Jack Dew's article contains one very important factual error. He says that the unedited videotapes were shown to the Grand Jury. They were not. And Capeless has never argued this, either before the Court or in any of his filings on the case. I suspect that this was a simple misunderstanding.
Capeless once again makes the fallacious argument that the tapes were not important because they were recorded two weeks after the start of the case.
Maggie Buck has demonstrated that early interviews are more reliable than later interviews. This is because repetitive suggestive questioning taints the child's testimony to agree with the interviewer's assumptions.
Capeless is trying to argue that the tainting occurs in the opposite direction than what has been demonstrated by Bruck and others. He is claiming that the result of repetitive suggestive questioning taints the testimony to be less in agreement with the interviewer's assumptions.
Capeless is not a stupid man. Thus a reasonable person would assume that he makes this argument only in a deliberate and unethical attempt to deceive.
Let us hope that the Appeals Court sees through the smoke and mirrors.
It must be nice to be David Capeless and to have no conscience. As a result, he probably sleeps like a baby every night.
-Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: bob@freebaran.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: Berkshire Eagle: Appeal set for Baran ruling
I thought you might find this article of interest.
Appeal set for Baran ruling - By Jack Dew, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Tuesday, January 22
PITTSFIELD — Bernard J. Baran, who has been free on bond since a Superior Court judge overturned his child molestation conviction in June 2006, will have another day in court next month when the Appeals Court will hear oral arguments on his case. View Full Story
No comments:
Post a Comment