Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Found at 2:55am yet reported at 2:40am

Hi Astatine211,

Yes, there are almost always weird things like that arise when people estimate times. The reporting is presented as tentative "I think he told us at 20 to 2 ..." type thing, which can't be correct (and is off by quite a bit. My first thought would be to consider the possibly it's a mis-statement for either twenty passed two or twenty to three. In the end, we would want to look at other statements from other people about that and see if we can find more details that would help resolve that. If nobody else talks about it, though, we're left with a clearly erroneous combination. We could probably work out that PC Long's time of discovery is the more reliable from how it fits with other reported times, and from that try and work out what sort of time range seems likely for the reporting to the other officers.

- Jeff

[DJA]

oh ok. well just for the record im a hand model

Seinfeld: The Hand Model (Clip) | TBS - YouTube

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, take for instance the testimony of Dr. F. G. Brown, page after page of testimony, and under Trevor's rules by signing his name Dr Brown is certifying every word he said & every word that was said to him.
Trevor must realize that his, 'when it is signed, it is certified true' point of view is totally impractical to the point of being mostly impossible.

You are again missing the point the purpose of reading the deposition before signing is to give the witness the opportunity to alter add or correct anything before signing. I am fully aware that not every single word would be accurately recorded but the main important aspects of the witness testimony should be correct after reading and signing, and any errors corrected. As you mentioned Dr Browns testimony I will refer to one part which is a good example of how we can accept this part of his testimony.

When talking about the apron piece in his official testimony he refers to it as a corner piece with a string attached, but the newspaper report states it was still attached by the strings to the body. Which is to believed, they both cant be right. You have to accept the official testimony.

All you and others are doing is to select the conflicts and then in an attempt to prop up your own theory use the newspaper reports, and then say the official testimony was taken down wrong so the newspaper reports must be right

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Hi Astatine211,

Yes, there are almost always weird things like that arise when people estimate times. The reporting is presented as tentative "I think he told us at 20 to 2 ..." type thing, which can't be correct (and is off by quite a bit. My first thought would be to consider the possibly it's a mis-statement for either twenty passed two or twenty to three. In the end, we would want to look at other statements from other people about that and see if we can find more details that would help resolve that. If nobody else talks about it, though, we're left with a clearly erroneous combination. We could probably work out that PC Long's time of discovery is the more reliable from how it fits with other reported times, and from that try and work out what sort of time range seems likely for the reporting to the other officers.

- Jeff

I always book my dental appointments for 2.30 so I don't forget

[DJA]

When talking about the apron piece in his official testimony he refers to it as a corner piece with a string attached, but the newspaper report states it was still attached by the strings to the body. Which is to believed, they both cant be right. You have to accept the official testimony.

Reckon you are fudging again,as usual.

Can be both actually.

[JeffHamm]

You are again missing the point the purpose of reading the deposition before signing is to give the witness the opportunity to alter add or correct anything before signing. I am fully aware that not every single word would be accurately recorded but the main important aspects of the witness testimony should be correct after reading and signing, and any errors corrected. As you mentioned Dr Browns testimony I will refer to one part which is a good example of how we can accept this part of his testimony.

When talking about the apron piece in his official testimony he refers to it as a corner piece with a string attached, but the newspaper report states it was still attached by the strings to the body. Which is to believed, they both cant be right. You have to accept the official testimony.

All you and others are doing is to select the conflicts and then in an attempt to prop up your own theory use the newspaper reports, and then say the official testimony was taken down wrong so the newspaper reports must be right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You've now admitted it is not 100% correct and so by your own definition unsafe to rely on - and yet your case is solely dependent upon it making your case unsafe.

You're in a corner you cannot escape, crated by your own arguments and definitions.

- Jeff

[harry]

So you would be in a good position to answer the three questions I posed in post 590 ,Gut.Like to give it a try?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You've now admitted it is not 100% correct and so by your own definition unsafe to rely on - and yet your case is solely dependent upon it making your case unsafe.

You're in a corner you cannot escape, crated by your own arguments and definitions.

- Jeff

There is no way that any witness when the deposition was read back to them would be able to remember word for word what they said because much would be insignificant but Brown would be able to be certain as to what he was holding and that is what he describes, the newspaper misquotes him its not rocket science.

You have no argument to make on this topic it is plain for all to see that want to see, but you are clearly one who doesnt want to see and we all know why.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Newspapers print information.They repeat evidence?

[DJA]

So you would be in a good position to answer the three questions I posed in post 590 ,Gut.Like to give it a try?

Wot's a legitimite offence?

Port Adelaide is full of Pommies and not considered part of Oz.
**** football team as well

[DJA]

Newspapers print information.They repeat evidence?

Only if you are stupid enough to eat them

[JeffHamm]

There is no way that any witness when the deposition was read back to them would be able to remember word for word what they said because much would be insignificant but Brown would be able to be certain as to what he was holding and that is what he describes, the newspaper misquotes him its not rocket science.

You have no argument to make on this topic it is plain for all to see that want to see, but you are clearly one who doesnt want to see and we all know why.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are arguing against your own definitions and rules. I need not present anything else to defeat your self proclaimed unsafe arguments. You've done it yourself and now you are arguing that everything you have put forth is wrong.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are again missing the point the purpose of reading the deposition before signing is to give the witness the opportunity to alter add or correct anything before signing. I am fully aware that not every single word would be accurately recorded but the main important aspects of the witness testimony should be correct after reading and signing, and any errors corrected. As you mentioned Dr Browns testimony I will refer to one part which is a good example of how we can accept this part of his testimony.

When talking about the apron piece in his official testimony he refers to it as a corner piece with a string attached, but the newspaper report states it was still attached by the strings to the body. Which is to believed, they both cant be right. You have to accept the official testimony.

All you and others are doing is to select the conflicts and then in an attempt to prop up your own theory use the newspaper reports, and then say the official testimony was taken down wrong so the newspaper reports must be right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The irony of that last paragraph

[harry]

A legitimate offence DJA,is an offence listed in a section of the acts.
A legitimate piece of true evidence is anything that states Adelaide is the finest place to live.
Harry,a true Pom.

[DJA]

Now understand why you hide your location in your profile

Did someone smote someone of sumfin' ?