Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 8th, 2011 #1961
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
Hadding wrote:

"So far as I can tell the FBI in this case just did their job..."

So you think destroying critical evidence is "just doing their job"? You think committing misprission of a felony when they claimed to have the evidence in hand is "just doing their job"? What kind of standards do you hold the FBI to?
Do you assume the FBI is not capable of criminal behavior in their zeal to "make a case"?
If there is an issue of how the evidence was handled then the lawyers need to capitalize on it.

I believe that this would also have been something for George Papcun to discuss but there is no indication that he had any observation like that.
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1962
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
That is the time-honored rule of law in the good ole' USA - innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Maybe you and Hadding, and any of the other "ED-is-guilty" types don't allow yourselves to have any doutbs, but you are being disingenious to disallow ordinary folks with no axe to grind to have reasonable doubts. Ed may be guilty, or he may not be - I am not able to determine that, which means that he should have been judged "not guilty" due to the reasonable doubts that must exist from the FBI's on sloppy behavior.
If the FBI mishandled evidence, that needs to be demonstrated in the courtroom. I am not going to take Contumacyman's word for it, no matter how many times he says it over and over and over.

At least find a forensic audio expert who says that the evidence was mishandled. So far as I know Papcun did not say it.

Last edited by Hadding; July 8th, 2011 at 04:18 PM.
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1963
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Diversionary Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
If the FBI mishandled evidence, that needs to be demonstrated in the courtroom. I am not going to take Contumacyman's word for it, no matter how many times he says it over and over and over.

At least find a forensic audio expert who says that the evidence was mishandled. So far as I know Papcun did not say it.
There has been nothing in the Judenpresse or www.free-edgar-steele.com about mishandling of evidence.
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1964
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

Cindy has appeared on several internet radio shows along with Wes Hoyt, and, the New York audio expert also appeared on one of them (I believe it was the American Freedom hour with Pat Shannon). Cindy revealed that the FBI agent testified on the stand that he "erased" the original. If you don't consider this "mishandling", then you are beyond reasoning with. The New York policeman stated that they first sent him a "device" (recorder) that was broken, and, when he inquired, they sent him another one. He stated that they were not able to identify the exact recorder used. If you don't consider this "mishandling" evidence, then you are beyond reasoning with. Dr. Papcin complained on the stand that he only had a "very poor quality copy" to work with. If you have a problem with this complaint, take it up with Dr Papcin. The facts that have been broadcasted over internet radio (in lieu of the very expensive transcripts) show that a) the FBI destroyed the original minidisk, and b) the FBI failed to properly identify the exact recording device, and c), the only "evidence" surrendered to the defense was of "very poor quality", as per the defense experts. I am not making any of this up - listen to the archives of Cindy's (and others) internet radio shows (and a couple of videos), and, if you still doubt these as facts, then you need to purchase a copy of the transcripts and share it with the rest of us. Until then, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the word of the defense on these facts, as broadcasted over the internet, and, so far, not disputed by anyone antagonistic to Ed's case.
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1965
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
Dr. Papcin complained on the stand that he only had a "very poor quality copy" to work with. If you have a problem with this complaint, take it up with Dr Papcin.
I can see how careful you are by the fact that you consistently misspell Papcun's name.

This is how the Spokesman represents what Papcun said:

Quote:
Papcun, whose was long employed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and whose resume shows work on the Jon Benet Ramsey trial, work on recordings for Paula Abdul and work for the Associated Press on the O.J. Simpson trial, said he spent less than a day examining the recordings, which he termed “of poor quality.”
He said that the recordings themselves were of poor quality, not that he had poor-quality copies. That is a very different claim. From the other details reported in the Spokesman it seems that what Papcun meant was that there was a lot of extraneous noise.

Last edited by Hadding; July 8th, 2011 at 09:03 PM.
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1966
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default What Would Be Expected

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I can see how careful you are by the fact that you consistently misspell Papcun's name.

This is how the Spokesman represents what Papcun said:

Quote:
He said that the recordings themselves were of poor quality, not that he had poor-quality copies. That is a very different claim. From the other details reported in the Spokesman it seems that what Papcun meant was that there was a lot of extraneous noise.
This is exactly what you expect from a hidden recorder which is worn under rustling clothes which wreck the high frequency response.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 8th, 2011 at 09:29 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1967
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Steele Suspended from Law Practice in Washington

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-federal-post/

01 June 30, 2011 in City

State suspends Steele’s law license

Idaho attorney Edgar Steele won’t be representing any Washington clients from his jail cell. The Washington Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended Steele from practicing in the state pending disciplinary proceedings that could result in disbarment. Steele, of Sagle, Idaho, faces at least 30 years in a federal prison for his May 5 conviction on four charges related to his attempt to have another man kill his wife and mother-in-law. He is in federal custody, awaiting sentencing in August. Prior to the case, Steele was best known for his unsuccessful defense of Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler. John Craig

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 8th, 2011 at 09:41 PM. Reason: added date
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1968
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

He had a copy, NOT the original. He complained about what he had as being poor quality. Are you suggesting he *thought* he had the original? Having a recording that is of "poor quality" that is also a copy is "a poor quality copy" - DUH!
 
Old July 8th, 2011 #1969
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
He had a copy, NOT the original. He complained about what he had as being poor quality. Are you suggesting he *thought* he had the original? Having a recording that is of "poor quality" that is also a copy is "a poor quality copy" - DUH!
He did not say what you said, that he had a "very poor quality copy."

If the original recording is of poor quality and you have a perfect copy of that, it is a perfect copy of a poor-quality recording, and not a "very poor quality copy."

You are reckless and dishonest.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1970
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

BUt why would you think the original was of poor quality? Speculation? We will NEVER know whether or not the original was of good, or poor, quality, now will we? And why is that? Who was responsible for preserving the original minidisk? "Just doing their job", eh?

All we know from Papcun's statement is that the copy he was given was of poor quality - nothing more. The FBI made sure we will never know any more than that!

I'm tired of you and Pauly refusing to own up to the FBI's deliberate erasing of the original minidisk, and not preserving the original recorder. You may think it is not important, and that judge apparantly decided to go along with whatever PC-based sound file the FBI chose to toss into the courtroom along with whatever yarn they spun as to how it got there, but, the fact is that the best evidence was destroyed and not preserved and nothing can change that. Without the original minidisk and recorder, THERE IS NO CASE, except the judge went along with it. So much for the rules of evidence.

Instead of trying to downplay this destruction of evidence, try to come up with ONE GOOD REASON that would COMPEL the FBI to erase the original minidisk and not preserve the original recorder - do that, and you might have something worthwhile to add to this tread. I'm getting tired of posting to made up minds that refused to face irrefutable facts.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1971
Ilse Fredriksen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 44
Ilse Fredriksen
Default

Honestly, who cares what Hadding believes? He's a two-issue guy on here and other websites:

1.) Harold Covington

2.) Ed Steele being guilty for the crime
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1972
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Not-guilty by Insanity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilse Fredriksen View Post
Honestly, who cares what Hadding believes? He's a two-issue guy on here and other websites:

1.) Harold Covington

2.) Ed Steele being guilty for the crime
Someone with 16 posts like you have is unlikely to have read and studied the 99 pages of this thread. Perhaps you can do so and post something for us worth reading.

No one here with the exception of scum bag lawyer Mona Montgomery has ever claimed that Steele is guilty in a traditional sense. It is clear that he was insane after his arrest and likely so before his arrest. This makes him not-guilty in a legal sense. There is no shame here because this is to be expected after his aorta surgery. This does not even consider the effects of drugs that he was taking after surgery and before the arrest by his own admission.

As far as Covington is concerned we are blessed that we don't have to put up with him here. His reputation precedes him.

This argument over the original recording is silly. We don't know whether the media is removable or the model of the recorder. Steele was plenty crazy to have done a lot worse than the government accused him of. The supposed audio expert made the defense into a laughing stock by taking off on a vacation in Tahiti during the trial.

Steele's now disbarred lawyer conducted a defense that would have shamed a first year law student. He also plundered $120,000 of supporter's money. Steele has admitted that he made a mistake not to testify. He was therefore crazy either then or now. It is time to start talking about this elephant in the living room.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1973
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

Pauly wrote:

"This argument over the original recording is silly..."


Nonesense. We know that the FBI testified the he erased the original minidisk after, he claimed, he copied it onto his PC. That original minidisk, along with the stealthy recorder, could have provided the audio experts an opportunity to determine, maybe for certain, whether or not that minidisk was created by that recorder in one setting without any stops or gaps. That right there makes or breaks this case. To say preserving these two items is "silly" sounds like you just don't like to have to admit to something so fundatmentally wrong with the FBI's handling of this case.


A likely scenario in today's corrupt FBI: (an agent and his superisor):

Agent: OK, sir, I got him cold on this here sound file right here on my PC - we got him for sure, now.

Supervisor: Where is the recorder and original minidisk?

Agent: I returned the recorder to the pool and erased the minidisk - it's ok, though, because it is a digital file.

Supervisor: Sounds good to me - let's go get'em.


This is fiction, of course, but, I wonder just what went on in that office around the time that the agent "erased" the minidisk. I just can't imagine any possible excuse for having erased that minidisk, unless, it did not have any incriminating verbage on it.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1974
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Recorder Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
Pauly wrote:

"This argument over the original recording is silly..."


Nonesense. We know that the FBI testified the he erased the original minidisk after, he claimed, he copied it onto his PC. That original minidisk, along with the stealthy recorder, could have provided the audio experts an opportunity to determine, maybe for certain, whether or not that minidisk was created by that recorder in one setting without any stops or gaps. That right there makes or breaks this case. To say preserving these two items is "silly" sounds like you just don't like to have to admit to something so fundatmentally wrong with the FBI's handling of this case.


A likely scenario in today's corrupt FBI: (an agent and his superisor):

Agent: OK, sir, I got him cold on this here sound file right here on my PC - we got him for sure, now.

Supervisor: Where is the recorder and original minidisk?

Agent: I returned the recorder to the pool and erased the minidisk - it's ok, though, because it is a digital file.

Supervisor: Sounds good to me - let's go get'em.


This is fiction, of course, but, I wonder just what went on in that office around the time that the agent "erased" the minidisk. I just can't imagine any possible excuse for having erased that minidisk, unless, it did not have any incriminating verbage on it.
Pray tell us the diameter of the disk if there was one, its capacity in Gigabytes, its data rate and the make and model of the recorder. The Tooth Fairy may have done this whole mess. That theory is just as good with the amount of data that you have.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1975
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

Are you still doubting whether or not the FBI erased the original minidisk? If so, I can't help you - go listen to the archives of the shows with Cindy, Wes, and others about this case and you'll here it reported that that infamous FBI agent (I forgot his name) testified in court under oath on the stand that he "erased the original minidisk".

That is all that was reported - so, all that other information you went fishing for would only be available were the FBI was willing to provide it - what do you think are the odds, huh?

Why don't you just admit it - you really don't care whether or not the FBi destroyed the evidence and you are willing to *believe*, on BLIND FAITH IN THE FBI, that the sound file they dragged into the court is the genuine bonefide irrefutable words that went between Ed and Larry - the gospel truth (solely because your precious FBI says so). Naturally, then, you would grab at wild straws when someone brings up the issue of the original minidisk and the report by the FBI that they erased it - that has to be embarrasing to anyone so gullibly infatuated with the FBI.
 
Old July 9th, 2011 #1976
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Blind Faith in the Famous But Incompetent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
Are you still doubting whether or not the FBI erased the original minidisk? If so, I can't help you - go listen to the archives of the shows with Cindy, Wes, and others about this case and you'll here it reported that that infamous FBI agent (I forgot his name) testified in court under oath on the stand that he "erased the original minidisk".

That is all that was reported - so, all that other information you went fishing for would only be available were the FBI was willing to provide it - what do you think are the odds, huh?

Why don't you just admit it - you really don't care whether or not the FBi destroyed the evidence and you are willing to *believe*, on BLIND FAITH IN THE FBI, that the sound file they dragged into the court is the genuine bonefide irrefutable words that went between Ed and Larry - the gospel truth (solely because your precious FBI says so). Naturally, then, you would grab at wild straws when someone brings up the issue of the original minidisk and the report by the FBI that they erased it - that has to be embarrasing to anyone so gullibly infatuated with the FBI.
I have no blind faith in the FBI. They are also riddled with lawyers and Jews and are therefore corrupt. They can and do frame and entrap people daily. They also hunt down bank robbers like Robert Mathew and David Lane. They hunt down and prosecute Sand Negro terrorists. The latter two examples are them doing their job.

You are not using your head. They likely have a standard recorder that is issued to agents by the thousands. There was something in the testimony that the recorder could only be stopped or started by the agent and not the informant who was wearing it.

It is nearly certain that this is a solid state memory with no removable media. Moving media makes noise especially when changing tracks. This could be a giveaway if the informant was snuggled up to the suspect. Old fashioned tape decks make sounds when the tape is moving. A digital recorder would have its recording transferred to a permanent storage and would then immediately be reused.

It is undisputed that Steele was crazy enough to write steamy love letters to his Ukrainian girlfriend while locked up in jail on charges of trying to have his wife killed. Anybody that crazy is capable of far more violence than trying to get a hitman to kill his wife. The FBI is supposed to intervene in a case like this.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 9th, 2011 at 10:40 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old July 10th, 2011 #1977
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Contumacyman
Default

Pauly wrote: "It is nearly certain that this is a solid state memory with no removable media..."

So you just disregard the sworn testamony of the FBI agent when he said he "erased the original minidisk"?
Why don't you get off the "solid-state-memory" kick and go read the record (or listen to the archives) and learn for yourself what the FBI themselves said - it was a "minidisk", not a solid state memory chip.
 
Old July 10th, 2011 #1978
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Supposed Mini-Disk

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contumacyman View Post
Pauly wrote: "It is nearly certain that this is a solid state memory with no removable media..."

So you just disregard the sworn testamony of the FBI agent when he said he "erased the original minidisk"?
Why don't you get off the "solid-state-memory" kick and go read the record (or listen to the archives) and learn for yourself what the FBI themselves said - it was a "minidisk", not a solid state memory chip.
Searching this thread for "erase" produces 17 hits none of which seem to be on the subject of the supposed mini-disk. Can you enlighten us a bit more with some better evidence? We need something from the horse's mouth.
 
Old July 10th, 2011 #1979
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Old Cyndi Interview

http://www.americanfreepress.net/pod...iSteele128.mp3

This interview on 13 January, 2011 of Cyndi by American Free Press was posted previously but I couldn't get it to download at the time. It is an hour and 21 minutes long and contains some important things that I missed.

Steele was commander of a South Pacific Coast Guard Loran Station during the Viet Nam era. He reached the rank of Lieutenant which is the equivalent of Captain (O-3) in the Army/Airforce/Marine Corps. This is good rank for a four year term so Steele had to have had something on the ball then.

Steele was a CPA before becoming a lawyer. Cyndi met him in his first job in a California law firm. He went into private practice soon afterward. Steele's mother died before Cyndi met him.

After representing Pastor Butler at the Aryan Nations trial, Steele's familiy began to get death threats. One of the calls referred to Cyndi as a Kike which doesn't make sense. Cyndi packed the children and left for a time as a result of threats. Kelsey would have been about 10 years old at the time and Rex would have been about 13. All telephone threats came from a phone at the office of the ADL according to police. No action was taken by the police on the threats. It seems to me that Steele was at fault for allowing the callers to go unpunished. He had recordings of the threats.

Steele made the top 40 of the SPLC hate list in October 2002. I am proud to brag that my name is also on the Poverty Pimp's hate list.

When Steele had his aorta blow in November of 2009 he was flown by helicopter from Sandpoint to Coeur d' Alene for surgery. From March to May three other procedures were performed including one for an aneurysm behind his nose which required titanium clips. These procedures may have contributed to further brain damage.

The Famous But Incompetent told several lies to Cyndi when they met her at mother's house in Oregon City. Her husband was being simultanously arrested in Idaho. When Cyndi discovered the pipe bomb on her car at the oil change place, her son Rex also showed up in his car. The cops confiscated both of their vehicles and had to give her a ride to Steele's hearing later in the day.

Russian bride scam investigation supposedly started before aneurysm. Cyndi did not discuss Steele's use of internet dating websites that she had complained about in her divorce petition of 2000.

Fairfax started working for them in 1998/99. He fed horses after Steele's hospitalization. Cyndi had to be in Oregon to take care of her mother who was suffering from cancer. Steele found Fairfax from a local work wanted ad. Steele called Cyndi and reported that their master bedroom had been disturbed by Fairfax who was not supposed to be inside the ranch house. The incident with him selling the new tires off their truck was two weeks before arrest.

The $45,000 silver was supposedly at $18 per ounce. Fairfax was $680,000 in debt in his bankruptcy filing. The recording contained 7-12 minutes of driving to ranch, water noises, horse details, and sounded authentic up to the incriminating point. Then supposedly the quality suddenly deteroriates.

Cyndi mentions the Arizona shooting of the Jewish Princess Gabrielle Giffords in connection with a proposed gun grab from the government. The public defender Pevin was advised about the Jew James Maher going along with his cousin Fairfax on the trip to Oregon but showed no interest. Tracy Wheelan laughed at recording which implicated the Jew in trip. Their daughter Kelsey is depressed over the arrest.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 11th, 2011 at 07:48 PM. Reason: typos
 
Old July 13th, 2011 #1980
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Ed's latest: Sex, Lies & Audiotape (Part I)

Dear ConspiracyPenPal subscribers:

The last email sent to you had an incorrect "Subject:" line:

"Attorney Wesley Hoyt affirmed as Mr. Steele's representation, Edgar releases Installment #2: The Tao of ED"

The subject should have been:

"Edgar releases Installment #3: Sex, Lies and Audiotape Part 1" However, the content of the message was correct.


Sex, Lies & Audiotape (Part I)
by Edgar J. Steele


The jury never heard even a hint about the single most important piece of evidence in the Government’s case in my defense at trial: proof that the government’s evidence, the two recordings, were phony. Without those recordings, the government’s case against me literally disappeared.


What’s that? You say that there must be something wrong? That I am failing to tell you everything? Nope. Ask anybody who was at that pre-trial hearing that took longer than my entire defense at trial. Judge Winmill ruled that I could not present any evidence disputing the authenticity of the audiotapes.


Why?
Why? For two reasons, said the judge – one for each of the two forensic audiology experts we flew in from New York and New Mexico, respectively, for the hearing and the trial.

Not Qualified?!?
The first expert, Dennis Walsh, with over 20 years experience in handling and analyzing audio recordings for the New York City Police Department, who owns a company that does nothing but analyze recordings, was declared “not qualified” to render an opinion. Not qualified? Excuse me? Walsh was doing this before it was science! In a moment, I will give you Walsh’s conclusions; then you will see why the court and the government had to prevent his testimony at any cost.


Irrelevant?!?
My second expert, Dr. George Papcun (pronounced “Pap’-sun”), could not possibly be deemed unqualified, given the fact that he is the world’s leading expert in forensic audiology. Papcun literally invented the discipline’s terms and wrote the book “that others throughout the world rely upon.” Papcun couldn’t testify, said the judge, because he was irrelevant, because nobody had put the authenticity of the tapes into question. Yes, you heard that correctly, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds. And the judge said it right out loud, with a straight face. Why wasn’t the listing of Walsh and Papcun as experts with the court (and filing their written opinions that the recordings were false) enough to put the authenticity of the recordings “into question?” Why didn’t my husband-wife-privileged jailhouse call, in which I averred the “tapes” had to be false, enough to trigger the authenticity issue? For that matter, why wasn’t my “not guilty” plea enough? Why wasn’t my expert’s testimony for 1-½ days in a pretrial hearing “enough?” Incidentally the judge ruled that I had waived that privilege, so that the call became the source of yet another federal charge calling for 20 years in prison.


Then the judge said he might change his mind if a “party to the recordings” testified during the upcoming trial (now just 3 days away) that something had been deleted or added to them. B-b-but, Judge – that leaves only Larry Fairfax, the Idahun Hit Man, since I wasn’t really a “party” to them. So, Judge, you are saying that, if I waive my Constitutional right not to take the stand, I might somehow be able to dispute the recordings’ authenticity? Really? Of course, you know that a defendant always testifies last, if at all? You are forcing me to choose between my constitutional rights and a key witness? The key witness? I felt as though I had “gone through the looking glass” and now was subject to the tyranny of the Red Queen.


I don’t know if Judge Winmill knew that Dr. Papcun long ago had prepaid $48,000 (non-refundable) for his and his wife’s dream vacation of a lifetime to Tahiti, scheduled to depart just two days later. Dr. Papcun had offered to stay for the trial despite that vacation (that could not be rescheduled), if the judge ruled that he could testify and if we could put him on the stand early, out of order and ahead of the state’s case against me. But the judge said Papcun couldn’t testify, so off he flew to Tahiti.


When Yes Means No
I honestly don’t know if the judge knew Dr. Papcun’s vacation before the trial, but he sure knew about it during the second week of trial when he inexplicably reversed himself, saying Papcun (but not Walsh, of course) could testify at trial, provided he was in the courtroom at 8:30 am, two days later. The US Attorney knew about Papcun’s vacation in advance, because she was secretly requiring the jail to provide her recordings of all my calls from jail, even those made to lawyers, during which I discussed Papcun at length. Now it was too late to subpoena Papcun, but we could get him back on the next commercial flight if we hurried. He agreed to come back, but asked if there was any other way. We thought there was another way.


Yes, I know I promised to quote for you both experts’ written opinions, but a couple more incredible twists to the Papcun saga yet remain to be told. My lawyer informed the judge that Dr. Papcun was on the other side of the world and, though there just barely was enough time to get him back to Boise by commercial jet by the Judge’s deadline and though he was willing to come, could we simply have him testify by videophone satellite uplink, over the internet? “Yes,” said the judge. However, the very next morning and with only 24 hours to go, the judge acceded to the US Attorney’s renewed demand that Papcun testify only in person. Why? So that she could “more effectively cross-examine” Dr. Papcun! Keep in mind that this selfsame US Attorney had cross-examined both Dr. Papcun and Mr. Walsh in person and on the same witness stand, just 3 days before trial, for 1-½ days!


This is the same judge who ruled that I had no constitutional right to confront witnesses against me at trial, allowing the videotaped deposition of Tatiyana Loganova to be played for the jury.

The smell arising from this sordid little interlude just gets stronger, doesn’t it? Well, hold on, because it gets worse.

The Stench of Real Injustice

With less than 24 hours to go, the only way we now could get Papcun to Boise by 8:30 am the next morning would be by charter jet. We found one, incredibly enough, located in a place where it actually could make it to Tahiti, pick up Dr. Papcun and fly him to Boise just prior to the Judge’s deadline… for $180,000! Cash in advance, of course.

My friends sucked it up and calculated that, together, they could just barely pull together $180,000 that same morning. When they called the jet charter company back, however, less than one hour after getting the all-clear signal from it, the tension on the phone line was palpable. No, they didn’t want to rent us the jet, after all. No, they had no idea who could or would, on such short notice. “Have a nice day.” <click> With that, my hopes for an acquittal disappeared.


We couldn’t challenge the recordings, so the jury concluded they were real, of course. The only thing my lawyer was allowed to say during closing argument was that there was a “problem with the recordings,” and that only because my wife and daughter had sworn on the stand they were phony and that it didn’t even sound like me in many places. Despite the fact that my wife and daughter literally are the world’s leading experts on how I sound and, though their testimony went unrefuted, the government convinced the jury that I really had said all those terrible things.


Audiotape
Now, let’s see what Dr. Papcun said in his pretrial written report:

“Both recordings contain numerous electronic signatures… such as would be caused by dubbing… and/or editing…”


“Both recordings contain gaps…”


“Both recordings are of poor quality… with the recording volume at a very low level, which would conceal irregularities and defects in the recordings.”


“There are discrepancies in the relative volumes of the speakers.”

On one of the tapes, “there appears an extraneous voice.”


“… I conclude, within a reasonable degree of scientific probability that the recordings… are unreliable.”


“With commonly available methods, it is possible to remove material, insert material and alter the meaning of conversations.”


Dr. Papcun also said that “electronic transients may be caused by various events such as the following: turning equipment on and off, changing components, connecting or disconnecting components, microphone malfunctions, other equipment malfunctions (and/or) attempts at splicing or otherwise editing or modifying recordings.” Every single one of the foregoing “events” was ruled out by uncontroverted evidence presented by the government, all except the last item, that is: “attempts at splicing or otherwise editing or modifying recordings.”


Remember my other expert, Dennis Walsh? He adopted all of Dr. Papcun’s conclusions and went even further. Walsh’s written opinion also said:


“I conclude, with a reasonable degree of scientific probability that the recordings contain different speakers purported to be that of Edgar Steele.” (emphasis added)


In direct testimony on the witness stand during the 1-½ day pretrial hearing on audiology experts, Mr. Walsh went still further and stated his certainty that the tapes had been “manufactured” and were wholly unreliable.

Next: Here Come de Fix

Last edited by -JC; July 13th, 2011 at 03:57 AM.
 
Reply

Tags
edgar steele

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.
Page generated in 0.22291 seconds.