Attorneys: am I right in understanding that in the criminal trial they will often limit redundant witnesses? Is that also the case in a civil suit? Or can multiple people be deposed/testify to the same thing, say their conversations being recorded when they had an expectation of privacy, to establish a pattern or the scope of an action?
3 Likes
Generally multiple witnesses saying the same thing is limited, but having multiple people discuss their particular conversations that ended up on sm is probably not redundant, because they are different conversations and each one being recorded is a different action.
20 Likes
I know it gets said a lot, but I am very grateful for the input of people that know the law. I’m learning a lot and realizing that the law doesn’t always follow what I would think is common sense.
Thank you for chiming in and giving us some factual information so we don’t all go off on wild speculations.
29 Likes
Thank you! I was just imagining how much more we might learn if multiple additional people are permitted to say more about what those 81 recordings (or more!) may have either contained or where they may have taken place.
3 Likes
To be clear, I wasn’t questioning that COTH was confident in asserting this, just curious about the “how”.
Weren’t the barn aisle ceilings sheathed in metal by RG?
2 Likes
I am so confused…how did we go from proof that there are recordings to someone saying that recordings are all made up and it is just barn gossip? What a strange leap. What a strange thing to spend so much time theorizing on when both sides agree that there are recordings. Lots of recordings.
Thank you to whomever mentioned the no nose filter editing of the photos. When I looked at them the first time I thought things looked weird (the whites of their eyes are way too white for example). Now I get why, filter editing stuff.
24 Likes
Add that to the extremely long list of things that would never occur to many of us, but seem to be standard operating procedure for some of the people involved.
8 Likes
Another instagram post attached as Exhibit D to Deininger’s reply supporting the motion to compel LK to be deposed in person — following Exhibit C which is the posts from the NYC post-trial party. It’s a selfie in a passenger seat with text saying she’d just made more horsie pals while interviewing for 48 hrs. Which leaves me wondering what they thought of her.
Edit: add me to the list of people who couldn’t put their fingers on what was weird about the photos until someone more aware of these things pointed out the filters!
7 Likes
I am glad I am not the only one who had this problem. I am also glad there are people here who know about this stuff and point it out.
I have seen the filters (I think that is the correct term) where they add a dog nose and cute ears or such. I did not know they could smooth out their face to the point of no nose and extra whiten their teeth and eyes.
10 Likes
Legal people - Remind me please what is the time line here? Can the lawyers for SGF still respond to Bruce’s rebuttal? How long do they have for that?
3 Likes
The defendant has the right to decline to testify, and apparently can specify that to the judge so that the defendant doesn’t have to sit in the witness box and say “I refuse to answer…”. The judge will instruct the jury that they should not hold the defendant’s decision to decline to testify against him.
So the defendant in a criminal trial, unlike a witness, never has to say “I refuse to answer …”
But you’re claiming that the right of the defendant in a criminal to decline to testify doesn’t derive from the fifth amendment? You need to gotcha me for saying “took the fifth” instead of “declined to testify”?
Why on earth would a defendant decline to testify other than because it would make his criminal case worse, ie, incriminate him? There is a lot he could have testified about outside the time frame for which he claimed amnesia. Yes, we know he chose not to testify because his lawyer didn’t want him to face questions from the prosecution.
Dang, SGF’s attorneys nail it in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
Kudos to qualified, competent attorneys who are not going to give in or back down!
32 Likes
Now, that is a Bombshell.
31 Likes
LOVE the response…LOL. It boils down to " I do not want to"
18 Likes
7 Likes
38,000 MORE SM posts?? Failed mediation? 
35 Likes
I’m wondering where the video statements were made. 48 Hours?
As of right now, Kanarek will be questioned on documents, audio recordings and a video statement that she made.
12 Likes
I am guessing a Motion for Summary Judgment is coming.
"The Strict Premises Liability count is ripe for Summary Judgment and Defendant will move for same at the close of discovery as no property owner has ever been held strictly liable for the actions at issue in this case. As for the negligence claim, SGF is entitled to face its accuser (Kanarek) and ask her
questions in person. "
15 Likes
