Wednesday, June 30, 2010

On FLDS Appeals

When do you suppose that in this day of speech recognition software, HD Video, and general automation of everything in the office, that the transcript of Raymond Jessop's trial (and subsequent conviction) was finally given to the defense, so that they could appeal.
If you said "hasn't happened yet, you'd have been right, up until this month. It's finally in the hands of the defense, as of this month. Remember when he was convicted? November, of last year. Barbara, you wouldn't be dragging your feet for any reason, would you?

Sphere: Related Content


Ron in Houston said...

Most of the time, I try to just look past your extreme ignorance, but this time I decided to chime in on what your wrote.

The transcript on appeal is not the responsibility of Barbara Walther. It is the responsibility of the court reporter. About the only responsibility Barbara Walther would have would be in setting the court's schedule which oontrols the reporters time.

I'd imagine much of the appeal is not based on errors in the trial and is more centered on the suppression hearing which I'd imagine has been transcribed for some time now.

The Pharisee said...

Since you are bandying about terms like "extreme ignorance," I'd like to first point out, that I have no idea what an "oontrol" is.

Live by, die by Ron. If you want to have your idiotic typos ignored, try bridling yourself. Otherwise you deserve every slap you get.

I happen to have a few connections Ron, not as many as you maybe, but a few. This appeal depended on the issuance of the transcript. It took almost 8 months to produce it.

Barbara Walther has influence over what the court reporter does. You minimize it, but you just admitted she does have formal influence. I would imagine it's entirely possible that she has some informal influence as well.

It has been almost 8 months. It wasn't an overly long trial. As I recall, the defense took very little time to present it's arguments.


Jessop could pay for it to be done by another reporter from the audio recordings (they did have recordings, no?). Even if the appeals court wouldn't accept it, it would keep the courts' reporter honest, a virtue that Walther's court seems a little short of.

Ron in Houston said...

Fairly pathetic when you resort to picking on typos, but if fits you.

I never said that it didn't hold up Jessop's brief, just that much of his appeal was probably based on the other transcript, but I guess in your zest to try to zing folks with typos you missed the "much of the appeal" part of that statement.

Walther seems to be somewhat of a workaholic and my guess would be that those traits probably kept the court reporter busy.

The Pharisee said...


Again, the point was your side is quick and first and more frequent on name calling as a tactic.

You opened as you frequently do, with "extreme ignorance."

It's thus, as I said (and qualified my remark to fit), fair game to point out your typos.

Try toning down the rhetoric and employing honesty. You don't so I pointed out "OONtrol."

You're not perfect, I'm not perfect but you could extend yourself to understand the other side's argument, but you don't.

Once again I also observe that the single most compelling piece of evidence that you ARE a lawyer, is that you never admit the other side has a point.