Defense Attorney Bryan Walk: The Commonwealth has bought everybody's testimony. It's clear. Everybody's getting a deal or they got immunity. And when you dangle that in front of them, they will say whatever they need to say to please the Commonwealth.
Witness after witness, as soon as we get on cross, the whole demeanor changes, the whole attitude - and these are people who worked with everybody. But they are scared to death of losing immunity, or losing their deal.
Here's a woman who lied to her boss, to tell him she loves campaigning. You read those e-mails. How would anybody reading that not think Karen Steiner loves to campaign? But now - "Oh, it was all a lie, just to do this." But now? She's got to please the Commonwealth now, to keep her immunity deal.
The focus with these witnesses is, they're avoiding criminal charges, they're destroying evidence and avoiding criminal charges, they're getting free counsel - they don't have to spend a penny out of their pocket - and, they're either avoiding paying back the bonus or they're getting a sweet deal as far as what possible sentence they could get.
Associated Press reporter Mark Scolforo: Something's come up in little bits and pieces, and it came up again today. I mean, there is an issue, isn't there, about the role of the lawyers in all of this? I mean, they seem to be showing up at times and giving people advice about what to do. But that's kind of tangential to this case, right?
Walk: And where does that start? The lawyers are all under whose control? William DeWeese. Bill DeWeese's control. That's not unusual. It's a common theme that the prosecution wants to keep objecting to and keep out, that the fact of the matter is that DeWeese's office is controlling the tenor of this case from the beginning. And they still control it, by meeting with witnesses and telling them, "Hey, we might do this, we might do that, get rid of stuff," you know? And that's the problem you have here. These witnesses all are being told things to do, and are trying to please the Commonwealth.
And I don't that's lost on the jury. The jury's not stupid. They're sitting up there, they're very smart, and they're listening to these witnesses. And they see the difference. We're battling, every single question, to get a simple answer. And Melissa - er, Karen Steiner, how many times did she ask me to repeat the question? And how many times did she ask Blessington to repeat a question?
Scolforo: Or read from the transcript.
Walk: "Let me think about my answer before I answer that?"
Scolforo: What does that tell you?
Walk: She's stalling. She's been coached very well and prepared very well by the prosecution. They meet with these witnesses, and they've got that hanging over their heads. Now they're coming in, who do they want to please now? The Commonwealth. That's who brought them into this mess, That's going to be - it's been that way from beginning to now and it'll continue that way with all these witnesses.
47 comments:
But Steiner and Bliss seemed credible and they just killed Brett Cott.
Crendible??????
"Karen Steiner Blanar, how many times did she ask to repeat the question?
And how many times did she ask Blessington to repeat a question?
Let me think about my answer before I answer that?
There is no reasonable doubt about that at all by anyone seeing this trial but it does cause reasonable doubt amonmg the Jurors.
The OAG is stunned and growing upset with each testimony!
She's stalling. She's been coached very well and prepared very well by the prosecution"
That's Increndible! It is also proof she is not telling the truth and more important is being paid by the state, protected by the prosecutors, and wilkling to say anything to save herself now.
This is not a crendible witness, it is a tainted controlled witness, and quite an dishonest one too.
Anonymous said...But Steiner and Bliss seemed credible and they just killed Brett Cott. February 23, 2010 3:07 PM....
I doubt Brett Cott is damaged at all, wait until you see his defense of himself, then you will see where the truth lives and does not lie for an OAG deal!
If you ask any FBI, State Investigator, or Police Person that took classes on interviewing suspects or witnesses and finding out the truth they will tell you this:
"At some point, we all interrogate someone that we believe is a primary suspect of a wrongdoing or inappropriate act or a lying witness.
For example, a mother questions her child about the broken vase in the living room, a wife accuses her husband of being unfaithful and an employer suspects an employee of stealing from the company.
With proper questioning and the ability to understand behavioral patterns, you can learn the truth.
Establish a baseline for your questions.
Ask your suspect or witness non-threatening questions so that you can evaluate their behavior patterns and nervous responses.
You can judge their reactions throughout the conversation based on if they're nervous or fidgety with the basic questions.
Ask your suspect or witness open-ended questions. Let them answer in his own words.
Watch for red flags with nonverbal cues such as looking down, fidgeting, throat clearing, asking you to repeat the question, sweating, scratching, playing with hands and slumping.
All indications they are hiding something from you.
Pay attention to the suspect's use of words during the interrogation.
Lead your suspect backwards through the event to make sure that all of the details still match up with the first story.
NOW LETS LOOK AT HOW THE REPORTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT KAREN STEINER BLANDAR DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS STAND BY POST-GAZETTE AND ABC BRIGGS:
"KSB keeps sighing and tapping fingers on table every time there's an objection. She appears frustrated."
"Steiner Blanar appears nevous on stand. (I would be, too!) She referred to Mike Manzo as "Rep. Manzo"
"KSB sez she's been intimidated by this whole process, 'rattled' about appearing in court."
OR IS SHE UPSET SHE HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN HER OWN LIES????
ON ONE HAND, COTT DID EVERYTHING AND THEN ANOTHER TIME SHE SAID VEON RAN EVERYTHING.
YET, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED COTT WAS IN BEAVER COUNTY WHEN VEON WAS IN HARRISBURG, SO HOW DID SHE KNOW ALL OF THIS WHEN SHE WAS NOT IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE???
Karen Steiner Blandar was nervous, fidgeting, and asking to repeat the questions over and over because she was thinking up teh answers she was coached to say by the OAG!!!
If it is clear to the Reporters on Twitter it is Crystal Clear to the Jurors!
"I doubt Brett Cott is damaged at all, wait until you see his defense."
That's fair enough. Everyone is entitled to a defense...but the jury sure looked convinced by Steiner and Bliss. Steiner made it seem like Cott was political hack in chief. And Bliss talking about he and Cott charging the state for setting up Veon's vacations and transporting his motorcycles was really damaging. You could just feel it. Look at the jokes from Tracie Mauriello and on WHTM tonight about it.
It seems like the defense is arguing it wasn't illegal, if it was illegal someone else did it, and if not they were just doing what they were told. Maybe Cott's "all I did was what Veon told me to" can work. Maybe. But it's a long shot.
MY RESPONSE IN CAPS:
Anonymous said...That's fair enough. Everyone is entitled to a defense...but the jury sure looked convinced by Steiner and Bliss.
OH REALLY, WHY WAS STEINER LOOKING NERVOUS, FIGETS, AND KEPT ASKING WHAT THE QUESTION WAS OVER AND OVER? WHAT VIEWS ARE YOU SPINNING?
Steiner made it seem like Cott was political hack in chief.
YEAH, AND SHE BEGGED TO BE HIRED A POLITICAL SERVICE WORKER WILLING TO DO ANYTHING AS THE EMAIL SHOWED.
And Bliss talking about he and Cott charging the state for setting up Veon's vacations and transporting his motorcycles was really damaging.
BLISS ALSO SAID LEGISLATIVE WORK WAS CONDUCTED ON THAT TIME TOO.
You could just feel it.
REALLY, ONE HAS TO PROVE IT "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBTS", FEELINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!
Look at the jokes from Tracie Mauriello and on WHTM tonight about it.
THIS IS THE SAME REPORTER THAT DESCRIBED STEINER NERVOUS AND FIGETING, ALL SIGNS BY ANY INVESTIGATORS OR PROFESSIONAL SOMEONE IS LYING OR HIDING SOMETHING.
It seems like the defense is arguing it wasn't illegal, if it was illegal someone else did it, and if not they were just doing what they were told.
WELL, IT IS UP TO TEH OAG TO PROVE IT WAS ILLEGAL, SO FAR THEIR WITNESSES AHVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT, WHEN THEY ARE CAUGHT IN LIES TOO?
Maybe Cott's "all I did was what Veon told me to" can work. Maybe. But it's a long shot.
I NEVER SAW OR READ OR HEARD BRETT COTT EVER SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM, WHAT HIS LAWYERS DID IS SHOW, THE OAG WITNESSES HAVE NOT PROVED IT WAS ILLEGAL WITH WITNESSES THAT HAVE A RECORD OF LYING AS PROVEN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I AGREE CONVICTION IS A LONG SHOT SO FAR!
February 23, 2010 6:38 PM
Any one relying on Tracie Mauriello observation at the Trial are idiots.
If you ever read her tweets, it is not that much about any reporting on the trial.
It is all about Tracie, Tracie’s Dreams, Aunt in Canada, Tracie’s Hawaii Wishes, Tracie’s Coffee Selection, Tracie’s Wisconsin Cheese Soup, Traicie’s Losing Lighting, Tracie’s Misspelling, Tracie’s Personal Life…far from professional reporting.
How the Post-Gazette hired this unprofessional is beyond me, she a ditz and it shows in her tweets.
She comes late to the trial, talks mostly about herself and misses much of the Trial and key comments and cross-examinations.
Briggs Tweets and Roxbury News Twitters are far more Professional and less personal and germane to what is being said and proven at trial.
If the Post-Gazette wants a proper job they should reprimand Tracie Mauriello or dump her for a Professional Lawyer or Paralegal Court Reporter to do the the PPG Twitter.
Tracie is a prime example how bad the Newspaper Business these days.
Whoever hired her should be fired and she must be paid on the lower end of a salary based on her work being more about her than true coverage by a professional journalists.
Tracie is a fine example of how experience is something you do not get until just after you need it, and in particular is the name that everyone gives to her mistakes.
Tracie has to quit telling all of us, how hard she works and start showing me how much she gets done.
Tracie should not look unless she is prepared to see and follow up when the OAG Grand Jury Presentments all of sudden do NOT match the evidence at Trial as testified by the State Witnesses contradict each other.
I say this not to hurt Tracie or the PPG but help them. Their is a bigger story here each time the OAG Witnesses are not matching up with the Grand Jury Findings, and one with any intelligence would question why?
Very soon, the OAG will be exposed-- these guys have been campaigning on state time with state resources for 2 years. They are being investigated as we speak. It will be embarrssing for the AG at the minimum.
Actors tell the truth!!
Anonymous said...
The OAG is stunned and growing upset with each testimony!
She's stalling. She's been coached very well and prepared very well by the prosecution"
Anonymous said...
Crendible??????
Very soon, the OAG will be exposed-- these guys have been campaigning on state time with state resources for 2 years. They are being investigated as we speak. It will be embarrssing for the AG at the minimum.
Since you have it all wrapped up, I guess you can stop all of the prattle and just sit back and wait for the verdict. Why bother with a defense? Oh and btw, I thought the prosecutors didn't know how to prep a witness. Which is it?
Has any one looked at the due process argument? In the 60s (I think) in the South, the Senate held hearings when local corrupt prosecutors began to indict Blacks running for office in order to keep the elected officials white. The argument was that the prosecutors had political motivations and therefore those who were criminalized were deprived due process. Prosecutors are supposed to be objective, but when confronted with the evidence of how the Corbett prosecutors from Pittsburgh behaved, a fair-minded objective person would have to conclude they skewed the facts for political motives through witness intimidation and multiple other ways.
Right...I can't imagine why ANYONE would be nervous testifying in a crminal proceding...that's an everyday, normal situation.
Oh, and I'm sure Brett will be taking the stand, right?
Anonymous 10:06, are you an ex-girlfriend of Cott's or a Republican he defeated in an election?
The anon dissing on Tracie Mauriello (@pgpolitweets) apparently hasn't been following her very long. Her coverage has been fine, and she's kept personal stuff to a minimum during the trial hours. I've been watching this trial unfold through her tweets and PG articles, and find no problem with her journalistic style.
What I don't understand is how some people can think what Veon and his crew did is so terrible, but they scoff at the idea that anyone else should be prosecuted for the same activities.
I think the prosecution is presenting an excellent case against Bill DeWeese, Mike Manzo and especially "The Grim Reaper," Jeff Foreman. Too bad they're not the defendants!
Anonymous said...
What I don't understand is how some people can think what Veon and his crew did is so terrible, but they scoff at the idea that anyone else should be prosecuted for the same activities.
Lots of people are being and have been prosecuted for the same activities and I agree with those prosecutions, too. It's your skewed view of what those activities really are, that I find far fetched. The paint brush you're using is distorted by your own desperate attempt to vindicate yourselves.
I wouldn't mind Tracie Mauriello's personal comments if she actually wrote more about what the witnesses were actually saying. That's why we're following, after all (and obviously she's reading these comments since she just Tweeted about them. Hi, Tracie! More about the trial! Less about your sore butt!)
Anonymous said...
Anonymous 10:06, are you an ex-girlfriend of Cott's or a Republican he defeated in an election?
See, this is so telling. Everyone does not have a personal axe to grind. Some taxpayers just think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial.
I think Brett Cott is on trial, right now. Who do you think you're talking to?
"Lots of people are being and have been prosecuted for the same activities and I agree with those prosecutions, too.
Actually, no. Only two sitting legislators are being prosecuted -and only after literally years of questioning by the public and the press. They most likely wouldn't have been prosecuted if Tom Corbett thought the oversight wouldn't dog him politically. And we may as well use the opportunity to point out: despite crystal clear evidence of Bill DeWeese's involvement in the events at the center of the current trial, he has not been indicted on any of it.
Anonymous said...
I think Brett Cott is on trial, right now. Who do you think you're talking to?
Exactly! The nuances of the English language escape some. My apologies for omitting the implied comparison of "unlike the defendants themselves".
You're just making friends and influencing people all over the place!
THIS is hilarious:
"Everyone does not have a personal axe to grind."
...when it is followed by immediately by THIS:
"Some taxpayers just think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial."
See what you did there? You're offended that someone thought you had a personal interest in the case because of your opinion, and you immedately assumed the other poster had a personal interest in the case because of HIS opinion.
You're not seeing it? Oh, well....
Anonymous said...
I wouldn't mind Tracie Mauriello's personal comments if she actually wrote more about what the witnesses were actually saying. That's why we're following, after all (and obviously she's reading these comments since she just Tweeted about them. Hi, Tracie! More about the trial! Less about your sore butt!)
February 24, 2010 11:50 AM...
Tracie improved today, got right on the trial, but is slipping back to talking about herself.
I agree, would love to read more about what is said at the trial, but Tracie just seems not get it.
I would appreciate Tracie telling us on twitter her impressions of each witnesses after OAG questions, then with each defense Lawyers Cross-examination.
This would make great reporting and I would respect her far more for doing it, her opinions on how each witness did is far better than her opinions on coffee, vacations, and soup.
Hope she continue sto improve that way. If not, go to Briggs and Roxbury News, they give just teh facts madam.
That I why Tracie Tweets would be better with her opinions at each witness end.
I do not know why some Lawyer is not reporting it, the News Organizations have really dumb down these days?
Ummm....where is the implied phrase "unlike the defendants themselves" supposed to fit into the sentence, "Some taxpayers just think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial?"
Is it supposed to be, "Some taxpayers just think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial, unlike the defendants themselves?"
Or is it supposed to be, "Unlike the defendants themselves, some taxpayers think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial."
Neither one makes much sense. Help me out.
colindean said...
The anon dissing on Tracie Mauriello (@pgpolitweets) apparently hasn't been following her very long. Her coverage has been fine, and she's kept personal stuff to a minimum during the trial hours. I've been watching this trial unfold through her tweets and PG articles, and find no problem with her journalistic style.
February 24, 2010 11:33 AM
Do you want us to put up Tracie personal non-relevant tweets to show you are wrong too?
Go ahead make our day!
All Tracie has to do is to do her job, show up on time, prepare properly, and follow up on what is happening on the stand, so far she has trouble doing that and she will be fine.
Anonymous said...Oh and btw, I thought the prosecutors didn't know how to prep a witness. Which is it?
February 24, 2010 8:54 AM
Corbett's Professional Campaign Staff knows how to Prep a Witness better than the Professional Prosecutors.
Whne are the Media Powers going to ask Corbett about Mike Long, the guy with the biggest Bonuses, worked for Jubelrier on campaigns on State Time, and now works for Corbett, but has not been investigated.
Why no Grand Jury for Republican and Democratic Caucuses Senators after 3 years?
Why not ask the Prosecutors these questions and You Tube it!
Anonymous said...
Right...I can't imagine why ANYONE would be nervous testifying in a crminal proceding...that's an everyday, normal situation.
Oh, and I'm sure Brett will be taking the stand, right?
February 24, 2010 10:06 AM...
Nervous is that Nervous does, other Witnesses did just fine, even when caught in lies they admitted their mistakes, but KSB was more than just nervous.
Anonymous said...
I think the prosecution is presenting an excellent case against Bill DeWeese, Mike Manzo and especially "The Grim Reaper," Jeff Foreman. Too bad they're not the defendants!
February 24, 2010 11:47 AM
I do see any case on Bill DeWeese, but you are right on about Manzo, Foreman, and Brubaker.
Yet, the OAG Opening Statement said Veona nd 3 Otehrs were in charge, but the OAG Witnesses have refuted that, except the real dummies in Steiner and Bliss, that are not aware they contradicted the OAG previous Witnesses.
Anonymous said...
Or is it supposed to be, "Unlike the defendants themselves, some taxpayers think that you are exactly where you should be; on trial."
Neither one makes much sense. Help me out.
Again, so close yet so out of touch. Sarcasm will only get you so far. This is your site after all and I am only a visitor. I am hardly offended, just puzzled. Believe it or not, I've been a registered Democrat all my life and this makes me want to weep for the future of the party.
I guess no one ever warned you that, "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Oh, and look both ways when you cross the street. You know how careless those bus drivers can be.
I must ask again: who do you think you are talking to? I am not a defendant and this is not my blog. I am just a puzzled commenter like yourself. And I still don't understand where the implied phrase is supposed to go.
Here we go for a fine example of Tracie work product on twitter:
PPG Tweets:
Raynak is now showing her a copy of her sworn grand jury testimony. "Did you give a diff answer under oath? Yes or no?" #bonusgate
From grand jury testimony: Reever said she saw Lavelle do legit work, but not that often. #bonusgate
Raynak: You testified today under oath that you never saw PJ Lavelle do any legislative work. ... #bonusgate
I'm going to be first in line at the coffee machine when we get a break. I may have to race @bbumsted there. #bonusgate
Raynak apparently is using this line of questioning to attack Reever's credibility. #bonusgate
YEAH, RIGHT WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEY RAYNACK HAS THE OAG WITNESS REEVER CAUGHT IN ONE LIE SAYING PJ LAVELLE NEVER DID ANY LEGISLATIVE WORK IN TODAY'S TESTIMONY....THEN 3 YEARS AGO IN THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY UNDER OATH SAID HE DID SOME LEGISLATIVE WORK.....WE ARE WAITING FOR THE REACTION.....BUT TRACIE GOES OUT FOR COFFEE AT THIS CRTICAL TIME, THEN WRITES SHE HAS TO BEAT BUMSTEAD FOR IT, AND THEN AFTER SHE MISSED THE REACTION....SHE TELLS US RAYNACK IS ATTACKING REEVERS CREDIBILITY.
NOW IS THAT A REPORTER OR JUST A DITZ NOT KNOWING WHEN TO STAY AND REPORT ON WHAT HAPPEN AT AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THE TRIAL, INSTEAD OF GOING FOR COFFEE????
I mean, this is what I am reading, from her, and it is sad she can't do her job properly by making it about the Trial not herself, and just be a Professional at her job.
Tracie needs to be transfer to home and Garden section of the PPG where she can tweet about Home and Auto Shows!
Seems like there has been a whole lot of incriminating evidence and testimony on DeWeese and his staff, especially Andrews and Sloane.
On Post-Gazette Tracie Tweets, I agree with your critique earlier, but she has really stepped up her tweets now to be fair.
They are much better and more detailed, and she deserves praise in changing to do them better.
I for one now prefer her Tweets over Briggs and Roxbury, if she keeps it up.
Anonymous said...Seems like there has been a whole lot of incriminating evidence and testimony on DeWeese and his staff, especially Andrews and Sloane. February 24, 2010 2:44 PM
No question about it, if you really look at the Veon Motion papers and release of all Grand Jury Testimony, the entire Democratic Caucus looks very bad and that includes not just Deweese, but Eachus, Dermody, Preston, Mccall, and many more Democratic Lawmakers and their Staffers.
The BIG PROBLEM is Corbett has avoided his Republican Friends and Campaign Donors, so if you want to be fair, you must ask, why after 3 years, no investigations on Bonusgate in the Senate???
This is why this entire Trial is unfair! Corbett can incriminate anyone at anytime, but he has chosen Democrats first and foremost to become Governor, once he is Governor, he will appoint the New AG and you will see Bonusgate go away before any Republicans are investigated.
If the investigation had been balanced on House, Senate, and both parties, then Corbett would be OK and no one would question his hypocrisy ort honesty, but it is about his campaign not justice.
Tracie Tweeted: FYI, this Twitter account isn't just about #bonusgate. If you want just #bonusgate tweets you're gonna be disappointed. about 1 hour ago via web...
WOW, I guess Tracie is sitting in the Trial to report on what then???
I am confused, if your job is to report on the Trial you are sitting in, then what else is she going to Report on to inform us???
True about Corbett bringing these cases at this time, while leaving the Majority Republican Senate being free from his investigation during his election year.
On the other hand, if Corbett finishes his Investigation on Senate Republicans and brings charges in the Spring or Summer against his own Political Party, I will vote for him.
But if he does not, he needs to be investigated by the Department of Justice on why not, and one reason not to vote for him.
After all, his entire Governorship will have a cloud hang over him, if he never investigates his Republican Friends in the Senate and he will be ineffective as a Governor until he resigns or is indicted himself.
MORE PROOF HOW BAD AG CORBETT IS BY BRINGING THESE CHARGES AND IT IS SAID BEST BY HIS OWN OAG WITNESSES....."Sansone: Did you commit a crime? Cook: No. Sansone: Then why did you need immunity? Cook: I can't answer that, sir."
So, if Cook admits he did not commit crimes, how could he be charged with Crimes, but given Immunity to prevent him from being charged?
I mean the entire OAG Case is being destroyed by their own Immunity and Guilty Pleader Witnesses, by contradicting themselves, the OAG, and AG Corbett nonsense in bringing charges on what is at best ethical violations.
Anonymous said...
True about Corbett bringing these cases at this time, while leaving the Majority Republican Senate being free from his investigation during his election year.
On the other hand, if Corbett finishes his Investigation on Senate Republicans and brings charges in the Spring or Summer against his own Political Party, I will vote for him.
But if he does not, he needs to be investigated by the Department of Justice on why not, and one reason not to vote for him.
After all, his entire Governorship will have a cloud hang over him, if he never investigates his Republican Friends in the Senate and he will be ineffective as a Governor until he resigns or is indicted himself.
February 24, 2010 3:28 PM....
Two Words Why Corbett Will Not Bring Charges Against Republican Senators Caucus....MIKE LONG!
Mike Long long time Aide to Republican Bob Jubelrier Senate Leaders and Corbett's Campaign Staffers today!
Another great Tweet by Briggs Twitter, at least he is keeping us informed:
"Cook is the most direct witness so far, he does not hesitate with answers, should get interesting when crossed by Sansone #bonusgate
about 1 hours ago via Twitterrific"
Now when you compare Cook Demeanor to Karen Steiner Bladar, you can see the difference between testimonies.
Thanks Briggs!
Now you have people critiquing the quality of people's Tweets? Maybe Raynak can go berserk over that facet of the trial, too.
Mauriello's primary job is to write a cogent, accurate news story out of all this. She seems to be doing an exemplary job of that thus far.
Do you really expect any thinking person to beleive that EVERYONE called to testify by the prosecution is lying? Come on, now.
This ain't a political campaign, boys. It's a trial. The attempted spin is of minimal impact, if any at all.
Do you really expect any thinking person to beleive that EVERYONE called to testify by the prosecution is lying?
No, actually. It appears that nearly every witness has testified they took direction from Michael Manzo and Jeff Foreman. There's no indication that they are lying. The jury has only to believe that Manzo and Foreman are lying - which seems pretty easy to believe.
Anonymous said...
Do you really expect any thinking person to beleive that EVERYONE called to testify by the prosecution is lying?
No, actually. It appears that nearly every witness has testified they took direction from Michael Manzo and Jeff Foreman. There's no indication that they are lying. The jury has only to believe that Manzo and Foreman are lying - which seems pretty easy to believe.
February 24, 2010 9:21 PM
The big problem is really with the OAG Grand Jury Hearings.
The Prosecutors decided to allow any LYING Evidence that Manzo and Foreman said to cut a Plead Deal for them, regardless of the truth before the Grand Jurors.
If the Prosecutors had allowed Defense Attorneys to present Exculpatory Evidence on behalf of the Defendants, there would be no Trial.
Of course, Corbett's Mike Long Campaign Team preferred a Trial for the Governors Campaign to the truth, not to protect Taxpayers money any anytime?
I should explain that Exculpatory Evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt.
Saint Mary's Law Graduate Tom Corbett could not get into any worthy Law School in the Northeast, even as his Dad was in politics.
So he went to Texas, and he may not have heard of this kind of evidence when it comes to political campaigns instead of justice.
One reason why his Professional Prosecutors asked him not to try this case, or they would have to teach him the law, instead of campaign tactics.
Tony Krastek help conduct those Runaway Grand Jury Hearings and one reason why he has been banished from the OAG for now.
Anonymous said...
Now you have people critiquing the quality of people's Tweets? Maybe Raynak can go berserk over that facet of the trial, too.
Mauriello's primary job is to write a cogent, accurate news story out of all this. She seems to be doing an exemplary job of that thus far.
February 24, 2010 6:58 PM
The fact is, the tweets have been better since criticized here and elsewhere by the way.
I am not part of Team Casa, we criticized them because we grew tired on how sloppy they were and without giving the full reporting from the Post-Gazette Reporter. I mean do we have to read about Wisconsin Cheese Soup, Latte, and trying to get the PG to pay for her trips to Hawaii to report nothing but her vacation?
If we posted al the irrelevant and personal actual tweets made up by Tracie, one could see how bad they were until we brought it.
It has made her a better Reporter too, we should be thanked. But Briggs and Roxbury are still doing a better job, until Tracie wants to prove otherwise.
I mean, if you want us to post the bad ones, we will, just ask?
In the meantime, asking for true reporting of the Trial is not a vice.
You people need to get a clue. Your husbands and boyfriends and buddies are FELONS and you are worried about what people are posting on Twitter?! Priorities, ladies! Priorities!
Post a Comment