He realized that many of his witnesses had lied and could not be called to testify. Only two of them were called, and one of them was Dilley.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 15780554)
He realized that many of his witnesses had lied and could not be called to testify. Only two of them were called, and one of them was Dilley.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by sbagdon
(Post 15780005)
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?
But please remember that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you," and cut Phil and others some slack in what you expect them to say in this forum. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 15779929)
^^^
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 Caradoc
(Post 15779730)
"SSI" only applies to information in the possession of someone who's taken an oath or made a promise to protect it.
Once that SSI holder has leaked it, the individual citizens are under no constraint to keep that information "secret." |
Originally Posted by ehasbrouck
(Post 15780865)
If there is any further "action", it is likely to involve inquiry into both what happened at the Sunport and at the criminal trial, and into Phil's and other actors' states of mind, intent at various times, etc. Phil could be deposed about these issues, and evidence related to them (including anything he says here) could be brought in, in an attempt to use it against him. How? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. As the person who made and is in possession of the best record of the trial, I could be called as a witness and to authenticate that record.
But please remember that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you," and cut Phil and others some slack in what you expect them to say in this forum. |
Originally Posted by Mimi111
(Post 15780919)
I don't believe individual citizens are required to comply with a BS SSI classification to begin with. Only the person taking the oath would be required to protect said information.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15779350)
That's all sensible, and I want to be careful not to exaggerate, so I appreciate you pushing back, Richard.
BUT, there's a big difference between 1) the difference between a) "I'm not going to answer any questions" and b) "I'm going to remain silent" and 2) the difference between a) ordering someone to leave four times, after each of which he refused, sometimes explicitly, followed by issuance of a verbal criminal trespass order and b) never once ordering or even asking someone to leave, eventually telling him to accompany you out, at which point he promptly complies. As to one time vs. four times, how often have you meant to tell somebody something, didn't, but then became convinced that you did? If we intend to do something, we often remember that as something we did. This is clearly a case of "contempt of cop" and it's clear there was a massive overreaction at the airport that day and also that the testimony didn't match what happened, but I'm still not ready to call that testimony an outright fabrication. Human memory is notorously fallible and we can fall into all kinds of traps where we remember what we intended to do instead of what we did, or remember how we interpreted what was said, instead of what was said, and so on. Yes, it could have been fabricated, but it could just as easily have been an example of "wishful memory". |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15777011)
The text of the criminal complaint Officer Dilley signed under penalty of perjury was:
I wonder what will happen the next time Officer Dilley testifies at any trial, and the defendant's attorney gets access to the complaint in this case and the video recording of the actual event. They ought to be admissible for impeachment purposes, to show that Officer Dilley is known to make false statements despite being under oath and penalty of perjury. Two or three acquittals based on that ought to put paid to his career. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 15781111)
That's what I thought I said.
|
Q
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 15781173)
Well, even there, sort of. I'm purposely not going back to the transcript here, but instead relying on my memory. And my memory is that somebody, at some point, said something like "follow me" or "come with me".
As to one time vs. four times, how often have you meant to tell somebody something, didn't, but then became convinced that you did? If we intend to do something, we often remember that as something we did. This is clearly a case of "contempt of cop" and it's clear there was a massive overreaction at the airport that day and also that the testimony didn't match what happened, but I'm still not ready to call that testimony an outright fabrication. Human memory is notorously fallible and we can fall into all kinds of traps where we remember what we intended to do instead of what we did, or remember how we interpreted what was said, instead of what was said, and so on. Yes, it could have been fabricated, but it could just as easily have been an example of "wishful memory". Ok, the police officer may have misspoke or misremembered. But taking all oddities that have come to light such as the officers belt recorder not working, Phil's camera memory being erased certainly would lead me to believe that something is rotten in ABQ. May never be chargeable, still would watch my back in that place. |
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 sethb
(Post 15781327)
(long list of perjured statements elided)
I wonder what will happen the next time Officer Dilley testifies at any trial, and the defendant's attorney gets access to the complaint in this case and the video recording of the actual event. They ought to be admissible for impeachment purposes, to show that Officer Dilley is known to make false statements despite being under oath and penalty of perjury. Two or three acquittals based on that ought to put paid to his career. |
Originally Posted by Mimi111
(Post 15781335)
You said once leaked. Citizens in general are never required, at any time. Unless I've misinterpreted what you were saying. If so, my apologies. :)
|
The process itself is flawed.
If the blank form is SSI, why is it readily available for download? If the completed form is SSI, how can they ask the pax to sign it? If the process itself is SSI, not the incomplete or completed form, then why are they trying to hide the form under the guise of SSI? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:36 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.