Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jackie-O
Even better! The question of whether she taped illegally, and the question of whether the info garnered could be used against Scott in his trial, are TWO separate questions, and the answer to ONE of them is not necessarily dispositive of the other question.
23 posted on 12/08/2003 9:05:35 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Devil_Anse
Hey Dev, I got my Dell up and running at home yesterday.
Sweet!! The big monitor is just the ticket for these over 40 eyes! Took some nice pics with the free digital camera too. I have to play with it for a while, but I'm hoping to set up a nice about page here when I get a chance. My little man knows more about the machine than I do! ;o)
28 posted on 12/08/2003 9:32:58 AM PST by Jackie-O ("The horror...the horror"- Col. Kurtz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Devil_Anse
DEVIL_ANSE ROTE: "The question of whether she taped illegally, and the question of whether the info garnered could be used against Scott in his trial, are TWO separate questions, and the answer to ONE of them is not necessarily dispositive of the other question."

I have used tapes several times in court---to impeach false testimony---you know, to help a LIAR's memory. Courts won't let you bring tapes in directly, but they CAN be brought in to refute false statements by the opposition.

I don't USUALLY tape conversations, but there have been several times when I thought someone was starting to act strangely in a business situation, and would tell me the truth directly, but was sending strangely different signals in their behaviour, so I secretly started taping our conversations.

Sure enough, in EVERY case, they developed amnesia when a really important time came for the truth to be stated. And in EVERY case, their sudden onset of amnesia disappeared---AFTER the tapes came out.

One warning before considering taping, of course, is that YOU must be telling the truth at ALL times, so that in the end, it is NOT "YOUR word against THEIR word," it is "THEIR word against THEIR word!" How can they argue with that? Answer: They CAN'T!

Oh, and if they say "I don't recall" as an answer, and YOU DO recall the situation vividly (and can TRUTHFULLY swear to it under oath), a lawyer of mine once asked the defendant "well, if YOU DON'T recall, and my client DOES RECALL---VIVIDLY---would you have any reason to doubt his/her recollection?"

The good news is that the defendant has two choices: (1) The defendant will virtually certainly say no meaning that YOUR recollection is taken as FACT (and it BETTER be true!!!!), and (2) If they say yes, they are ADMITTING they DO recall and have just PERJURED themselves in the previous claim of not recalling. Either way, it is a WIN-WIN for YOU---again, assuming YOU are telling the truth and the defendant is lying. It worked like a champ!

389 posted on 12/17/2003 8:38:57 PM PST by Concerned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson