When asked by Natalie Malonis if he was on meds (which she wasted an incredible amount of time on), Willie says no, but can you blame him if he wants to know if she is? I'm just going to post the transcript found at the San Angelo Standard-Times. I seriously had to verify this before posting it. I thought it was a joke when I first read it. Satire.
An excerpt from the Monday deposition of FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop by attorney Natalie Malonis.
Jessop is represented by Houston attorney Kent Schaffer. Malonis confirmed the details of this conversation, taken from a rough draft of the transcript obtained by the Standard-Times.
Natalie Malonis: OK. Do you recognize the woman in the blue dress at this table?
Kent Schaffer: I will confer with my client regarding (whether) he should exercise his privilege in regard to that question.
(Discussion off the record.)
[...]
Willie Jessop: Yes, I do.
NM: OK. And how do you recognize her?
WJ: By her blue dress.
NM: How is it that your recognize her? Where do you know her from? Or is it your testimony that you recognize the blue dress?
WJ: What was your question, ma'am?
NM: How do you recognize the woman in the blue dress?
WJ: Same way I would recognize anyone.
[...]
NM: Can you answer the question, please?
WJ: I recognize the individual.
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?
WJ: I answered your question.
NM: OK. How do you know the woman in the blue dress?
WJ: The question is vague. I don't know what individual you're looking at. I recognize you in a black dress. I recognize -
[...]
NM: The woman in the blue dress - there is only one woman in a blue dress at this table - how do you know her?
WJ: Are you asking if I know her name or what?
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Can you answer the question, please?
WJ: I asked for clarification.
NM: Mr. Jessop, how do you know the woman in the blue dress? There is no way to clarify that question. It's clear.
WJ: You asking if I know her name?
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?
WJ: No.
NM: Then?
WJ: I've answered your question. You won't give me clarification.
[...]
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, do you have a problem understanding conversant English?
WJ: Well, maybe you could give me some clarification. How do you know Mr. Schaffer?
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, are you impaired mentally in any way today?
KS: I'm going to object to harassment of the witness.
NM: Can you answer the question? I can clarify that further. Have you taken any medications today?
WJ. No, I haven't taken medications.
NM: Okay. Is there a reason there was such a long pause to answer that question?
WJ: Just because of the harassment fact from yourself.
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Did you have trouble recalling whether or not you took medication today?
WJ. Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you.
[...]
NM: OK. Have you had any other mind-altering substances either ingested or imbibed in any way that would affect your cognitive abilities?
WJ: This is harassment.
KS: Answer the question.
WJ: No, I'm not on any meds.
NM: OK. Do you have a problem with your memory?
WJ: Just harassment.
KS: Just answer the question.
WJ: No, I don't.
NM: OK. I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the woman in the blue dress?
WJ: Are you asking her name? What are you wanting to know about her? I recognize her because of the person, (the) same way I would recognize you.
NM: Objection: nonresponsive. OK. I'm going to take the nonresponsiveness as a refusal to answer and ask another question.
Sphere: Related Content
1 comment:
One might have expected Schaffer to ask Malonis to rephrase her question so that it was not open ended, but he was prolly having a good time watching Malonis make a fool of herself stuck on "recognize".
Willie should have just said I saw her name and picture in some media write up an AAL I won't mention had instigated.
Post a Comment