That’s the great thing about the BB. You can have your view, and others can have a different view.
The same way that you can look at something as a complaint while others might see it as an observation.
14 Likes
I have a skewed and twisted idea of what is going on here? You posted this? All I can I say is thank you so much. I’m so skewed and twisted I was surprised to see the abused and sickened that they were tolerated. I hope I never get so jaded that I’m not.
1 Like
What?
5 Likes
Ok…so, interesting stuff so far. In the vein of all the screenshots, let’s look at a few shall we?
I’ll open up with an interrogatory response from LK to SWG farm. As a bit of review, SGF had to have the court intervene and compel her to respond to discovery and out things on record, despite the fact that she had been feeling commenting on the case here and FB. Now, I do believe discovery responses are supposed to be considered sworn testimony, but I will gladly accept correction from any of our board lawyers on this.
It seems to me, that this response officially gives us the number, location, and nature of the recording devices on the property and more importantly that they were not recording.
1 recorder in the locker for 2ish weeks and 3 cameras in and around the house the day before and day of the shooting.
(And yes, points to CH that these aren’t recording on “tapes” as one did before the 1990s. However if one must argue such a minor point against a colloquialism of the use of tapes to mean recordings, it probably means you know you don’t have good arguments)
Now, let’s examine how well this interrogatory response will hold up to the evidence of social media.
Here we have a supporter urging her to buy her own cameras and install them.
And now IM is confirming a time line on when some cameras were purchased and the statement that RC was caught on camera in connection in with the building inspector. From the police lawsuit, that puts the timing in the afternoon the day before the shooting. We’re these cameras installed because LK and RG were evicted and were not going to be able to be there to protect whatever it was they were hiding?
But wait…these are for the house. I thought the horses were the concerns. You can’t watch horses with cameras at the house.
Ah, hear we go. But wait….cameras…as in more than 1? At the barn? I thought the discovery said 1 audio recorder only. Curious.
Cameras at the barn or cameras at the house? Either way, they knew the answer was no.
Which cameras captured your movements? Cameras at the house that were installed after the date this 911 call was made? Or cameras in the barn that aren’t supposed to be there?
Again…curious use of the word video. I thought everyone was hiding out in the barn for the week or so before the shooting. The barn that only had 1 audio recorder in a locker.
That recorder sure got around…I hear it even made it into MB’s office to over hear conversations about guns and attorneys.
Yeah I’d say. The irony here is pretty thick.
18 Likes
Sorry for not catching the typos…came off the horse this week and bonked the ole head a bit on the way down…fine, but still obviously still not completely focusing…
5 Likes
Do you have the complete link to the interrogatory response from LK to SGF?
2 Likes
Depositions are most certainly sworn testimony.
6 Likes
As far as the behavior of screen shots and locking things down…
So, there you have it…from the horses mouth.
9 Likes
It can be found still…I think. It was publicly available through the civil court system website…
Oh, and I forgot to redirect to the series of screen shots posted earlier in the thread. It seemed to me that the last one referred to being able to watch people scurry into cars that were parked outside the barn.
4 Likes
It appears that the NJ Courts changed their login system on march 7 and I can’t log in to search anymore.
You have to keep trying. Sometimes it is locked and other times not.
Thank you.
3 Likes
I can not seem to find it anymore. I think I got it from the police lawsuit…and I know it was discussed several threads ago…
1 Like
Thanks for this info.
What I’m reading here is that the sworn statement (interrogatory) admits to: 1 camera (house) + 1 audio recorder (barn locker). The first-person SM posts reference multiple cameras and recording devices in the barn that were not mentioned in the answers in the interrogatory.
Do you (or @soloudinhere) know, what would be the result of having outside evidence which contradicts sworn testimony? Is the result that the sworn testimony is impeached and, if so, what is the result of that happening? Or can the argument be put forth that all the info outside of the interrogatories was lies, embellishment, empty threats, etc. that somehow should have no effect on the sworn testimony?
For clarity, I’m just asking what effect contradictory outside evidence has with respect to what’s been said under oath.
8 Likes
If sworn testimony gave way to a proven lie the judge may find that person in contempt of court. Certainly further testimony would be viewed as sketchy by Judge and/or jury. It’s up to the judge to determine if and what might be any consequences.
If what’s being said in court under oath differs from another cases sworn testimony I’d imagine the least that would happen is one of the attorneys smelling blood and going in for the kill on the witness stand. Metaphorically speaking.
5 Likes
Here is one example. Says Cornell which is on NY so I’ll assume NY Law
2 Likes
This is a complicated question to answer.
The short answer is, if there is admissible evidence contradicting a witness statement, then that can be admitted, and it can be admitted solely for the purpose of impeaching a witness’ statement. It doesn’t mean the jury has to disregard the witness statement, necessarily. But, as in the case of the Furhman tapes, you can understand how damaging a witness’ credibility can effectively negate the entirety of their testimony.
Reminder: I am not an attorney in NJ and I am not familiar with state laws about this. Speaking generally about federal rules, and grossly oversimplifying.
Another example where you can see clearly how this works is in the Menendez brothers’ murder case in California. One brother’s girlfriend testifies that she has a conversation with the other brother in the spring of a particular year. Evidence is introduced, corroborated independently, of work timecard records indicating she could not have been in the state when she said the conversation took place. That is allowed as it contradicts sworn testimony.
If it can be proven that the witness knowingly lied under oath, that is perjury, which is a crime against the court.
17 Likes
Thanks so much for your answer. It is interesting that the question could hinge upon what contradictory evidence is determined to be admissible, am I understanding that correctly?
5 Likes
