out I would imagine. But I will wait and see if one of our legal experts chimes in. jmo

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Just watching this now.....this is the funniest thing I have ever seen! The CHART!! LOL, and HHJP is completely over his BS, gets straight to the point...he has had enough, this is great.

Did you notice the two guys 'reporters?' behind them look at each other, almost crack up and roll their eyes. I thought they were going to laugh like when you can't help it in church or somewhere.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Not sure. Could the dots mean a pause in the conversation or a switch to another train of thought??? That is what I use them for....or because I like the dots.....but that is just me. Good question. Does anyone know for sure?

ELLIPSES

They are called ellipses. "Any omission of words, phrases, or paragraphs in quoted matter is indicated by ellipsis points, which are period dots, not asterisks (stars). There should be a space before each dot, unless the first dot is a period, and a space also after the last if a word follows. Since ellipsis points stand for words omitted from the quotation itself, they are alway placed within the quotation marks.

OMISSION WITHIN A SENTENCE

An omission within a sentence is shown by three spaced dots.

Taken from A Manual for Writers, Fouth Edition, by Kate L. Turabian.


Someone else chime in - maybe LE have different rules.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Did you notice the two guys 'reporters?' behind them look at each other, almost crack up and roll their eyes. I thought they were going to laugh like when you can't help it in church or somewhere.

YES!! Poor Baez, he really has been thoroughly outclassed.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

YES!! Poor Baez, he really has been thoroughly outclassed.

It doesn't seem to bother him. :crazy:

 

[LambChop]

I understand the what you were saying but this is a transcription and as I said LE has no control over the person who is transcribing the deposition. Unless it is stricken by the attorney, but typically they transcribe whatever they have written. If LE did not want information released from the deposition I would think they would redact it, as they do for personal information on these same depositions. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is trying to hide anything. The judge sees these as well and has not questioned them so I would think this is normal.... jmo

 

[TinaD]

I would guess that the dots signify words that the transcriber couldn't understand or hear clearly enough.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I had no problem viewing the hearing with the links nums24 provided in the Today's News thread, parts 1 and 2.

LOL! Aren't I being annoying today?

I do think these mental exercises are necessary. There has to be answers to explain what the members of the jury may be thinking when presented issues of reasonable doubt. One can't just say 'because I'm on WS and I know KC's guilty.'

JP stated yesterday something like - both sides will present their evidence and let the jury decide the verdict. He was very matter of fact and unemotional about it.

 

[LambChop]

I would guess that the dots signify words that the transcriber couldn't understand or hear clearly enough.

Well, that could be it because they do attach an errata sheet for the deposed to fill in if there is a discrepancy between what is written and what was actually said. The dots would call attention to this area.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I would guess that the dots signify words that the transcriber couldn't understand or hear clearly enough.

I believe they type (inaudible) then.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Also I was pointing out earlier on another thread that the depositions and LE reports are riddled with dots .... which signify chunks of verbiage being left out. What's that about? It seems when anybody says anything meaningful we see ... :snooty:

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.

 

[pip]

I love watching the expressions on HHJD's face. He is so on top of the antics Baez is attempting to run with and is always 2 steps ahead of him. He gets this Cheshire cat grin, chuckles a bit and throws the wall up on Baez. In response, Baez' facial expressions are comical.. he knows he can't get one over on HHJD and has a sheepish grin. He knows not to push HHJD too hard when the answer is NO. It's like a game of cat n mouse. The SAO doesn't even have to say much, HHJD is holding down the fort on the monkey biz!

 

[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.