Smiling Faces Sometimes

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

On the Defense Witnesses: A Discussion

There are numerous issues left hanging in the wind in reference to the list of people that have testified for the Paul Bergrin defense in this trial. We can only imagine the level of abuse each witness has dealt with from agents, prosecutors, and their minions for having the nerve to stand-up and offer the information each has in defense of an innocent man suffering a false prosecution. Do not take it lightly - that would be a serious mistake.

I know little or nothing about most of the defense witnesses. No newspapers have covered this trial thoroughly and the one that has covered it lightly has an obvious bias in favor of prosecutors. One thing I learned many years ago is that a direct quote is believable and anything else stated is questionable and may be altered entirely by an editor. Example:

Gallas said, "Blah blah blah and blah." = believe that this person actually stated this in the exact words.

Gallas said blah blah blah and blah. = DO NOT believe it. The person could have stated absolutely anything and the words may, or may not, have been changed by the editor.

The Orlando Sentinel taught me this in reference to my own trial. When I called the reporter to state my objections to how I was portrayed and what the article claimed I stated, he went into defense mode and informed me that since quotations were not used, I couldn't file a law suit. Well hell, I didn't want to file a damn lawsuit - I just didn't understand how they could omit facts that were truly important and then claim I stated something that I never said. The above example is how this is accomplished legally.

Let's take a look at the one article published yesterday by a NJ newspaper concerning the testimony of Lemont Love and the telephone call recording that prosecutors played for the court. First the article and then a quote from the article:

On the recording, Love told someone he called “little brother” that he had information that could “bury” Bergrin but he wasn’t going to reveal it because “I ain’t never been no [expletive] snitch.”

Do you see how deceiving that quote can be? The only thing that we know is that Love stated the word "bury" and was talking to someone he refers to as "little brother" and he's not a snitch. It is more than possible that he stated the government wanted to bury Paul Bergrin to little brother on the other end, but a read of the entire article leaves the impression that Love had some sort of plot in mind when the conversation took place. The next paragraph accomplishes this mission when in reality it quotes AUSA John Gay in its entirety.

The reader has been deceived and doesn't even realize it. The impression is different than the reality of what Lemont Love actually stated in this long ago telephone conversation.

Now take a look at Lemont Love's statement to the attorney and investigator that visited him in prison back in July of 2012:

I was told that in person Lemont Love is personable, soft-spoken, articulate and comes across as completely honest. He was doing good in life until his brother died and then he went off the deep end. He has always been a straight "A" student and is a truly good human being that made mistakes after a serious disaster in his life. He was close to his brother. He has literally risked his life to testify truthfully in this trial. The jury must weigh his testimony with all other testimony that they've heard.

No doubt that the feds have seriously scared this man. Anyone that dares to expose their true statements and clear intent of false prosecution in this case would be despised by the lot of them. Mr. Love is only one of many witnesses that the defense has called and I will discuss the others in a late-night post.

I feel that it is important for the general public reading news about this trial to understand how mainstream news will plant an idea regardless of the truth and reality. This is the reason that I post all documents available to me on this blog.


Anonymous said...

A bit speculative, don't you think, vicky?

Vicky Gallas said...

What do you call speculative? My personal experience with the Orlando Sentinel and my knowledge of how editors use quotes or lack of quotes? My statement about the government treatment of defense witnesses? What specifically is speculation to you???

No, I do not think anything in the post is speculative.

Vicky Gallas said...

I will go ahead and add that it was the Sentinel reporter that informed me that it was not in his control how the article was published. The editor edited it to present the viewpoint that she wanted for the newspaper. Both days of Sentinel stories on my trial were a misrepresentation of the facts and what actually happened in the courtroom. The parts that attributed specific statements to me, but without quotation marks, were outright lies and I had a witness to that fact: my attorney. The reporter approached us as we sat on a bench in the hallway talking.

The same way that the Sentinel has always had a clear bias in favor of the MBI and never published anything negative about the agency, the newspaper we are discussing in reference to the Bergrin trial, has a clear bias in favor of the government and never prints anything negative about its prosecutors, no matter what outrageous crap they do.

True investigative journalism is the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater long ago. At least this blog is clear as to the direction it takes - just read the blog title. Newspapers pretend to be presenting an impartial viewpoint of events as they actually happened, but really it's all BS. Anyone that has attended the Bergrin trials could tell you that much.