George Morris on the SS list

[MHM]

@Midge

That was the eyeroll about Barney saying he just wanted to watch his kid ride. If he had just wanted to watch his kid ride, he would have walked in with the spectators, sat in the stands and kept a low profile. But going to the schooling area and making his presence felt was the issue.

Many years ago at Harrisburg, I remember somebody made a joke about Barney appearing there in disguise as a spectator to watch. It freaked me out enough that I was glancing twice at every person I saw under the height requirement.

[MHM]

@Palm Beach

So what is happening with the George Morris clinics from this weekend in SC and the one scheduled at Persimmon Tree Farm this upcoming weekend?

I saw a post somewhere on Facebook that said he had canceled all his upcoming clinics on his lawyer’s advice, but I have no idea whether or not that post is accurate. Or if it was accurate at the time, but then the plans changed.

[vxf111]

@Midge

That was the eyeroll about Barney saying he just wanted to watch his kid ride. If he had just wanted to watch his kid ride, he would have walked in with the spectators, sat in the stands and kept a low profile. But going to the schooling area and making his presence felt was the issue.

I also remember hearing stories (I have no idea if they were true or a joke or what) about him going to watch in disguise. If someone did that, there’s not a whole lot management can do unless other competitors/spectators clue management in. Most shows, spectators can just wander in and watch and there isn’t a whole lot of gatekeeping.

[specifiedcupcake]

@4LeafCloverFarm

Both clinics are still listed on GM web site (all the remaining 2019 clinics are all still there). Both facilities web sites are showing the clinics this weekend and next weekend on their schedules. Doesn’t appear they have been cancelled looking at their web sites.

Which begs the question - is “subject to appeal” or “in appeal process” a get out of jail free card meaning business as usual until the final decision is made? Or are those clinics just flying in the face of the SS/USEF authority? Of course, those facilities (SC Equine Park and Persimmon Tree Farm) aren’t owned by USEF and I’m not sure what (if anything) their affiliation with USEF is.

Which also pokes a giant hole in all the people crying “but they’re robbing people of their livelihood without due process!”

[hoopoe]

@Texarkana

Rate My Horse Pro died many years ago. One could argue it never really took off. They rebranded themselves as Horse Authority, but the function to review pros has been inactive for years. They keep teasing that it’s coming back, but it hasn’t happened yet. Now they mainly share equine legal information and provide affordable background checks, which is still a valuable tool.

They are also very quick to appear on COTH whenever you whisper their name, so expecting a response to this shortly. :lol:

I was not aware, being out of the game for several years. I see results in Google searches still come up but have not clicked through

[dannyboy]

Looks like George is no longer on the schedule for the National Sporting Library in Middleburg. He was scheduled to speak on September 14th, but it’s gone from the calendar.

[mroades]

The one in SC is advertised as being postponed, fwiw

[skydy]

I don’t believe he will be teaching the clinics. “Permanently ineligible pending appeal” means just that. The appeal is pending, not the ineligibility.

[Midge]

@MHM

Many years ago at Harrisburg, I remember somebody made a joke about Barney appearing there in disguise as a spectator to watch. It freaked me out enough that I was glancing twice at every person I saw under the height requirement.

Marian did too, at WEF.

[erinmeri]

@hoopoe

I was not aware, being out of the game for several years. I see results in Google searches still come up but have not clicked through

You can click through for what is already there, but the overall functionality seems to be dead. Happy to be corrected!

[Response]

Denali6298 (post #3241) said:

[SIZE=3]“I mean if some [sic] has some insight on how to comfort victims in order for them to be comfortable testifying I’m all about it.”

I have read all the posts with respect to this topic, and have generally had nothing to add; however, I am going to assume that this was an honest request, and not just a further injection of sarcasm (as admitted to by Denali6298 in post # 3230).

I have been a victim of a sexual assault, and I was asked to testify at both the pre-trial hearing and the subsequent trial of the person who was accused of having assaulted me. I was not issued a subpoena; the prosecution asked me to come, and I did.

I confess to being confused by the tales of “witness prepping” that others here have spoken of, since the prosecution (the police, the DA, the DA’s office investigators) all were very careful NOT to give me any information or to “coach” me in any way. About 15 minutes prior to my testimony, the DA gave me a copy of the written statement I had provided to the police when it happened and asked me if there were anything that was wrong or if I had anything to add. At which time I added that, though I didn’t know if it were relevant, my favorite kitchen knife (about a 10” blade) has been missing ever since that day, but that I hadn’t noticed that it was missing when I gave the statement to the police, because I had not cleaned my kitchen (house cleaning is what I do in times of distress) or looked for it until later that day. I still don’t know if it was relevant, but I was asked about it when I testified.

When I asked one question, I was told “I can’t tell you that.” I didn’t ask any more questions.

Every other time that I have had occasion to testify in any other matter, the lawyers who have called me as a witness were also very careful not to “coach” me in advance of my testimony. My understanding of the reason for this is that witnesses are supposed to give their own answers, not somebody else’s—so coaching witnesses in advance is considered a legal “no-no” but perhaps I misunderstood (or perhaps some lawyers do it anyway even though they aren’t supposed to—my other experience is that quite a few lawyers routinely do things they aren’t supposed to).

Suffice it to say, I wasn’t “prepped” with anything other than general platitudes “Are you okay with this?” “Yes.” “Do you want a victim’s advocate with you?” “No.”

Consequently, when I was called to testify in the sexual assault case, I sat outside the courtroom on a bench until it was my turn; I was escorted into the courtroom by the DA’s investigator; I was asked questions by the DA, whom I had just met, that pretty much elicited the information in my original statement to the police, which I answered honestly; during cross-examination by defense counsel I was asked for clarification of a few of those answers, which I answered honestly; during the pre-trial hearing, but not at trial, there was a redirect of one question by the DA, that I answered honestly; during the actual trial the judge also had one question, which I answered honestly.

I didn’t even have to look at the man who was on trial—and I didn’t; he might as well not have been there.

Each time the whole testimony took about 15 minutes (actually, at the trial itself I think it took even less time—probably because it had already been gone through once during the pre-trial hearing).

I have no idea what other evidence may or may not have been presented at court (they were careful not to tell me anything I didn’t already know, and witnesses don’t get to hear any of the other evidence).

After my testimony at the pre-trial hearing, I got together for lunch with some former work colleagues (completely unrelated to the case) whose office was near the courthouse before going home.

After my testimony at trail, I was given a ride back to the train station (I had taken the train to get downtown) by the DA’s investigator.

Sometime after the trial (don’t ask me how long, I don’t remember partially because I didn’t keep track) I was called and told that the defendant had been convicted and that there would be a sentencing hearing (that I didn’t attend); sometime after that (don’t ask me how long, I don’t remember because I didn’t keep track), I was called and told that the defendant was sentenced to 178 years in jail, 12 years of which were for his attack on me (apparently, he had been engaging in this activity for decades, across three counties).

It was all very easy. All I had to do was answer the questions honestly.

So, here is my insight that may help other victims who have to testify (since I found it easy):

1. The only thing you have to do when you testify is answer honestly the questions you are asked, and only those questions. Don’t try to second guess the person asking the questions or assume that that person is attacking you or your credibility. Don’t try to figure out what the person asking the questions is trying to get you to say. JUST answer each question, and ONLY the question that was asked. Sometimes this really pisses off the person asking the questions (I even had a defense attorney in a different matter get in a snit, stand up and put her hands on her hips and snip “you know what I REALLY mean”), but I am told that judges love witnesses who do this. Testifying is NOT the time to run off at the mouth; nor is it a time to play a guessing game.

2. Don’t let yourself have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial. Give your evidence and let the chips fall where they may. You are a witness—that’s all. It is NOT the job of a witness to convince the jury (if there is one, or whomever is making judgement if there isn’t); convincing the jury (one way or the other) is the job of the attorneys.

3. Realize that, as a witness, you HAVEN’T heard all the evidence, so you have no idea what information the jury is using to come to a verdict (at least you shouldn’t, if the people who do know haven’t been talking out of turn). Accept that the jurors are making the best decision they can using all the information that they do have, only a small part of which came from you (because if the only evidence they have is what came from you, it’s gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution).

4. Recognize that this statement from BITSA (post #3259) is not true “While the legal system may not be perfect, the procedures are in place to find the truth and ensure fairness.” The procedures of the legal system are designed to provide a verdict; one HOPES that truth and fairness are served along the way, but the procedures most definitely don’t guarantee it. Juries make decisions based on the evidence presented. The truth will only come out if all the witnesses answer the questions honestly, AND the right questions are asked. Which is why the ONLY part you have as a witness is to answer the questions you are asked honestly. It isn’t your part to come up with the questions, and you don’t get to answer questions you think should have been asked but weren’t.

5. Consequently, DON’T let the outcome of a trial be something that you need for “closure,” and don’t let anybody convince you otherwise. Doing so is as foolish as the concept of not treating the open wound of a dog bite until somebody else catches and punishes the dog that bit you. Which I hope everybody would agree, is just downright silly. Recovery from injury is not dependent upon punishment of the perpetrator.

For me, the attack was over with when he went out my front door. The only reason I called the police was that I figured they ought to know that the guy was out there somewhere and might do the same thing to somebody else.

I don’t know if these insights will help anybody else (my situation may have been different from others in that it was a total stranger who broke into my house in the middle of the night and threatened me with a gun). But I can say, from firsthand experience as a victim of a criminal sexual assault, that I was NOT subjected to any of what AlterHalter2019 (post #3276) experienced when I testified. Neither the prep, nor the hours of grilling from defense counsel. Nor did defense counsel “try to destroy the witness [i.e. me]” as was suggested was a defense attorney’s goal by Jealoushe (post #3268). In fact, it seemed he was being quite careful not to be seen to be distressing me in any way.

But I can say that these things worked for me. Testifying was a non-issue. Though the defendant was in the courtroom (both times); he might as well not have been for all I noticed him. And I can honestly say that learning, years later, that he was going to jail for a very long time (probably the rest of his life) was completely irrelevant to me. It’s nice to know that I may have played some small part in keeping him from doing the same thing to more people. But, personally, it had no effect on my own “recovery” from the attack—at least, I don’t think so. The physical injuries were gone within a couple of weeks, and I simply cannot say in what way I may or may not be a different person, mentally, had it never happened.

Which leads to my last “insight”

6. It is possible to “dissociate” from the event in the telling of it. That is, to recount it “as if” it happened to somebody else, and you were just an onlooker. I was told by my pain management specialist that dissociating from pain is a perfectly acceptable way of managing it. If you think of it in the third person, it makes for an interesting story. This makes it so retelling the story is not reliving it.

I hope this helps anybody who is facing testifying.[/SIZE]

[ladyj79]

I think that for most victims the attack doesn’t end when the perpetrator walks away from them having assaulted them.

I’m happy that that was the case for you, and that it became just an interesting story to tell.

I wish you peace.

[dags]

@ladyj79

I’m happy that that was the case for you, and that it became just an interesting story to tell.

Whoa whoa whoa. That is a flying squirrel monkey of a leap to assume that on the other side of the chasm from “managed to disassociate enough to testify without too much duress” is “now has interesting party tale”.

Attempted homicide victim here. Stabbed 4x in bed by a stranger while sleeping. BF (at the time, now hubby) stabbed 8(?) times & throat sliced. I left the attack in that house. I don’t panic every time I close my eyes to sleep & have never had nightmares. Knives are still a bit of a trigger but… they’re knives & ain’t going anywhere, so I deal.

But let me tell you this: Absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, has EVER wanted to hear THAT story. They think they do; they do not. And THAT, the loneliness of being one of these extreme violence victims that has seen humanity in a way most will never ever imagine, that is the aftermath of my trauma. People casually remark, “But I could just kill him!” in a moment of frustration and off my mind goes, thinking about what it means to be on the receiving end of those actions (honestly, I beg people to stop saying this. it should not be joked about. it should be a harder line to cross verbally, so it’s not so easy for society to cross it physically)

The trial & testifying went exactly as Response described. Sentenced 50 years (25 x 2 victims)… which I was actually slightly uncomfortable with because that’s going to put this guy out on the street for the first time in essentially his adult life at about 70 years old, but I digress…

I get there has been a pattern of Not Believing Her in this decades-long He Said/She Said story. And a pattern of painting Her life & choices as sinful, with the inference that Her assault was in some sick & twisted way Asked For, and I get how wrong that is & has been.

But I also think the experience of testifying & reliving the violent experience could be traumatic & terrifying for anyone that is a victim of violence. Frankly, my House of Horrors experience is a list-topper for situations you never ever want to relive and are never fun to retell.

So, and I pose this as delicately as I can and in a sincere quest for understanding, why the special consideration for sexual violence & not victims of other violence? Especially when it has been a particular challenge for them to get those cases convicted & get those criminals off the streets?

This is not saying SS should have subpoena power. I’m just trying to understand how much of the argument against subpoena power is based on keeping SS 100% separate from LE, and how much rests on the distaste for forcing SA victims to testify, even at the risk of other children being assaulted.

[Midge]

@dags

Whoa whoa whoa. That is a flying squirrel monkey of a leap to assume that on the other side of the chasm from “managed to disassociate enough to testify without too much duress” is “now has interesting party tale”.

That is how the poster described it.

[dags]

@Midge

That is how the poster described it.

I see that now at the end and apologize to LadyJ for being quick at her. But I do not want people thinking that is the only other possible alternative. That if you testify without trauma it is only because you are wholly unaffected. There’s a whole chasm of swirled emotions in between ending up distraught or stoic on the stand. It’s why this conversation has been so difficult, for so many.

[RainWeasley]

@Midge

That is how the poster described it.

“interesting story” is not quite the same as “interesting party tale”. I don’t think the poster meant it quite that way.

[Midge]

@RainWeasley

“interesting story” is, not quite the same as “interesting party tale”. I don’t think the poster meant it quite that way.

You are correct, but I was mainly pointing out that LadyJ was not inventing it out of whole cloth.

[Response]

@ladyj79

I think that for most victims the attack doesn’t end when the perpetrator walks away from them having assaulted them.

I was fortunate in that way; and while I cannot speak for everyone, only myself; however, it would surprise me if most people didn’t feel the same sense of utter relief that I felt when my attacker was gone.

I’m happy that that was the case for you, and that it became just an interesting story to tell.

[U]I did not use the word “just” and adding that word significantly changes the meaning of what I did say and turns it into something I didn’t say.

I was asked if I had any insights into how to deal with having to testify. Dissociation is what worked for me. I am told by a pain management specialist that it is a very effective method; so I shared it…because I was asked, and I thought it might help others.

I had no difficulty retelling my story at trial because I wasn’t reliving it while retelling it. What happened IS in the past. I recognize that this may not be true for people who are subjected to ongoing abuse from somebody in a social/economic position of power that they feel powerless to do anything about while it is ongoing–and I believe that it is this type of abuse that Safe Sport is most trying to address and provide victims with an avenue to put a stop to it. But the fact is for me, the instant he left my house, the attack was over, and words cannot describe how utterly relieved I was. Of all the feelings that I CAN dredge up, I choose to dredge up that one.

The attack only has continuing power over me in the present if I dredge up all the feelings from the past. I don’t have to (so I confess I was appalled by the story that one poster related about being coached by an attorney into when to reach for a handkerchief during her testimony, and I am glad the DA didn’t try coaching me in that way).

During my testimony, I was asked what happened, and I told the court what happened. That is IT.

I chose to have no personal stake in the outcome of the trial. I believe that that made testifying easier; I believe it made the years leading up to the trial easier; and I believe it made the time between the trial and the verdict easier because my involvement in the trial started only when I walked into the courtroom and ended the instant I walked out the door of the courtroom after the judge said “thank you, you’re excused.”

And if anybody facing the same thing were to ask me for my advice (which Denali did), I would advise them to do the same (which I did). FWIW, the only people who had heard my testimony that talked to me after my testimony were the DA’s investigators, both of whom told me that I did well.[/U]

I wish you peace.

Thank you. I have found peace by not reliving it any time anybody asks me about it; although I can easily retrieve the relief I felt when he was out of my house. I believe that other people can do the same…I don’t believe that I am so special that I am the only one who can succeed in that way.

[Tigre_Horse]

@Response

Thank you. I have found peace by not reliving it any time anybody asks me about it; although I can easily retrieve the relief I felt when he was out of my house. I believe that other people can do the same…I don’t believe that I am so special that I am the only one who can succeed in that way.

Very few people know about my attack - not something I share with just anyone. Yes, I remember the relief, I also remember the fear that he might come back - was he really gone? I don’t remember how long I waited until I tried to get loose to try to reach the phone to call 911 . . . turns out he was a serial rapist, never caught - no trial. He had targeted that group of buildings that I briefly lived in and as quickly as they started, they stopped - I was #5 of 7, perhaps 8 rapes. I only went back to that apartment to move out . . .

[YankeeDuchess]

@Response

Denali6298 (post #3241) said:

[SIZE=3]“I mean if some [sic] has some insight on how to comfort victims in order for them to be comfortable testifying I’m all about it.”

I have read all the posts with respect to this topic, and have generally had nothing to add; however, I am going to assume that this was an honest request, and not just a further injection of sarcasm (as admitted to by Denali6298 in post # 3230).

I have been a victim of a sexual assault, and I was asked to testify at both the pre-trial hearing and the subsequent trial of the person who was accused of having assaulted me. I was not issued a subpoena; the prosecution asked me to come, and I did.

I confess to being confused by the tales of “witness prepping” that others here have spoken of, since the prosecution (the police, the DA, the DA’s office investigators) all were very careful NOT to give me any information or to “coach” me in any way. About 15 minutes prior to my testimony, the DA gave me a copy of the written statement I had provided to the police when it happened and asked me if there were anything that was wrong or if I had anything to add. At which time I added that, though I didn’t know if it were relevant, my favorite kitchen knife (about a 10” blade) has been missing ever since that day, but that I hadn’t noticed that it was missing when I gave the statement to the police, because I had not cleaned my kitchen (house cleaning is what I do in times of distress) or looked for it until later that day. I still don’t know if it was relevant, but I was asked about it when I testified.

When I asked one question, I was told “I can’t tell you that.” I didn’t ask any more questions.

Every other time that I have had occasion to testify in any other matter, the lawyers who have called me as a witness were also very careful not to “coach” me in advance of my testimony. My understanding of the reason for this is that witnesses are supposed to give their own answers, not somebody else’s—so coaching witnesses in advance is considered a legal “no-no” but perhaps I misunderstood (or perhaps some lawyers do it anyway even though they aren’t supposed to—my other experience is that quite a few lawyers routinely do things they aren’t supposed to).

Suffice it to say, I wasn’t “prepped” with anything other than general platitudes “Are you okay with this?” “Yes.” “Do you want a victim’s advocate with you?” “No.”

Consequently, when I was called to testify in the sexual assault case, I sat outside the courtroom on a bench until it was my turn; I was escorted into the courtroom by the DA’s investigator; I was asked questions by the DA, whom I had just met, that pretty much elicited the information in my original statement to the police, which I answered honestly; during cross-examination by defense counsel I was asked for clarification of a few of those answers, which I answered honestly; during the pre-trial hearing, but not at trial, there was a redirect of one question by the DA, that I answered honestly; during the actual trial the judge also had one question, which I answered honestly.

I didn’t even have to look at the man who was on trial—and I didn’t; he might as well not have been there.

Each time the whole testimony took about 15 minutes (actually, at the trial itself I think it took even less time—probably because it had already been gone through once during the pre-trial hearing).

I have no idea what other evidence may or may not have been presented at court (they were careful not to tell me anything I didn’t already know, and witnesses don’t get to hear any of the other evidence).

After my testimony at the pre-trial hearing, I got together for lunch with some former work colleagues (completely unrelated to the case) whose office was near the courthouse before going home.

After my testimony at trail, I was given a ride back to the train station (I had taken the train to get downtown) by the DA’s investigator.

Sometime after the trial (don’t ask me how long, I don’t remember partially because I didn’t keep track) I was called and told that the defendant had been convicted and that there would be a sentencing hearing (that I didn’t attend); sometime after that (don’t ask me how long, I don’t remember because I didn’t keep track), I was called and told that the defendant was sentenced to 178 years in jail, 12 years of which were for his attack on me (apparently, he had been engaging in this activity for decades, across three counties).

It was all very easy. All I had to do was answer the questions honestly.

So, here is my insight that may help other victims who have to testify (since I found it easy):

1. The only thing you have to do when you testify is answer honestly the questions you are asked, and only those questions. Don’t try to second guess the person asking the questions or assume that that person is attacking you or your credibility. Don’t try to figure out what the person asking the questions is trying to get you to say. JUST answer each question, and ONLY the question that was asked. Sometimes this really pisses off the person asking the questions (I even had a defense attorney in a different matter get in a snit, stand up and put her hands on her hips and snip “you know what I REALLY mean”), but I am told that judges love witnesses who do this. Testifying is NOT the time to run off at the mouth; nor is it a time to play a guessing game.

2. Don’t let yourself have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial. Give your evidence and let the chips fall where they may. You are a witness—that’s all. It is NOT the job of a witness to convince the jury (if there is one, or whomever is making judgement if there isn’t); convincing the jury (one way or the other) is the job of the attorneys.

3. Realize that, as a witness, you HAVEN’T heard all the evidence, so you have no idea what information the jury is using to come to a verdict (at least you shouldn’t, if the people who do know haven’t been talking out of turn). Accept that the jurors are making the best decision they can using all the information that they do have, only a small part of which came from you (because if the only evidence they have is what came from you, it’s gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution).

4. Recognize that this statement from BITSA (post #3259) is not true “While the legal system may not be perfect, the procedures are in place to find the truth and ensure fairness.” The procedures of the legal system are designed to provide a verdict; one HOPES that truth and fairness are served along the way, but the procedures most definitely don’t guarantee it. Juries make decisions based on the evidence presented. The truth will only come out if all the witnesses answer the questions honestly, AND the right questions are asked. Which is why the ONLY part you have as a witness is to answer the questions you are asked honestly. It isn’t your part to come up with the questions, and you don’t get to answer questions you think should have been asked but weren’t.

5. Consequently, DON’T let the outcome of a trial be something that you need for “closure,” and don’t let anybody convince you otherwise. Doing so is as foolish as the concept of not treating the open wound of a dog bite until somebody else catches and punishes the dog that bit you. Which I hope everybody would agree, is just downright silly. Recovery from injury is not dependent upon punishment of the perpetrator.

For me, the attack was over with when he went out my front door. The only reason I called the police was that I figured they ought to know that the guy was out there somewhere and might do the same thing to somebody else.

I don’t know if these insights will help anybody else (my situation may have been different from others in that it was a total stranger who broke into my house in the middle of the night and threatened me with a gun). But I can say, from firsthand experience as a victim of a criminal sexual assault, that I was NOT subjected to any of what AlterHalter2019 (post #3276) experienced when I testified. Neither the prep, nor the hours of grilling from defense counsel. Nor did defense counsel “try to destroy the witness [i.e. me]” as was suggested was a defense attorney’s goal by Jealoushe (post #3268). In fact, it seemed he was being quite careful not to be seen to be distressing me in any way.

But I can say that these things worked for me. Testifying was a non-issue. Though the defendant was in the courtroom (both times); he might as well not have been for all I noticed him. And I can honestly say that learning, years later, that he was going to jail for a very long time (probably the rest of his life) was completely irrelevant to me. It’s nice to know that I may have played some small part in keeping him from doing the same thing to more people. But, personally, it had no effect on my own “recovery” from the attack—at least, I don’t think so. The physical injuries were gone within a couple of weeks, and I simply cannot say in what way I may or may not be a different person, mentally, had it never happened.

Which leads to my last “insight”

6. It is possible to “dissociate” from the event in the telling of it. That is, to recount it “as if” it happened to somebody else, and you were just an onlooker. I was told by my pain management specialist that dissociating from pain is a perfectly acceptable way of managing it. If you think of it in the third person, it makes for an interesting story. This makes it so retelling the story is not reliving it.

I hope this helps anybody who is facing testifying.[/SIZE]

I consider this one of the top 10 posts of this thread.