My issue is not that he forgot the exact words that were used in the exchange but that he (Officer Dilley) characterized Phil during the encounter as yelling, disorderly, and disrupting the other passengers. That was not forgetfulness but setting up a false scenario so he could get a conviction.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 15778865)
Dilley heard him once and in a stressful environment with a lot going on.
What an amazing coincidence! |
Originally Posted by flyless
(Post 15779473)
My issue is not that he forgot the exact words that were used in the exchange but that he (Officer Dilley) characterized Phil during the encounter as yelling, disorderly, and disrupting the other passengers. That was not forgetfulness but setting up a false scenario so he could get a conviction.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by TheGolfWidow
(Post 15778612)
Throughout his testimony, I kept thinking "He knows there was a video, right? He's seen the video, no? He knows what he actually said and did was recorded, right?" And, yet....
The prosecutor might not have told him that it had been recovered/undeleted. What would be the motivation? The prosecutor asked to delay the case after seeing the video. They had to have spent time to consider the options. They likely knew at that point there had been evidence tampering, even though it was at a level they couldn't prosecute. (No chain of custody, combined with an excuse of "we didn't break or keep anything, we just deleted what we believed to be SSI images.") On the other hand, telling the officer starts down a path of conspiracy. Not on the first step, but it's easy to continue once you start. In the final analysis the prosecutor did protect the police, by avoiding having the issue brought up in court. Imagine scenario 1, where the officer is questioned on cross examination and says "yes, I did delete that video". That action wasn't in any report, and is an admission of gross misconduct. In scenario 2 the officer says "no, nothing was deleted". There is a risk that a defendant that had a deleted video recovered also got timestamps showing when it happened. At that point an ethical prosecutor has a lot more work in front of them. (I'm well aware of filesystem timestamps and structures. But most people are not. And even experts can't be certain about what extra information might have been logged by a particular camera. Do you know for certain that your camera doesn't have a timestamped button press log? |
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 15778865)
I'm not comfortable going that far. I consider myself having an above average memory. I saw Phil's tape twice and listened to the trial, where it was played another time or two. I posted that he said "I'm not going to answer any questions". Phil challenged me and denied saying that. What he really said was "I'm going to remain silent". Those are similar, but different.
I heard the tape three times and was in a quiet and calm environment when I did. And I misremembered it. Dilley heard him once and in a stressful environment with a lot going on. When you hear something, you immediately interpret it. And what you normally remember hearing is that interpretation, whether correct or not. |
Yes, I'm almost certain that he did. I recall testimony to that effect.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by eastport
(Post 15779635)
(No chain of custody, combined with an excuse of "we didn't break or keep anything, we just deleted what we believed to be SSI images.")
Once that SSI holder has leaked it, the individual citizens are under no constraint to keep that information "secret." Especially if they're being asked to sign such a document. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf Deleting images or video on a camera taken into custody is a clear-cut case of "tampering with evidence" and possibly "destruction of property." At most, they could have secured the camera pending evaluation - but deleting the images is (to me) clear evidence that the police officers in question knew beyond any doubt that the video would show them in the wrong. |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 15779688)
Yes, I'm almost certain that he did. I recall testimony to that effect.
Bruce Sure seems like ABQ airport has a dirty cop, perhaps more than one! |
belt tape: Reliable accurate unbiased witness but sometimes left off. Why?
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 15779493)
And somehow both recordings (Mocek's video & Officer Robert F. Dilley's belt recorder) that would refresh Officer Robert F. Dilley's memory reportedly were erased.
What an amazing coincidence! Here's what was in a disc labeled "10-39 - CASE09-115050 CAD09110445" that I received in the public records dump: Code:
468608 2009-11-19 20:47 DW_A0008.wav Code:
police_audio/DW_A0008.wav The things that all this slack in their system allows to happen are maddening. If one person repeatedly takes advantage of the benefit of the doubt people are conditioned to give him, he's at great advantage. I think we should find a way to very consistently and reliably take accurate and tamperproof recordings of our police' interaction with the public, then save those recordings in such a manner that complete loss of them is extremely difficult. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15779832)
...I think we should find a way to very consistently and reliably take accurate and tamperproof recordings of our police' interaction with the public, then save those recordings in such a manner that complete loss of them is extremely difficult.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15779832)
The things that all this slack in their system allows to happen are maddening. If one person repeatedly takes advantage of the benefit of the doubt people are conditioned to give him, he's at great advantage. I think we should find a way to very consistently and reliably take accurate and tamperproof recordings of our police' interaction with the public, then save those recordings in such a manner that complete loss of them is extremely difficult.
I am sure that any LEO of integrity would welcome a tamper-proof system as an aid to memory. I am sure any LEO of integrity would admit that time and stress and many other factors can affect accurate recollection of facts. I am sure that any LEO of integrity would want all prosecutions to be based on facts, not faulty recollections or selective memory lapses or enhancements. |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 15779878)
You can be sure that next time Officer Robert F. Dilley decides to destroy evidence, he'll do a better job than just hitting the "delete" button. He'll probably remove the memory card and throw it away.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by thebat
(Post 15778745)
Silly question... what now? This has all been great recap, yet is there any action being planned or taken against the parties, or is this all just post-mortem for the next flight? |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15779935)
I have a feeling that people who're into that sort of thing will be using something like this in the future.
|
Originally Posted by eastport
(Post 15779635)
The prosecutor asked to delay the case after seeing the video.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:50 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.