And they didn’t even notice until they played it at the hearing?
Bull-shit.
I’d love the judge to have said something like “give that to me. We are going to send this to some computer nerds and see if this was a glitch or some creative editing”.
Oh please. Like everyone there hadn’t already seen the video.
He hasn’t even been indicted yet.
And you don’t see a problem with the prosecution tampering with evidence?
Without actually seeing the video, the words above don’t really convey what happened. The verbal bit omits mention that she hit him first, and “going over the counter into an area prohibited to the public” does not adequately convey the salient point that she was clearly chasing after him to strike him again.
Showing the video only from the point where Mr. McIntosh began swinging the rod also takes away other incidental queues about the situation, such as the way the person taking the video quickly hid the phone from view when Darbeau briefly turned around and faced them, indicating that at that point she was viewed as violent and threatening.
Chances of selection of the video being down to a “glitch” approach zero.
Tampering??? The recording had a glitch at a remand hearing. It was the full recording, and the only part missing was the moment when the woman jumped the counter.
When its YOUR hearing and they don’t show the part thats critical to proving your innocence and may or may not determine whether you get bail or even have to go through the fucking ordeal of a trial lets see how you feel about a “glitch”.
Fair enough. Hearing. I misspoke.
Doesn’t change the substance of my argument, and nor does it change the feebleness of your excuses for it.
You do know that this guy will have a defense attorney, right? And that his defense attorney will be allowed to show the whole video at the trial, right?
This isn’t like TV where the mean prosecutor can twist the testimony of a witness, and then when the witness tries to clarify that’s not what they meant, cut them off with a “NO FURTHER QUESTIONS,” and then the witness starts crying, “No, listen to me, there’s more…”, “I SAID NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!” and then the Judge snaps, “Bailiff, remove this woman!”. Because, see, in real life, the defense attorney then brings the witness back to the stand and gets them to tell the rest of their story that exonerates the accused.
I expect the prosecutor to act ethically to avoid an innocent man(or not as guilty) being punished.
The fact that the video was doctored says that the case isn’t strong enough to stand on it’s own.
It’s not a fact that the video was doctored. It’s a guess made with little information.
That said, if they were playing sly, that would suck.
As an experiment, try moving a seventy second .3gp (or even a .flv) video file around in such a way that you can only get the last forty seconds to play. Try reproducing that “glitch” without actually editing the file. Good luck.
Now, if it had only played the first part and then crapped out - that might be plausibly attributed to a network error, file transfer error or a problem with the codec - but if the first part is missing, you can bet your ass that it was intentional.
I have no idea what they did to show the video, but off the top of my head:
They duped the video to a tape to play it in the courtroom and didn’t check to see if the first part lined up (I assume some courts might still use tape).
They had trouble piping the video to the monitor and the monitor clicked in after a few seconds and the nobody objected, or the judge didn’t want to sit through it again.
I wanted to come up with a third one, but I have some TV to watch.
Uh, his bail was set at $40,000.00. Has been since his arraignment. It’s been on his inmate lookup page for at least 5 days now.
Can you please explain how the glitch on a tape shown two days ago affects his bail which was set about a week ago? I ask because for everyone else, if you can’t make bail that’s why you stay in jail.
See: Booking Information Incarceration 14-OCT-2011
Book & Case Number: 3491116662
Current Housing Facility: MDC (Manhattan Detention Complex)
Arrest Date: 13-OCT-2011
Arrest Number: M11678795K
Next Court Date: 02-DEC-2011
Bail and/or Bond: $40,000.00 bail or $40,000.00 bond
Charge Information
Docket: 2011NY074233
Indictment: 00000 0000
Court Part: 34
Court Name: Manhattan Supr. Ct.
Charge: 120.10 FB (ASSAULT-1ST B Felony)
And here in NYC we have this crazy thing where you actually need to be indicted on a felony before you proceed to a trial. Since he hasn’t even been before the Grand Jury and been indicted, what’s your point? An ineffective conspiracy that has no effect on the situation?
Guilt or Not Guilty isn’t decided at a hearing. It’s done at a trial.
Do you have x-ray vision for videos or something?
The case must be older than I thought if it’s already gone to trial. Regardless of whether the defence can show the whole video, it is still shitty for the prosecution to show only the staffmember’s actions. OTOH, I doubt the jury would think ‘oh, he must have hit them for no reason whatsoever! They just happened to get lost and come behind the counter so he smacked their heads in for fun!’ so it could even lead to the prosecution coming across as untrustworthy.
Stupid. Even on here, which is hardly a bastion of the right, pretty much everyone (or absolutely everyone?) agrees that he was right to fight back, and it’s only the level of fighting back which is in doubt.
Surely it’d be better for the prosecution - no matter your opinion on what actually happened - to show the two slaps which lead to the beating and then argue that he over-reacted, rather than invite people to make their own guesses as to what made him hit them? I bet most people would guess at more than two slaps leading to a beat-down like that, making his actions seem more reasonable.
That’s according to people at the scene.
I might be missing something, but not only has it gone to trial, McIntosh was found guilty and sentenced to 10 to 12 1/2 years in prison.
That’s referring to his previous conviction.
:smack:
That still doesn’t sound like it merits beating them hard enough to break bones.
I think I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with you lot on this subject though - I have better things to do than drag the argument on even further and I suspect you do too.