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

[Erick Andrews]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:58:12 -0400, John J. Urbaniak wrote:

>
>
>"T.Guilbert" wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 2002 April 18 (Thursday), timestamp 07:07 PM,
>>    on the topic Re: [Am-info] Re: Add witness tampering to the list,
>>    Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu> wrote:
>>
>> "| 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?
>>
>> There's the smell of smoke, all right.  There _may_ be fire; but (with
>> apologies to S. Freud):  "Sometimes the smoke is only a cigar."  I
>> tend to think that if there was any evidence that Microsoft had
>> performed the requested favor, the examining lawyer (who got
>> Microsoft's witness to admit the telephone exchange, and could have
>> done so only if he knew about it in advance and so knew what questions
>> to ask) would have been all over the witness like a bad suit.
>
>No.  It's worse this way.  Gates promised to "talk to his people..."  This
>keeps the witness on a string - he will have to testify favorably in order
>to get his request.  He knows that Gates is watching what he says very
>carefully and will probably reward him for "doing well" or punish him for
>"doing badly."
>
>Once the guy requested the favor, he should have been immediately
>disqualified as a witness.  Yet Gates called him anyway.  This is very
>bad.
>
>John
>

My main hesitation was because I wasn't there and didn't know
how accurate the article was.  It now seems it's been published
by more than one source, and if that really is the long and the
short of it, I'd agree that the "witness" has been compromised.

-- 
Erick Andrews