Tuesday, January 10, 2006


The Gennifer (not Jennifer) decision

Jennifer was, according to Linda Tripp, George H.W. Bush's bimbo. Gennifer was Clinton's. In my eyes a hard, difficult-to-like woman with a tale that changed to suit convenience, she has lost what will almost certainly be her last case against the Clintons. According to Louise Chu of the AP (on AOL) On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a Nevada district court ruling that the claim against Hillary Clinton was barred by the state's four-year statute of limitations. Flowers also was unable to prove that Carville and Stephanopoulos intentionally or recklessly made false statements [in claiming she had doctored the tape of Clinton], the three-judge panel ruled in affirming U.S. District Judge Philip Pro's ruling. I'd be interested in knowing what the Court's opinion on the veracity of the tape. My feeling is that she is too calculating not to have tried to cheat, as she did in other exaggerations about her relationship with Clinton.
Well... according to Steve Cain, president of Applied Forensic Technologies International (and according to a Google search an expert witness on the authenticity of tape recordings in a number of trials), "Modern day technology was apparently used in the electronic editing performed on the disputed Gennifer Flowers/Gov. Bill Clinton tape recordings. The Cable News Network (CNN) asked that I provide an expert opinion on Mr. Clinton's voice and also asked that I examine the tape submitted by the STAR News Magazine for any evidence of possible tampering. The later examination disclosed a number of suspicious acoustic events (anomalies) including: a total loss of signal (dropouts); a change in the speakers' frequency response during different telephone conversations; and "spikes" (audible sounds of short duration which are often attributable to normal stop/start and pause functions of the recorder)." In other words, evidence that Gennifer's tape was edited.
This is very interesting, and I am so glad you posted it. The question then becomes why the Court did not dismiss with prejudice. That should be automatic in a case where there is a reasonable suspicion the plaintiff has submitted falsified evidence.
Yeah. When Scholastic was able to prove that Nancy Stouffer forged her "evidence" that J.K. Rowling had allegedly plagiarized the Harry Potter books from Stouffer's own writings, the judge in the case not only dismissed it, he made Stouffer pay a hefty fine plus all court costs. But of course, anyone doing the same to Gennie-poo would immediately be attacked as a "Clinton dupe" or worse. (Not that the judge won't be attacked, anyway.) It's nice to be able to show that if anything, the judge, while rendering a judgement in favor of Bill Clinton, bent over backwards to be gentle to Flowers.
Maybe the defendants got somebody as inept as Bob Bennett to represent them, and their attorney didn't present the evidence to the court. (IMNHO, Clinton hiring Bob Bennett as his attorney was as big a mistake as appointing Louis Freeh.)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder