The most clear evidence of that is the fact that there will be a session today, Saturday.
Which means she had her decision already made. Instead she sputters:
Was too!
Was not!
Was too!
This is a case of trying to prove the negative when it comes to evidence. By asking for actual evidence "not arguments" Walther is asking for the impossible, and knows it. The evidence is the arguments.
Finally, I don't ever recall outside of an opinion column a plain assertion of the follwoing as fact, by a reporter:
BTW, some of the evidence is contained in a certain Pastor's mind. You allowed him to skip town and haven't issued a warrant for his return. Could it be he might say something?
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Judge Barbara) Walther called a recess to Friday’s marathon hearing about 10:15 p.m. It started at 9 a.m. with anticipation of an early morning ruling. The hearing will resume at 8:30 a.m. today."I don't recall that happening before. The clear intent now of Judge Walther was to get this "over with" yesterday, hopefully yesterday morning, rule, and bolt.
Which means she had her decision already made. Instead she sputters:
"I thought I made myself clear at 9 a.m.," 51st District Judge Barbara Walther said Friday morning, as she asked attorneys to bring forth "actual evidence — not arguments — to support your case."But she can't do that, she can complain, she can spit and whine, but she can't do that. The "evidence" is a sort of reasonable doubt of the evidence and the motives behind collecting it and acting on a suspect call. You have to testify. What does Gerry Goldstein do? Stand up and say "there was no probable cause" and then sit down and wait for Eric Nichols to say "oh yes there was?"
Was too!
Was not!
Was too!
This is a case of trying to prove the negative when it comes to evidence. By asking for actual evidence "not arguments" Walther is asking for the impossible, and knows it. The evidence is the arguments.
"We did not know that (the call was a hoax). We thought it was happening," Long said. "We had a duty to act."Really Brooks? When both you and David Doran speculated that your "victim" might not be telling the truth about her age or name? You've never had a hoax call before? If Brooks, who holds himself out as a domestic violence expert hasn't had a hoax call in that arena before, he's a living embodiment of the winning lottery ticket.
Finally, I don't ever recall outside of an opinion column a plain assertion of the follwoing as fact, by a reporter:
"Later, it turned out that 'Sarah Barlow,' as the caller was identified, didn’t exist."If this is the case, why does the investigation of Rozita Swinton not proceed? The only way to do that is have a full on hearing, call her and others as a witness and just do it. It'll take a while Barabara, and there will be lots of speeches and lots of reading material. You might as well just roll up your sleeves and get to it. You made this mess, clean it up.
BTW, some of the evidence is contained in a certain Pastor's mind. You allowed him to skip town and haven't issued a warrant for his return. Could it be he might say something?
Sphere: Related Content
1 comment:
Walthergate
Post a Comment