Bedwetting

[tipper]

I'd be interested to see this post of mine in context. Do you have a reference?

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=26&forum=DCForumID107
Jayelles
unregistered user
May-31-03, 06:10 PM (EST)

16. "Margoo"
In response to message #15

Margoo, what a surprise! My point was to Guppy, but since you've responded on his behalf...

We will agree to disagree. Obviously, it is difficult to tell without hearing/seeing the tape, but, IMO, Lin Wood was argumentative and on reading the deposition, I noticed that he constantly interrupted Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas OTOH remained polite and allowed Wood to finish asking his questions. There are people who talk and people who listen. In my experience, you learn more by listening. Lin Wood lost himself some valuable recording time because he kept butting in and got involved in cross-talk and ended up having to restate the question on several occasions. Steve Thomas was absolutely correct to ensure his questions were clear before he answered. Lin Wood also repeated several questions which had already been answered - something that I noticed he did in Beckner's deposition too.

Now thankfully, I am not looking at this case through Ramsey-tinted spectacles, nor am I looking at it through BORG-tinted spectacles (questioning Ramsey does not equate to BORG although RST would have it so). I have no particular feelings about Steve Thomas because his involvement in the case does not change the evidence one way or another. I don't condone what he did and I cringe when I see that he didn't check facts provided by Trujillo and Wickman before committing them to his book.

We learned little of value from Thomas' deposition. Certainly nothing to advance the investigation. It was dirty-underwear laundering that's all.

Rest assured, my book will have all facts verified and sources checked ;-)

I realise that questioning on a courtroom would be different from a depo. I believe this was the point I was making. Lin Wood would not get away with his style of bullying in a courtroom. His MO of asking questions and then preventing the desposee from answering the question fully would certainly raise objections. I think Lin Wood is very talented at influencing what actually goes on record. Darnay Hoffman came off as a total wimp and it made my blood boil.

It might raise objections but on the other hand the judge can also be asked to direct the witness to answer the question.

It seems to me that presenting a one sided version of events is an RST speciality.

Oh, I think there are plenty of examples of that on both sides.

 

[Jayelles]

OK, I certainly couldn't have recalled this one off the top of my head. Now let's put this in context. A few weeks ago, my mother told me my nephew's wife is pregnant for the second time. I am writing about it in this post. Next week Lin Wood could depose me and ask me if I checked with my niece in law whether she is in fact pregnant again and I would have to say no - I didn't check. I took my mother's word for it. Does that make me look stupid? Perhaps. Does it mean my niece in law is not pregnant. Nope.

Another example. This morning my boss told me that his boss told him that a report is due by next Monday. Did I check with my boss's boss? Nope. Lin Wood - "Did you check this detail with your boss's boss?", Jayelles "No". Am I a liar? Is my boss a liar?

Just because I cringed 3 years ago over at jameson's forum (now I cringe there daily), doesn't mean that Thomas' book is full of lies.

Just because Lin Wood got it on record that Thomas didn't check his facts with people he used to work with 5 years ago when he wrote his book does NOT mean he wrote lies. If Trujillo and Wickman come out and say that Thomas lied - then it might mean something and I might even cringe some more.

Regarding people being forced to answer - where does Thomas refuse to answer? I remember Beckner refusing to answer questions on DNA-x. Thomas was polite at all times during that deposition. He asked for clarification on the questions a few times and Wood turned that into a negative. I can assure everyone that if I was answering questions under oath on penalty of perjury, then I would want to ensure I was answering the right question so that I could answer the question right.

 

[tipper]

OK, I certainly couldn't have recalled this one off the top of my head. Now let's put this in context. A few weeks ago, my mother told me my nephew's wife is pregnant for the second time. I am writing about it in this post. Next week Lin Wood could depose me and ask me if I checked with my niece in law whether she is in fact pregnant again and I would have to say no - I didn't check. I took my mother's word for it. Does that make me look stupid? Perhaps. Does it mean my niece in law is not pregnant. Nope.

Another example. This morning my boss told me that his boss told him that a report is due by next Monday. Did I check with my boss's boss? Nope. Lin Wood - "Did you check this detail with your boss's boss?", Jayelles "No". Am I a liar? Is my boss a liar?

Just because I cringed 3 years ago over at jameson's forum (now I cringe there daily), doesn't mean that Thomas' book is full of lies.

Just because Lin Wood got it on record that Thomas didn't check his facts with people he used to work with 5 years ago when he wrote his book does NOT mean he wrote lies. If Trujillo and Wickman come out and say that Thomas lied - then it might mean something and I might even cringe some more.

Regarding people being forced to answer - where does Thomas refuse to answer? I remember Beckner refusing to answer questions on DNA-x. Thomas was polite at all times during that deposition. He asked for clarification on the questions a few times and Wood turned that into a negative. I can assure everyone that if I was answering questions under oath on penalty of perjury, then I would want to ensure I was answering the right question so that I could answer the question right.

But I'll bet if you were in an emergency room with your (unconscious) niece and the doctor needed to know if she was pregnant to determine how to treat her, you would probably verify her pregnancy with someone who knew for sure.

I'm 100% sure if you were writing a book accusing someone of murder you would want to make sure that all the information you put in it was the most accurate and up to date information available. Thomas doesn't seem to have bothered.

I don’t believe his book is full of lies, I also don’t believe it is a search for the truth. I think he shades, obfuscates, and presents information in the way he thinks will be most damning to the Ramseys. Until we hear from these other detectives we don’t know whether he flat-out lies or not.

I’m not sure what you are saying about people being “forced” to answer. I couldn't find a reference to forcing in my post. In court if a witness bobbles around and doesn’t get to answering the question the judge can be asked to instruct the witness to answer the question. Just as you say Lin Wood’s methods would not be allowed in a courtroom, Steve Thomas would not be allowed to meander around complaining about lack of support from the DA’s office in response to a Yes/No question regarding did he, in his view, believe he had probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

I think because of his job Beckner had the option to refuse to answer questions if he felt answering would compromise the case in some way. Thomas doesn’t have the right to just refuse to answer a question. Both Beckner and Thomas' lawyers objected to some of the questions for various legal reasons.

If Thomas were simply asking for clarification a few times that would be fine. But he not doing that. He's being difficult either to spin out the time or to avoid answering the question or perhaps just vent his spleen. In comparison, Beckner was a model of clarity whenever the lawyers would be quiet long enough for him to answer a question.

I think Darnay Hoffman made Darnay Hoffman come off like a wimp.

 

[Jayelles]

Forced ... directed to answer. OK Semantics - careless choice of words on my part. Sorry you had to waste time correcting me for it.

The real point is - these guys were working as a team. Have you ever worked as a team? Steve Thomas reported what Wickman and Trujillo brought to the table from their team efforts. It wasn't Thomas' job to double check their work - it was their responsibility to make sure they reported their findings accurately.

Should he have double checked their facts before writing them in hs book? Well what do we mean by double checking? What level of checking would you find acceptable?

For example - supposing Thomas had written that Wickman had reported back that John Fernie said he saw A picking up the note and reading it (hypothetical scenario)

Should ST have double checked that Wickman did in fact say this?
Should ST have double checked with John Fernie that he said this to Wickman?
Should ST have double checked with A that he did pick up the note and read it?

And I don't agree that Thomas was being difficult. There is a common theme in all of the Lin Wood depos I've read in that he phrases questions in a way that makes it appear that the deposee is being awkward. I could do that tipper. I could post to you in a way that made it appear that I considered you to be evasive, unco-operative and untruthful. Except that you have the right to respond - Wood didn't give his deposees that option.

There is a tv advert running here where a guy creates a scene which appears to be one thing when in fact is is something quite different. It's really funny - won an award I believe.

I think it's what lawyers like Lin wood do to influence the record and that it will have the desired effect on quite a lot of people. However we've had this conversation before and I think we agreed that unless we had the benefit of seeing a video of the deposition, it is impossible to tell from a transcript whether someone was being evasive etc or whether Lin wood was doing his thing.