hamptons local events, express news group

Story - News

Jul 13, 2010 6:24 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Kabot's pre-trial hearing will continue next week

Editor's Note: For full coverage of Tuesday's hearing, pick up the Thursday, July 15, issue of The Southampton Press, on newsstands Wednesday evening.
Jul 13, 2010 6:24 PM

Former Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot’s pre-trial hearing for her DWI arrest last year will extend into next week.

After hearing two days of testimony from two Westhampton Beach Police officers, Riverhead Town Justice Allen Smith on Tuesday scheduled the hearing to resume Monday, July 19, at 2 p.m. and continue Tuesday, July 20, at 2 p.m. at the Riverhead Town Justice Court.

Ms. Kabot was arrested and charged with DWI in the early morning hours of Labor Day, September 7, 2009. Her attorney, William Keahon, has argued that she was targeted by police the night of her arrest.

On the first day of the hearing, July 8, the tape of her arrest in Westhampton Beach was played in public for the first time. The video was recorded by a camera mounted on the dashboard of a police cruiser. Arresting office Ryan Lucas testified on Thursday that he shut the camera off to review the tape and check the time of the traffic stop, which occurred a few minutes before midnight on Sunday, September 6, 2009. Some audio is also missing from the tape, and Officer Lucas said that occurred because, at some point during the arrest, he had removed his external microphone.

The purpose of the hearing, in part, is to determine whether the tape of Ms. Kabot’s arrest last September—which is missing an estimated four minutes of video and some audio—will be admissible as evidence during her upcoming trial. It will be up to Justice Smith to decide on the admissibility of the tape.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Does everyone accused of dwi get this kind of pre-trial hearing? Linda supporters, please do not attack, I really want to know.
By lablover (104), Southampton on Jul 13, 10 6:46 PM
It's America -- if one has the price of a knowledgable lawyer, of course you "get this kind of pre-trial hearing!"

By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 13, 10 7:21 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 13, 10 7:26 PM
Frank, if you got the DWI and refused you'd be entitled to the same hearing that Linda is getting-high price lawyer or Legal Aid makes no difference.
By cedric (22), Southampton on Jul 13, 10 8:03 PM
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 13, 10 8:38 PM
TOTALLY wrong. The judge would call you in and sentence you right then and there on the spot. Go to court one day and see how many DWI cases are continued FOR A YEAR.
By littleplains (305), olde england on Jul 13, 10 10:19 PM
what world do you live in ? the more you pay your lawer the more fight you have in court or else you going to jail
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 14, 10 11:44 AM
Kelly and Frank are both right to some degree or another. ALL trials have motions like this or evidentiary hearings to determine whether certain things can be admitted, especially if those items are questionable (such as a flawed video/audio recording which is missing content in contravention of dept. regs).

However, what is giving this more importance is the fact that there is no breathalyzer data, thus no "proof" Kabot was drunk. There is only a cop's boilerplate allegation that her "eyes ...more
By BobbyH (44), Southampton/NYC on Jul 13, 10 8:50 PM
Respectfully - the fact that she refused to take the test is a crime in and of itself. Everything else is just showboating, unless they can prove the traffic stop was totally illegal which is tough to do. but in our town anything is possible.
By littleplains (305), olde england on Jul 13, 10 10:21 PM
I am a conservative...however..I do not think a public defender would offer the same options that Linda has available to her. A public defender would want this done with.... I feel for the people who have public defenders...the public defenders do not extend themselves...A public defender will not go to this extent.
All things being equal...
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 13, 10 9:08 PM
The sad truth about law is that it will go where the money ( or votes) are....
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 13, 10 9:14 PM
>> I am a conservative...

So what? Has nothing to do with this matter.

>> A public defender will not go to this extent.

It takes money to "go to this extent."
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 13, 10 11:37 PM
1 member liked this comment
You have alot of comments...you may want to choose your battles...
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 14, 10 12:13 AM
Public defenders will take the case as far as the client wants. In fact, usually they take the case farther becasue the accused is not paying for their representation and can take the case all the way without the expense of paying their lawyer to do so. You seem very jaded about the legal system but also seem to be very ignorant about it. How is that?
By HB90 (164), southampton on Jul 14, 10 1:07 AM
and who pays for the public defender? They are going to finish as soon as they can. they work with the courts.Where have you been. the more the lawer is the more chance of you winning.
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 14, 10 11:22 AM
>>OK...what do you really have to disagree with?
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 13, 10 11:56 PM
Or is disagreement your sport?
By kelly (75), hampton bays on Jul 14, 10 12:03 AM
"high priced lawyer" or not these hearings are routine. Just becasue there is no BAC number doesn't mean there is no "proof" of intoxication. The officers' observations are legally sufficient to establish intoxication. Just think about your own life experiences. Have you ever seen a drunk person? How did you know they were drunk? Bloodshot eyes? Alcohol on their breath? Slurred Speech? Unsteady on their feet? These are the same things the police look at. Sometimes its hard to articulate ...more
By HB90 (164), southampton on Jul 14, 10 1:01 AM
who calibrated the breathalyzer could it be the ones that made it? unlikely, try s.c.p.d. yes the ones who are giving the test to the driver.
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 14, 10 11:29 AM
Warranted, she may have had a couple drinks in her, she may not have.

BUT, there is just so much that "stinks" here, it "Tain't funny, McGee". Not only were the police allegedly unprofessional, the officers involved acted rather suspiciously. And, exaclty why is there video evidence "missing"? She ain't Jodie Foster, and this sure as he** ain't "Contact".

Though sometimes, however, it does feel like some people get to live on another planet...
Jul 14, 10 2:27 AM appended by Mr. Z
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, and then used against you."
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jul 14, 10 2:27 AM
Linda Kabot is waisting the tax payers money once again. This lengthy stuff costs money more judges, more ADA's. From what I underatnd if you put the legal system through this and lose you pay a higher price in the form of consequences. If she is innocent I hope she wins. If she is guilty like I suspect when is enough enough own up and move on with your life
By jekgbs (35), East Hampton on Jul 14, 10 10:49 AM
She did nothing wrong she was set up.And we the taxpayers have to pay for this junk
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 14, 10 11:31 AM
She did nothing wrong it is time the whole bunch pay for misbehave the problem is they think they can get away with this wrong doing, it is time it stops the police there should go under town.

By john o (34), southampton on Jul 14, 10 6:20 PM
If she was setup, it was more than likely a police tip off by someone who was at the so called gathering she attended prior to being pulled over. Meaning Kabot, type of car, and her direction of travel. Quite possible, but if this alledged call , if indeed there was ever one, and I have never seen any mention of it, did not go through proper channels, then you have a conspiracy within the police department. Again possible, but highly unlikely.

More likely, Kabot was the victim of police ...more
By BruceB (142), Sag Harbor on Jul 14, 10 9:15 PM
it would be very hard to believe that any police officer would subject themselves to what they had to know would be this type of scrutiny (they were arresting the sitting town supervisor). These officers are from the WHB police, of which Linda Kabot had no control or influence, as the Village of WHB has their own board, and mayor who is the defacto police commisioner. To think that these cops would risk their careers, reputations and livliehoods is ridiculous. These officers have families to support ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 14, 10 11:25 PM
1 member liked this comment
...and "karmasabitch" makes some fantastic points here.
By Pedro Salazar (22), Center Moriches on Jul 14, 10 11:50 PM
officer lucas made mistakes,we as taxpayers dont pay them to make up charges or lie in court.These officers think they are the law.and make it bad for the rest. follow rules or get out
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 15, 10 10:34 AM
Mr. Keahon has a way with dazzling court rooms with smoke and mirrors--he's a defense attorney for God's sake--but let us not see past the underlying facts here. Linda Kabot was pulled over for demonstrating signs of intoxication while operating her vehicle. When questioned she was defensive. When asked to perform tests to measure her sobriety, she failed. When asked to further prove her sobriety by submitting to a breath test, she refused. You do the math.

In the wee hours of September ...more
By Pedro Salazar (22), Center Moriches on Jul 14, 10 11:38 PM
Well, it's certainly NOT true that you need to be a Kabot friend and/or cop hater to be just a little suspect here. I haven't met her and have only met a few police officers in my life, with none in my circle of friends. Nothing personal against either group, we just never have reason to socialize.

Since "driving is a right and not a privilege," you can certainly refuse the test. It's not a crime and the only penalty you pay is getting your license suspended, which is administrative and ...more
By BobbyH (44), Southampton/NYC on Jul 15, 10 12:46 AM
wrong. driving is a privilege not a right
By littleplains (305), olde england on Jul 15, 10 2:20 PM

Some have even earned the privelege to hold a CDL, with various endorsements, such as air brakes, tank, and even hazardous materials.

Thankfully, a license is not handed to just anyone!!!
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jul 15, 10 8:44 PM
when i pass a written and road test. pay a fee it is my right to drive. a privilege is given free of charge
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 16, 10 3:44 PM
> "when i pass a written and road test. pay a fee it is my right to drive."

Your thinking on this is seriously skewed.

Your Driver's License -- ANY license, pilot's, handgun, captain's, DEA, etc. -- is a rescindable privilige.
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 17, 10 1:42 PM
1. No one is arguing that Linda was under surveillance and stopped conveniently near midnight in WHB.

2. The question is whether she was treated differently AFTER she was stopped. Some will argue she wasn't and that Linda wished she was granted favored treatment; others will argue she was treated differently, and wish she wasn't. (This is setting aside the question of what would have happened if the person stopped was a police officer.)

3. Whether irregularities by the police ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 15, 10 7:19 AM
If you look at any case, anywhere in any town, village or state, there are mistakes made. A cop writes the wrong speed on a ticket, forgets to sign a form, these things happen. Just like in any of our professions, mistakes are made. Banjack who appears to be from Port Jefferson, has apparently never made a mistake. I believe that no matter how much money you are paid, (look at the BP engineers in the Gulf, I'm sure they make more than these police officers) you are entitled to make a mistake. So ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 15, 10 11:55 AM
1 member liked this comment
To correct a mistake on this blog, driving is a priveledge, not a right as bobby said. You are extended the priveledge to operate a motor vehicle in the state of new york by the commissioner of the department of motor vehicles. You must pass a written test, driving test and an eye exam to have this priveledge. If this was a right, you would not need to do any of these things. That is why your priveledge to operate a motor vehicle can be suspended or revoked by the commissioner for various offenses. ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 15, 10 11:59 AM
> To correct a mistake on this blog, driving is a priveledge, not a right as bobby said.

Whew! Glad SOMEONE jumped on that!
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 15, 10 12:33 PM
Bobby research new york state vehicle and traffic law section 1192-3. this is driving while intoxicated based on an officers observations, which are legally sufficent. Refusing a pre-screen breath test, a roadside test given to determine an approximate level of intoxication, is a petty offense, better known as a traffic violation. Much the same as a speeding ticket, which is in lieu of an arrest. If you refuse the pre screen roadside breath test you will be arrested, and you will lose your license ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 15, 10 12:08 PM
1. Once the state has issued a driver's license to a person, that person has a right to that license.

2. Refusal to submit to a chemical test can result in the suspension of a license, but a field test is not a chemical test.

3. An Officers allegations may be legally sufficient, it depends on what those allegations are.

4. DWI stops / arrests / convictions are common, but that does not mean we move to a presumption of guilt.

5. The conduct of the police is ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 15, 10 5:19 PM
I believe you should change your name to stop the nonsense, Read NYS vehicle and traffic law section 501 regarding issuance and maintenance of driver's licenses. Then skip down to section 510, regarding how and why your priveledge can be suspended or revoked under section 511. I'll put it i terms you can understand, your driver's license expires. when you meet the requirements your priveledge is re-instated. A right, as you say, would never expire. Refusal to submit to a chemical test under section ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 15, 10 7:12 PM
Video cameras are very important, but you have to leave them on and you can't delete any part. Video cameras protect good police officers from false accusations, and it SHOULD be a deterrent to bad officers.

When the video is turned off or a portion of the recording is deleted, it is fair to examine the circumstances. That is what is happening in this case.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It is important to be vigilant. The DWI part ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 16, 10 7:32 AM
Driving is NOT an individual right, nor should it ever be. It is a "special right". The definition of PRIVILEGE applicable here is as follows:

"a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions."

It is a PRIVILEGE, which must be earned, and treated with respect to retain said PRIVILEGE.

If it was a right, ANYONE could get behind the wheel of a tractor trailer...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jul 15, 10 8:52 PM
Whether you want to call it a "special right" or a "privilege" does not matter a great deal. We don't let the government take away or special rights or privileges without due process.

We do not grant police officers authority that will be unexamined or unrestrained, that would be a grant of absolute power. This country is founded upon the recognition that power can and will be abused and there must be checks on any grant of authority.
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 16, 10 7:37 AM
If you read more of my posts, you'd note we are on the same page, to a certain extent...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jul 19, 10 10:07 AM
It appears the stc is concerned about widespread police corruption. I really don't see that on the east end. The video systems that these police dept's have in their cars, whether it be the icop system, eyewitness, arbitrator, kustom signals, etc all pride themselves on the fact that the videos cannot be altered. This is a selling point because without it the videos would be worth nothing! Chiefs would not spend tens of thousands of dollars on camera equipment only to have it tossed in a preliminary ...more
By Clarity (65), Whb on Jul 16, 10 9:40 AM
No one said anything about "widespread police corruption." No one questioned all officers on "the east end." No one said ALL officers are corrupt.

We simply can not assume the opposite, that ALL officers are honest and dutiful. The only way to discern the good from the bad is to do pretrial hearings, and then do the best we can to assess the case.
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 16, 10 12:14 PM
wake up . parts of the video are missing.if the viedo was any good it would have not gone this far.she would have been in jail.
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 16, 10 3:50 PM
> "parts of the video are missing"

My understanding from everything which has been reported in the various media and a Beach Blog entry, http://www.whbqt.info/template_permalink.asp?id=1167, by Officer McManus himself, there was one (1) section of the video "missing," and why.

If Mrs. Kabot's attorney is going to try to make something sinister and damning about this, the prosecution may need to have a representative of the company which makes the ICOP video system appear to testify ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 17, 10 2:00 PM
When the Chief issues a directive that under no circumstances is the video to be turned off, and then in the middle of an arrest the directive is ignored. It is not the defense attorney "trying to make something sinister and damning." These are the facts as admitted, of course it would be worse if the video was later edited, but the admitted facts are bad enough. There seems to be repeated efforts in this blog to place the burden of proof on the defense.

It was the police who were under ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 17, 10 5:00 PM
And Mr. Wheeler, can the ICOP representative tell us what would have been on the tape during the missing time period?

I thought not.

At a minimum, there are legitimate questions here about the propriety of the arresting office turning off the tape in violation of the Chief's directive, and also about his motives for doing so.

You seem like a bright man.

Wake up please.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 17, 10 6:10 PM

Yes, the burden of proof is most certainly on the WHBPD, but consider for a moment an assertion uttered here in comments at various times, but which I cannot find documented in any of the news reports here, in The Press proper or in Newsday, that Chief Ray Dean had issued a directive about not turning off the video camera, PRIOR to the Kabot arrest.

I believe that came following her arrest last Labor Day. It's a minor point in the legal proceedings, but a major one here ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 17, 10 8:10 PM
"Mr. Keahon pointed out that a memo had been circulated in the police department by Westhampton Beach Police Chief Ray Dean about three months prior to the incident, stating that officers are never to turn off the cameras. Officer Lucas, after being pressed by Mr. Keahon, said he must have signed the memo, but that neither he or Officer McManus, who assisted with the arrest, discussed it before turning off the camera." from 27East on July 9, 2010.

Mr. Keahon is simply pointing out what ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 7:57 AM
Thank you.

Lawyer Keahon's strategy predicated on a great deal of sizzle -- the steak is the video record of Mrs. Kabot failing two field sobriety tests and refusing the breath-alizer test.

On the law, she's guilty!

BTW: I thought that in the WHBPD, "Sleepy" was reserved for the head of their PBA.
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 18, 10 12:15 PM
Mr. Wheeler, stopping the tape to check the time stamp is a red flag and smoke screen IMO, and I am surprised that a man of your intelligence has been sucked into this.

In stopping the tape, and examining the time stamp, was the officer going to "correct" the time stamp from his vehicle in the field?

No Way!

Why are you buying into this logically impossible "explanation" for what is, at best, a "gaffe" as you say, and perhaps worse.

Even if there was no directive ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 2:27 PM
No, I am NOT kidding, PBR -- and you should note that the very argument you're making ("I am in the middle of a really important and politically charged drunk driving stop here...") may also support the reason why the interdicting officer felt the necessity to stop and check the video recording device.

And I trust that you did not include the superfluous "Yo" simply because that officer is black.

What do you imagine might have transpired in that 3½-4 minute "gap" which could prove ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 18, 10 3:28 PM
Actually Mr. Wheeler, you missed my primary point (or you have chosen to ignore it?).

And you have not answered the questions posed.

How could the arresting officer have done ANYTHING to change the time stamp on the video EVEN IF his motive was innocent?

Please, give me more rope here!

[I will ignore many other issues raised, in deference to your contributions to may forums here, and to your intelligence. Please do not "Make My Day!"]

PS -- I have never ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 4:28 PM
PS -- Frank, how about the "Frankly, get Wheeler comment?"
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 4:31 PM
PS3 -- Frank, you appear to have a beef with either Ms. Kabot or Mr. Keahon.

Subtract the beef and anger, please.

Thank you.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 4:34 PM
PS4 -- Mr. Wheeler, it is the function of defense attorneys to do every thing they can in defense of their clients, including putting up "smoke screens."

If the prosecution cannot handle this, pierce the smoke screen, and overcome, the result is called Due Process of Law and Justice.

Freedom Shall Prevail!
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 5:22 PM
Two point sfor you to consider. If there was a major issue that occured during the stopping of the videotape, don't you think that it would have been adressed by Mr. keahon. That would seem to help his cause of alleged police corrupition. He has to date, made no accusations of misconduct by these officers, only alleging that they did not file the chief's procedures. Here is a question, have any of you ever seen a police officer without his or her 8 point cap on? These is a standing order in many ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 18, 10 1:03 PM
> "He has to date, made no accusations of misconduct..."

He doesn't have to -- all he needs to do is raise reasonable doubt. If Justice Smith sees through this and allows the video into evidence, such doubt may play very well with a petit jury of Mrs. Kabot's peers.
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 18, 10 3:31 PM
Answer me this, how did Mr. Keahon get an internal Dept memo regarding video cameras that was apparently only distributed to employees?? Sounds like the issue of him representing both linda kabot and officers pessapane and bruetsch has finally been shown to be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 18, 10 1:06 PM
1. The affirmative decision to stop recording evidence of the interaction between police officers and the person they have stopped is not the same as chewing gum, or not wearing your hat. It really isn't defensible, the question is whether there is enough evidence in spite of this failure to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The concurrent representation of a DWI defendant accused by members of the Westhampton Beach PD, and the representation of 2 Officers who ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 1:55 PM
> "how did Mr. Keahon get an internal Dept memo regarding video cameras..."

It's called "Discovery."

> "Did Mr. Wheeler see the video?"

Wasn't it on YouTube?
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 18, 10 3:35 PM
say whatever you like, the video is evidence of what happened that night. If Keahon wants to argue the point that the video was turned off, let him. After it is played for all to see. But as i said before. HE DOES NOT WANT THE JURY TO SEE THE VIDEO! I take this to mean it's not Linda's best performance. If any of my clients were stone cold sober, did not commit any traffic violations, were polite, took all field tests and performed well, i would play the video and rest my case.
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 18, 10 6:25 PM
karmasabitch -- Yowza there is a screen name!

The video is potential evidence to be sure, but will it ever be admitted into evidence given the missing 4 minutes? Why would the officer turn off the video just to check the time stamp? Really, please post a plausible explanation for this apparent gaffe or slip up.

You say "my clients" -- are you an attorney?

Thank you.

karma is indeed a bitch !!!
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 18, 10 6:41 PM
I have an equitable idea, PBR, just to test whose Kool Aid you've been sipping.

What do YOU posit might have occurred during that 3½-4 minute blackout which prove so damaging to the arresting officers?
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 18, 10 11:45 PM
Did our neighbor who was arrested (we are all neighbors, we are all subject to arrest, we should all insist that proper protocols be followed, we should all be revolted by falsely sworn statements) Did our neighbor decline the field breath test before or after the blackout period on the video ?
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 19, 10 8:58 AM
Frank, i agree, maybe PBR has been drinking a few PBR's himself. I believe that one of the arresting officers has said that the camera was turned off purely to verify the time of the stop. This b. Not knowieing a critical point, had Ms. kabot submitted to the pre-screen breath tests as required by NYS vehicle and traffic law 1194-1b. An officer is directed to wait twenty (20) minutes from the point of first contact to ensure that the subject has not drank any alcohol, smoked, chewed gum, etc. This ...more
By karmasabitch (15), whb on Jul 19, 10 12:30 AM
Whether violating an express directive of the Chief of Police, and whether giving to sworn statements that are contradictory is just the tip of the iceberg or only an ice cube is the question being resolved before trial.
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 19, 10 7:18 AM
Word on the streets is that her refusal to submit to the pre screen breat test is on video, along with her statements about drinking alcohol before driving. This is why keahon wants the video excluded from the case. Not because anything bad happened, beacuse it looks bad for his client. He is playingthe only angle he has, a conspiracy theory.
By Clarity (65), Whb on Jul 19, 10 2:44 PM
Frank Wheeler and karmasabitch,

I have no idea what may be on the missing minutes of the tape, of course.

I do know this:

One of the primary responsibilities of an officer at a crime scene is to preserve evidence, in this case the tape.

Only the most exigent of circumstances would justify destroying (or in this particular case, preventing the accurate accumulation of CONTINUOUS evidence). In this sense the missing minutes have been "destroyed."

What was ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 19, 10 7:28 PM
> "One of the primary responsibilities of an officer at a crime scene is to preserve evidence, in this case the tape."

Although it is hardly your intention, PBR, you argue against your position.

I have no idea of what Officer Lucas' history in such situations might be, but checking a time stamp might have seemed important to him at that point.

You ask what he could do if the time stamp was incorrect? One obvious thing is to make contemporaneous note of the inaccuracy ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 20, 10 10:14 AM
New article:


By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 19, 10 7:38 PM
pbr, You say the missing minutes were destroyed, as if they never happened. There were atleast three people present during the missing minutes that we know of, the arresting officers and the defendant. All of whom have yet to support your case of impropriety on the part of the police during the missing footage. I agree w karma and frank that until there is an accusation of wrongdoing this whole conversation is a smoke screen designed to hide the real facts of the case. let the jury view the video ...more
By Clarity (65), Whb on Jul 20, 10 1:36 AM