[Am-info] Re: Add witness tampering to the list

[Erick Andrews]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:07:08 -0400, Felmon Davis wrote:

>On Wednesday 17 April 2002 11:31 am, T.Guilbert wrote:
>>[...]
>> You have a lot better chance of convincing people if you stick to
>> the bad things Microsoft actually has done -- there is plenty of
>> material available -- and do not try to allege that Gates is a
>> conflation of E. Howard Hunt and Dita Beard (use your Google search
>> engine if that went over your head) simply because somebody asked
>> Gates for a favor. Again, with a record like Gates has, you hardly
>> need to fabricate a bad rap.
>
>all of this is fair enough as far as Gates goes except for one thing: 
>it is alleged Gates said he'd talk to his people about the favor. are 
>you saying this doesn't ground suspicions?
>
>you are in a position to do me a favor in exchange for my doctoring 
>my testimony to a court; I say to you, "sure I'll testify on your 
>behalf. oh, by the way, can you do such-and-such for me?" 
>
>if you respond as Gates is alleged to have responded, is there odor?
>

IF, all this happened as alleged, which is still an IF, it would be more
than odor.

Problem may be:  where's the witness?, where's the audit trail?, where's
the veracity?  Slippery eel, methinks, despite you must know I think
it, too.  What will K-K do?  Dunno, but I do hope she's keeping tabs 
even on plausible anecdotes.  It's all treachery.

-- 
Erick