Stephanie testifies today

[_yngve_]

I thought a witness could not invoke the 5th to avoid perjury, so what basis would she have if she had tried that gambit?

5th can be invoked any time that an honest statement made by the witness could or would result in self-implication. However, if the witness has been granted immunity for testimony, the 5th cannot be invoked (you can't refuse to implicate yourself if you've already been granted immunity for any such implications)

 

[Race Radio]

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.

What part does she believe is true? What she said on the stand or what she has told a dozen other people?

 

[Publicus]

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.

The Assistant/District Attorney/Prosecutor and the jurors and whoever is testifying.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

ABK,

You are just NOW getting around to thinking this way? I have not spent one thin dime with Trek, Oakley, Giro and Nike for well over a decade because of this, plus I do not like any of the products they make anyway, most especially Nike's junk.

No, I came to that conclusion as soon as I started digging. Why not just pin up a thread that lists LA's interests/holdings/etc. at the top of the clinic forum and let the people vote with their dollars. I'm not a bike geek, so I didn't realize that SRAM = LA until *after* I had the new scooter hanging in the garage. Then I dug some more and discovered that LA has his tentacles in just about every aspect of cycling. It's not easy not sending the dude money these days.

 

[Escarabajo]

The Assistant/District Attorney/Prosecutor and the jurors and whoever is testifying.

Thanks.

Sorry to ask you again, but how many are the jurors?

I hope is the last question.

Thanks.

 

[mastersracer]

5th can be invoked any time that an honest statement made by the witness could or would result in self-implication. However, if the witness has been granted immunity for testimony, the 5th cannot be invoked (you can't refuse to implicate yourself if you've already been granted immunity for any such implications)

but what crime would she be implicate herself in - has to be more than the fear of a perjury trap, right?

 

[Rupert]

"believes it to be true"

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.

Same is true for Betsy. Maybe what she thinks she heard is not what really happened. Not that she isn't honest in her belief, but human memory is notoriously fallible. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, regardless of how convinced people are of what they thought they saw / heard they are often proven wrong. In the absence of any corroboration (other than Frankie) it needs to be considered (but wouldn't be on this forum, of course).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Same is true for Betsy. Maybe what she thinks she heard is not what really happened. Not that she isn't honest in her belief, but human memory is notoriously fallible. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, regardless of how convinced people are of what they thought they saw / heard they are often proven wrong. In the absence of any corroboration (other than Frankie) it needs to be considered (but wouldn't be on this forum, of course).

So, to make your point stick you are ignoring what Frankie said? Which corroborated her story.

I assume you have heard the tape where McIlvain says - "I was there, I heard it".

 

[Merckx index]

Same is true for Betsy. Maybe what she thinks she heard is not what really happened. Not that she isn't honest in her belief, but human memory is notoriously fallible. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, regardless of how convinced people are of what they thought they saw / heard they are often proven wrong. In the absence of any corroboration (other than Frankie) it needs to be considered (but wouldn't be on this forum, of course).

How many cases of eyewitness claims in which the claim goes very definitely against the interests of the witness can you name? Betsy and Frankie had a lot to lose by testifying what they heard, and in fact did not do so until they were compelled to. Stephanie had a lot to gain by denying this claim.

If you're familiar with the literature on eyewitness fallibility (you might start with Beth Loftus' work), you will know that mistaken claims almost always support some preconceived or self-serving notion. People generally do not falsely remember in a way that causes them problems.

 

[Publicus]

Thanks.

Sorry to ask you again, but how many are the jurors?

I hope is the last question.

Thanks.

Didn't know this first hand, since I'm a corporate attorney, but between 16 and 23 jurors.

 

[Escarabajo]

Didn't know this first hand, since I'm a corporate attorney, but between 16 and 23 jurors.

That's a lot IMHO.

We might expect some leakage (maybe).

Thanks again.

 

[Tubeless]

So, to make your point stick you are ignoring what Frankie said? Which corroborated her story.

I assume you have heard the tape where McIlvain says - "I was there, I heard it".

It is possible that Stephanie's attorney is making a calculated bet that her saying she "does not recall" Armstrong admitting to taking PEDs is not grounds enough to charge her with perjury. The Lemond tape alone is not sufficient - she says she "heard it" but there's no confirmation what "it" is. The fact that Betsy and Frankie recall it clearly does not prove Stephanie is lying. She's not remembering. It's the old Ollie North defense.

Betsy's answering machine tapes can be framed to corraborate her story. She was upset because Betsy was so determined to prove something that she does not recall taking place. And we already heard Stephanie's attorney claming that she was "lured" into "gossip and speculation" by Betsy and Lemond.

But if this is the case, she's clearly walking a thin line. The prosecutors obviously don't like when witnesses don't cooperate fully. The 7 hours would have been spent getting her on record with answers she may later get into trouble with - and to prove to the grand jurors she's not being truthful. She probably conferred with her attorney multiple times, which could explain the total length of the testimony.

This could all change if the prosecutors find some of the other people Stephanie told about the hospital room incident. Do we know who they are? Even in that case she could claim memory loss due to the years gone by, but if anything she must be feeling more nervous now than before her testimony.

The other plausible theory is that she cooperated fully, but her attorney is lying to protect her from retribution.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What part does she believe is true? What she said on the stand or what she has told a dozen other people?

Maybe the part that she remembers through the haze of prescription drugs and bottles of wine?

 

[SilasCL]

Maybe the part that she remembers through the haze of prescription drugs and bottles of wine?

Character assassination. Classy.

 

[BikeCentric]

Character assassination. Classy.

Classier than leaving drunken phone messages threatening violence to Betsy A?

 

[SilasCL]

Classier than leaving drunken phone messages threatening violence to Betsy A?

No that was pretty un-classy too. Or is it non-classy. Regardless, I don't condone either one.

 

[python]

i noticed an interesting pattern in the reporting of the novi’s investigation .

every time an armstrong friendly media message/article was published it originated from one of armstrong’s lawyers or one of his team’s supporters (or their lawyers). The source could usually be easily named because they seeked the attention !

otoh, every time an anti-Aarmstrong article had been published in the mainstream media it was referred to as ‘from the sources close to the investigation that preferred to stay anonymous b/c they were not authorized to comment publicly’.

check the facts: two opposing camps engaged in the pr war but using the diametrically opposing tactic - the pro-texas camp desperately broadcasting their message at every opportunity whilst the opposing side being happy with anonymous leaks.

if the above pattern is applied to the latest mcilvain’s lawyer statements, i’m suggesting we’re not long removed from the other side’s alternative version of what mcilvain really said.

expect some less than pretty hints at the consequences if one had engaged in lying.

Stef knows she’s not off the hook………and Armstrong knows, he cant take solace in the ugly spin games.

 

[SilasCL]

i noticed an interesting pattern in the reporting of the novi’s investigation .

every time an armstrong friendly media message/article was published it originated from one of armstrong’s lawyers or one of his team’s supporters (or their lawyers). The source could usually be easily named because they seeked the attention !

otoh, every time an anti-Aarmstrong article had been published in the mainstream media it was referred to as ‘from the sources close to the investigation that preferred to stay anonymous b/c they were not authorized to comment publicly’.

check the facts: two opposing camps engaged in the pr war but using the diametrically opposing tactic - the pro-texas camp desperately broadcasting their message at every opportunity whilst the opposing side being happy with anonymous leaks.

if the above pattern is applied to the latest mcilvain’s lawyer statements, i’m suggesting we’re not long removed from the other side’s alternative version of what mcilvain really said.

expect some less than pretty hints at the consequences if one had engaged in lying.

Stef knows she’s not off the hook………and Armstrong knows, he cant take solace in the ugly spin games.

This post makes no sense.

The reason that you hear anonymous leaks from sources involved in the investigation is that a quote on the record would cause them to get fired. On the other hand, Stephanie and her lawyer are allowed to comment on her testimony. The difference between the two is not due to being on Lance's side or the other, it's simply a matter of the parties doing what is in their best interests.

I'm not claiming that what her lawyer said was truthful or dishonest, I really have no idea. I just don't think your theory makes any sense.

 

[python]

This post makes no sense.

The reason that you hear anonymous leaks from sources involved in the investigation is that a quote on the record would cause them to get fired. On the other hand, Stephanie and her lawyer are allowed to comment on her testimony. The difference between the two is not due to being on Lance's side or the other, it's simply a matter of the parties doing what is in their best interests.

I'm not claiming that what her lawyer said was truthful or dishonest, I really have no idea. I just don't think your theory makes any sense.

this post makes no sense b/c it utterly failed to check the facts cited.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Character assassination. Classy.

I basically repeated her own excuse for leaving rambling threatening phone messages, I don't think that qualifies as "character assassination".

 

[SilasCL]

I basically repeated her own excuse for leaving rambling threatening phone messages, I don't think that qualifies as "character assassination".

Are you saying she forgot about the hospital incident due to one night of drinking?

Or are you implying that she has a more consistent problem with alcohol or drugs that caused her to misremember?

The latter is what I inferred from your statement.

 

[stephens]

I don't think there is a chance in hell of conviction, and probably not even an inditement, if this all remains on the level of "I heard so and so say that they once heard so and so say such and such." That's just way too abstract.

So I can't believe anyone really cares what Stephanie or Betsy or Lemond or any of these people say or don't say in regards to this case. If they don't have photos or videos or bank account numbers or can show exactly where the bodies have been buried (so to speak), then no one is going to be convinced.

If there turns out to be no paper trail of actual failed drug tests that were covered up by bribery, or no testimony by credible human beings who put an actual needle into Armstrong's arm, and have proof of it (like Clemens' trainer's bloody cotton balls), then this whole thing goes away.

And even though the failure of the case may be terrible for the sport of cycling, if that's all the investigation comes up with, its dismissal would actually be a victory for the American concept of justice.

 

[flicker]

Are you saying she forgot about the hospital incident due to one night of drinking?

Or are you implying that she has a more consistent problem with alcohol or drugs that caused her to misremember?

The latter is what I inferred from your statement.

Another example of the derogatory sexisim exibited by the haters here. Please stop or I shall report you.

 

[TexPat]

Another example of the derogatory sexisim exibited by the haters here. Please stop or I shall report you.

How is that sexist?

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't think there is a chance in hell of conviction, and probably not even an inditement, if this all remains on the level of "I heard so and so say that they once heard so and so say such and such." That's just way too abstract.

So I can't believe anyone really cares what Stephanie or Betsy or Lemond or any of these people say or don't say in regards to this case. If they don't have photos or videos or bank account numbers or can show exactly where the bodies have been buried (so to speak), then no one is going to be convinced.

If there turns out to be no paper trail of actual failed drug tests that were covered up by bribery, or no testimony by credible human beings who put an actual needle into Armstrong's arm, and have proof of it (like Clemens' trainer's bloody cotton balls), then this whole thing goes away.

....

I know where his urine samples are buried? is that good enough? or do you think they will pass today's EPO tests?