Stephanie testifies today

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
If the gist of what we know so far is true, that McIlvain said she didn't know anything about Armstrong doping, it may just be a temporary setback.

We still don't know what the ex-Postal riders who have or will be questioned have to say.

And it's true that proving Armstrong doped is a side issue, but without this detail how can they go about following the money trail?

I think they HAVE to come to a conclusion about the doping first. Then the other pieces will fall into place.

I don't see how they have grounds to proceed without it.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
thehog said:
In an e-mail, Betsy Andreu accused McIlvain of lying under oath Wednesday. "Stephanie not only talked about Lance's use of performance-enhancing drugs with me and Frankie but with many others as well."

She said there will be "overwhelming" evidence to support her claims that Armstrong said he used performance-enhancing drugs.

Poor Stephanie. She really is in over her head on this. She has told so many people something different then what she has said on the stand. It is only a matter of time before additional information proves she is a liar
 
Jul 29, 2010
70
0
0
Race Radio said:
Poor Stephanie. She really is in over her head on this. She has told so many people something different then what she has said on the stand. It is only a matter of time before additional information proves she is a liar

Yep.

mcilvain33.th.jpg


What's up with bat-cracking Stephanie?

Is she trying to keep her nose from growing longer?
 
Race Radio said:
Poor Stephanie. She really is in over her head on this. She has told so many people something different then what she has said on the stand. It is only a matter of time before additional information proves she is a liar

Well this is the issue that I’ve tried to detail several times. She wanted Mrs. Andreu to reveal the truth. For the reasons explained she doesn’t have the strength to do so herself and/or is severely conflicted to do so. Her husband, her company and her former lover would all be implicated. Its understandable why her statements have changed several times. Each and every time she has stood on the stand she has maintained the same story. Outside of this she’s told several people that she heard what she heard and knows information to further doping. Armstrong is her friend and former lover. She’s doesn’t want him to go to jail. Nobody would wish that upon friends. She’s not the lynch pin here. She’s part of the process. They don’t need to out her as liar. What’s Important is to understand what she knows and what she may be covering up. Watch this space. Round 2 to come. My suspicion is that she’s said a lot more than her counsel has revealed. Tubeless gives a good account. I suspect under a plea deal she has sought protection. Could you understand the implications of what she’s done if she was to reveal the truth? She’s needs protection. No wonder it was emotional. That’s massive and I’m sure she’s sought the assurances. In addition I don’t think Novi would have asked questions or shown evidence that would have given their game away. They know she’s close to Armstrong. They know she’ll tell him everything. Maybe that’s the idea.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Race Radio said:
Poor Stephanie. She really is in over her head on this. She has told so many people something different then what she has said on the stand. It is only a matter of time before additional information proves she is a liar
If that is the case, and I'm not disputing that it is, there is really only one course of action that is in her best interests and I am sure her counsel is advising her to take that route. It being telling the truth. When a ship sinks even the best of friends fight over lifejackets.
 
Aug 3, 2010
9
0
0
Race Radio said:
Poor Stephanie. She really is in over her head on this.

It's a tough spot to be in. Those 'sponsorship coordinator' jobs for companies like Oakley or Nike or whatever are probably some of the best, most fun jobs in the world. Pretty much hangin' out with famous people, making sure they get what they want, and relaying back to the brand what they want to see out of the products.

Probably a lot of 'Lance is training in Spain, better go see what he needs', 'Lance is speaking in NY, let's meet him for dinner, see how he's doing'.

Outing a sponsored athlete in any circumstance is gonna get you blacklisted from the whole damn industry. And it sounds like her place in the industry was a pretty good one.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Boeing said:
The more I read about this case the more I wonder exactly what the investigation wants to establish as its primary argument.

thanks
I'm not sure the investigators know the answer to that yet.
 
sherer said:
not sure how people can say the 7 hours means she said on thing or the other.

If she says LA never said he took PEDs and the tape is just gossip then Novitzy and his team will go on at her for 7 hours.

If she says LA took PEDs and admitted it then LAs legal team will grill her for 7 hours.

All you can tell from the 7 hours is she was probably asked a lot of questions

Just so you are aware, LA's legal team is not permitted in the grand jury room, so they cannot question her regarding her testimony. And her lawyer was not in the grand jury room either. No one can know precisely what was said during the seven hour period, but it likely goes beyond the simple statements issued by her lawyer. Either way, I suspect the DA got what s/he wanted.
 
Mar 15, 2009
246
0
0
There have been lots of leaks, as there generally are, because this is, unlike say a mafia trial--not a SECRET grand jury--in fact Team Armstrong has complained a lot about the leaks, now its there turn to leak what they choose to.
But still, not generally the smart thing to do.
WOnder who the source is?
 
pedaling squares said:
If that is the case, and I'm not disputing that it is, there is really only one course of action that is in her best interests and I am sure her counsel is advising her to take that route. It being telling the truth. When a ship sinks even the best of friends fight over lifejackets.

and it's going to take months of these depositions to shape whatever case emerges. Reaching for a life jacket early means you have one. Until we see published testimony we don't know what was said.
 
davestoller said:
There have been lots of leaks, as there generally are, because this is, unlike say a mafia trial--not a SECRET grand jury--in fact Team Armstrong has complained a lot about the leaks, now its there turn to leak what they choose to.
But still, not generally the smart thing to do.
WOnder who the source is?

I think it is the smart thing to do for them. No matter what was actually said they want to keep the green light on that the lie is still alive, and that it is OK for everybody who goes in to testify to keep it alive.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Publicus said:
Just so you are aware, LA's legal team is not permitted in the grand jury room, so they cannot question her regarding her testimony. And her lawyer was not in the grand jury room either. No one can know precisely what was said during the seven hour period, but it likely goes beyond the simple statements issued by her lawyer. Either way, I suspect the DA got what s/he wanted.

Yes, either a boatload of evidence indicting LA, or enough to secure McIlvaine's conviction on a perjury/obstruction charge.

Who knows what kinds of financial rackets Oakley is involved in?
 
This might help some: http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

Why are grand jury proceedings secret?
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.


Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.


Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness's grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.

Who must testify before a grand jury?
A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.


Can a lawyer be called to testify about his or her client?
A lawyer might be called; but the lawyer/client privilege shields him or her from being compelled to testify about a conversation with a client unless the conversation related to an ongoing or future crime or fraud of the client.


Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.


What is a grant of immunity?
A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness's privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify. The prosecutor is prohibited from using that testimony or leads from it to bring charges against the witness. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the immunized testimony. In practice, it is difficult to successfully prosecute someone for criminal activity they discussed in immunized testimony unless the prosecution had a fully prepared case before immunity was granted.

Many states grant the witness "transactional immunity," barring prosecution for a transaction discussed in the immunized testimony regardless of whether there are independent sources of evidence.


Can a witness refuse to appear before the grand jury?
Not without risking being held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena to compel their testimony.


What happens if a witness is found in contempt?
A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.

What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?

None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.
 
Thanks, JB, very helpful.

thehog said:
One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.

I see endless possibilities for 5th amendment here.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Merckx index said:
Thanks, JB, very helpful.



I see endless possibilities for 5th amendment here.

Yeah, it's a protection against self incrimination. Which leads to a whole bunch more questions resulting in the expansion of the probe, the widening of the net, catching both large and small targets.

At this point in the game, and at any point for law abiding citizens, honesty is the best policy. This investigation is well beyond the point of no return.
 
AnythingButKestrel said:
Yippie skippy, I guess this means that Steffie gets to keep her job at Oakley: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stephanie-mcilvain/15/a37/805
Providing she isn't charged with perjury when this is all over.

Bike Opera said:
"Bienert took issue with the recordings, saying Andreu and LeMond manipulated McIlvain, who is raising an autistic son.

I have an autistic niece. Her mother actually has a very steely resolve. The years of challenges actually made her a very strong woman, and manipulating her is almost impossible. Any issues that McIlvain has are from my experiences NOT related to raising a child with autism, and every indication she has problems to begin with.

I think, from what little information we gained here, Race Radio was correct in his assessment back on about page 2 here.
 
Jun 24, 2009
56
0
0
The Boston Globe reported this morning that she denied ever hearing Armstrong admit to doping and that she never felt any pressure to lie. I hope the government has some other rabbits to pull out of their hats or this thing is just going to turn into a "he said, she said" and LA rides off into the sunset.

I couldn't find a link to the story in the online version, but if anyone can find a corroborating story in another media source, please post it.
 
Dec 2, 2009
57
0
0
Mainerider said:
The Boston Globe reported this morning that she denied ever hearing Armstrong admit to doping and that she never felt any pressure to lie. I hope the government has some other rabbits to pull out of their hats or this thing is just going to turn into a "he said, she said" and LA rides off into the sunset.

I couldn't find a link to the story in the online version, but if anyone can find a corroborating story in another media source, please post it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/lance-armstrong-finally-f_n_736146.html
 
http://bmwklaw.com/success_stories.asp

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. and Kenneth M. Miller were named by Southern California Super Lawyers magazine as two of the top White Collar Criminal Defense Attorneys in Southern California for 2010. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers. Additionally, Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. was named among the top 50 lawyers in Orange County. Law & Politics selects attorneys based on a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by Law & Politics’ attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check. Super Lawyers can be found online at superlawyers.com.

This guy obviously is not cheap. Either Stephanie is not the struggling single mother she has been portrayed to be, or she had some help. Suppose LA offered to pay for her lawyer, or even if he only recommended one? She would be even more likely to deny the doping conversation.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
I thought a witness could not invoke the 5th to avoid perjury, so what basis would she have if she had tried that gambit?
 
Jun 24, 2009
56
0
0
What's the government got left now besides a few convicted liars and cheaters and some old samples that a good defense attorney will be able to blow out of the water in about ten minutes? Her non-testimony seems like a major blow to the case. Can't wait to see what LeMond has to say.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Wow, money talks huh! I cant think of any other reason she would say that.

Betsy Andreu hinted that there is more evidence or something to the effect "the weight of the evidence will prove her wrong."
 
Merckx index said:
http://bmwklaw.com/success_stories.asp



This guy obviously is not cheap. Either Stephanie is not the struggling single mother she has been portrayed to be, or she had some help. Suppose LA offered to pay for her lawyer, or even if he only recommended one? She would be even more likely to deny the doping conversation.

Because of:
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.

This is why it can take 7, very expensive hours to extract testimony. That fact and the opportunity to trip up will keep most other subpoenaed folks honest.
 
Publicus said:
Just so you are aware, LA's legal team is not permitted in the grand jury room, so they cannot question her regarding her testimony. And her lawyer was not in the grand jury room either. No one can know precisely what was said during the seven hour period, but it likely goes beyond the simple statements issued by her lawyer. Either way, I suspect the DA got what s/he wanted.
Probably this has been said before in the Legal thread, but maybe I missed it, but which people exactly are allowed in the GJ room?

Thanks.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
BigBoat said:
Wow, money talks huh! I cant think of any other reason she would say that.

No one in this thread seems to recognize the most obvious explanation: She believes it to be true.

That doesn't guarantee that it is true, only that she currently believes it to be so.