I was also surprised when Attn. B also said he knows everything that the State has.
So glad you brought this particular statement up for discussion!
I'm not sure what defense atty EVER would make such a statement as it simply seems improbable on the surface.
The Atty [REDACTED] statement also flies in the face of the many whining Atty. P. statements about having insufficient discovery about Welles, poor quality CDs from Albany (my personal opinion is Atty. P. needs a stronger pair of reading glasses!), electronic items discovery and the list goes on and on.
What also seems interesting to me about the Atty [REDACTED] statement was I'm not sure he got his information from MT either.
So, where did Atty Bowman get his information in order to say that he knows EVERYTHING the STATE has?
- Did States Atty Colangelo perhaps share information with Atty. B in hopes of facilitating a deal?
- Does Atty. B have contacts in State Police or LE with 'loose lips'? Perhaps the same 'loose lipped LE' that so angered Judge Blawie? But why would LE risk an investigation to assist Atty. B?
- The old standby whipping boy DA crew at the HC who maintain contact with the local defense atty's in order to facilitate their 'reposting' racket?
-Did Atty. B. former Federal Prosecutor colleagues or FBI contact perhaps 'spill the beans'
- Is there a 'leak' inside Atty Colangelo's team that is leaking to Atty. B and/or Atty P?
Perhaps this was simply an ill advised statement made towards the end of a possibly stressful deposition?
Perhaps Atty B is either more arrogant or more stupid that any of us know?
Or, maybe Atty B was telling the truth and he does know all which then leads to the question of WHY?
From reading that deposition and then the followup motions by Atty Bowman and how hard he is now seeming to fight to protect MT and keep her from speaking anywhere, I have to seriously wonder if he has to go into overkill mode on the deposition because she simply hasn't yet shared all with him and so he simply doesn't know what all he has to protect her from?
IMO the Atty Weinstein deposition was tough but also something of a long series of 'softball' questions. We didn't see some characters known to be part of the case that MT would clearly have known named in the deposition. Atty Weinstein also stayed true to his word about not crossing the bridge into questions regarding the criminal case. I do still believe that Atty B retraded his original deal with Atty Weinstein for whatever reason and looks to be IMO someone with questionable integrity as it relates to his dealings in this case on behalf of MT OR something major happened between when he first cracked a deal on the deposition with Atty Weinstein and so Atty Bowman can't see a way to allow MT to speak? Perhaps what changed was him learning more info or as he says "ALL" about the investigation?
IDK, but seeing someone backtrack and retrade a deal is rarely a good sign in any working relationship. Atty B. does seems to have some kind of working relationship with Atty Weinstein as indicated in the transcript, but perhaps he really has no options in his mind in his defense of MT?
IDK. Many questions here about Atty B. and MT. But based on the deposition questions IMO MT is deeply mired in the muck that was the life of FD. Him sending her to NYC to get records on the Farber estate put MT front and centre in direct knowledge of the money involved and give her a huge motive to stay put and put down stakes at 4Jx in my mind.
MOO MOO MOO
