home

Will Tapes Help Gibbons?

By TChris, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:14:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As TalkLeft reported here, the Republican candidate in Nevada's gubernatorial race is under investigation for allegedly assaulting a casino waitress. Jim Gibbons claims that surveillance tapes will clear him (a friendly court ordered them released yesterday) but TPM Muckraker explains why the tapes might lack any evidentiary value. This comprehensive AP report discusses the political impact of the accusation.

< Texas Baptists Wonder Where the Money Went | Taking the Torture Question to the Street >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will Tapes Help Gibbons? | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    re (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 03:02:11 PM EST
      How does that explain why the tapes might lack evidentiary value? All it takes to authenticate a recording is testimony that it fairly and accurately represents the events it purports to portray.

       Obviously, if there are tapes of the altercation, either Gibbons or Mazzeo could provide such testimony. Other considerations such as clarity, completeness and the like would go to the weight not admissibility.

    will the tapes help? (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    No.

    If they show no Gibbons, then they're fakes or Gibbons is lying - he's already admitted he was in the garage with the woman.

    If they show Gibbons, there's no upside in it for him because it confirms he was there.

    They likely won't show the alleged assaultive acts - I recall them having taken place in an elevator.

    The only way they exonerate him is if they merely show two people standing in an elevator, but even then, the angle from which surveillance videos in elevators usually are shot means the view would be of the top of peoples' heads, not their faces.  So the video would be open to charges of fakery.

    Moreover, Gibbons has entirely new problems:  per Josh Marshall, the Wall Street Journal reports he's the recipient of extraordinarily large gifts and campaign contributions from a "friend", who also happens to be a government contractor and the beneficiary of "exceptional" favors and the occasional earmark....

    Titanic, meet iceberg.

    re (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 04:07:29 PM EST
      You're  confusing exculpatory value for Gibbons with evidentiary value.  Moreover, you fail to see obvious exculpatory value they could have depending on what is or isn't shown.

      You are also wildly presumptuous in assuming the tapes must be fakes or Gibbons lying if the tapes don't show them because it is obviously possible the tapes don't cover every portion of the garage at every moment.

      It doesn't take a genius to understand that if the tapes show anything remotely similar to how Gibbons portays the event they would be helpful to him. That wouldn't of course be conclusive evidence of his innocence but it would beyond question be helpful to his defense.

     There are countless other things the tapes could show that might be helpful to one party or the other.

      People who allow their all-consuming prejudices to destroy their ability to view things in a detached and objective manner make lousy analysts.

     

    tapes (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    First, the tapes didn't exist.

    Then, the cameras weren't working or something.

    Now, two weeks later, the tapes show up.

    Popping into existence like something straight out of quantum physics.  Or, in a comparison the wingnuts will understand, like the billing records of the Rose Law Firm showing up in the family quarters, under a pile of other stuff.

    The building is owned by a buddy of Gibbons, the police are run by another buddy, and Gibbons is tight with the judge.

    No one knows or can account for where these tapes have been for the last two weeks, and who's had them.

    And, as to my obvious prejudices, well.  Wingnuts:  How's it feel to meet unreasoning, unable-to-persuade opposition?  Especially when I'm right, you're wrong, and everyone knows it?

    Not too comfortable when that shoe's on your foot, huh?


    Parent

    We don't agree on much, but... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    This is the most awesome thing I've read all day:

    Wingnuts:  How's it feel to meet unreasoning, unable-to-persuade opposition?  Especially when I'm right, you're wrong, and everyone knows it?

    It'd make an interesting t-shirt.

    Parent

    t-shirt (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    I'd better file a copyright or trademark application tout suite*.  It'll be a big seller.

    -
    * Gratuitous French usage du jour.

    Parent

    Re (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 04:37:14 PM EST
      For God's sake, listen to yourself. If the tapes show either Gibbons of the woman or both of them and they both say they were there then how on Earth do you spin a conspiracy theory that the tapes are fabricated out of that?

      Experience reveals to the rational that the simple explanation that the simple explanation is most often the right one rather than the wild complex tale of intrigue. How about the OBVIOUS possibility that on the night of the incident the garage attendant told a cop he didn't have access to the tapes and when that information gor relayed a couple of times to whomever drafted the report it got misquoted as no tape exists and then because the victim said she didn't want to pursue it at first no one bothered to double check. then when she changed her mind they did inquire and received the tapes.

      That is obviously far less sexy than secret tech labs deep in a desert bunker where evil GOP operatives fabricate tapes so brilliantly no one can examine them and determine they are fakes but it has the advantage of not sounding loony.

      Since the tapes are only helpful to Gibbons if they show something,  there is no gain for Gibbons if the tapes don't  show at least one of the principals. Fake tapes that show neither of them help neither of them. Only a crazy person (with crazy accomplices )would fake tapes showing nothing as the risk is obviously far outweighed by the reward.  

    No one, not even you, should buy the fantasy that these tapes are fake based on nothing but your passionate hatred for all things GOP.

      It's people like you who give the Left a bad name and make it easy for the Right to paint with the broad nutcase brush.
     

    It's people like you who give the Left a bad name (none / 0) (#8)
    by aw on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    Sez you

    more on tapes (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    It appears responsible journalists agree with my analysis of yesterday, and the facts (such as are known) tend to, as well.
    re (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 02:42:06 PM EST
      I care very little about whether journalists ("responsible" or not) citing not merely unnamed but uncategorized experts support a flawed analysis as to whether the tapes can be authenticated and what value they might have assuming this case ever gets anywhere near a courtroom.

      The chain of custody issue is a red herring and the period that the tapes were not in police custody does not prevent them from being authenticated.  As you might know, and should help non-lawyers understand, if I were to come forward today with a video of an incident which occurred last year and provide it to either the police, prosecution or defense in a criminal case the fact that it was in my possiession for a long period of time would not make it inadmissible.

      As to the content of the tapes NO ONE can make  anything more than hypothetical surmises until we know what is actually on the tapes. As I said, the tapes will only be   persuasivve evidence helping Gibbons if they portray something close to his story. If they merely are tapes in which neither he nor Mazzeo appear, they will be of no help outside the highly unlikely event that it can be established the tapes captured every inch of the entire area during the entire time.

       However, if they were, for instance,  to show just Mazzeo during or shortly after the period in question and she did not appear to be in distress that would be helpful to Gibbons. On the other hand, if they were to show Gibbons and her together (and especially if  he appeared intoxicated and/or too aggressively "friendly")it would help Mazzeo.

       My point was it is ludicrous to claim  the tapes have no "evidentiary value" without knowing what is on them and that is simply wrong to suggest they are inadmissible because they were not immediately taken into evidence by the police.

      I'm pretty sure that you already knew all of that though, but I just was helping you out by making sure you did not unintentionally mislead those who don't practice law.

      I was also, of course, making fun of you for the whole fake tape ploy but I doubt that was necessary as it takes no specialized knowledge to recognize that for what it is.

    Parent

    Will Tapes Help Gibbons? | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment