The continuing saga – Part 33
Reformatted for easier reading – errors in the ‘original’ have not been corrected.
Q Okay. My question to you is:
A Yeah.
Q In response to the question identify any and all communications between yourself and Richard Marchese and identify the date and time of the communications?
A All right.
Q You responded under both?
A Right.
Q That there were two phone calls received from Marchese?
A Yeah.
Q On March 27th, 2002?
A Right.
Q Were there -- so based on that answer, were there any -- there were no other communications telephonically?
A No. -- h goes on to say that there were phone calls made to pug boxing gym. There's much more than two. Two are the ones I remember the dates on because officer DelGadillo came in.
Q So wait a minute you're saying the answer to 9a is not correct?
A No, g -- hold on. I got answer g. The date and time of communication. 3/27, there were two phone calls received from Marchese. That's correct. Various online messages received on other dates via12 RM1259, correct and silicon private messaging, correct. That's right and h it says there are more phone calls made. There were more. I don't remember the date.
Q So you're telling me that the answer to the first one is not correct, that is there were more than two phone calls?
MR. RICHTER: Well, it says that. It says that right in the next paragraph, and, you know, I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish with the semantic argument.
23 MR. ARGENTAR: I want to know which is the truth and which is not.
MR. RICHTER: Well, I think they're both true. There's nothing in the statement in g that says these are the only communications.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MR. RICHTER: And h other communications are listed.
BY MR. ARGENTAR:
Q So it is not correct there were only two phone calls received from Marchese.
MR. RICHTER: Well, it doesn't say there are only two phone calls.
MR. ARGENTAR: Counsel, the question asked identify any and all communications. And the date and time of that communications and the response, the first one, 9k says two phone calls and instant messages and if there are more phone calls than that, then that is simply not a true answer. You can argue about.
MR. RICHTER: That's your interpretation now.
THE WITNESS: You're incorrect.
MR. RICHTER: This is written down. It's got -- you know it's written down, anyone can read it. It's perfectly clear that it's not an inclusive statement and then the next statement says there are more phone calls. You know, that -- this might not be the way you would answer the questions. It might not be the way I would answer the questions but it's abundantly clear right here that there were more than two phone calls. Is this a logical way to express that information, I don't know. But it's just wrong to say that there's some kind of lie here that there were only two phone calls when it says right here, phone calls made to pugs boxing and fitness center.
THE WITNESS: And the reason that date is there, 3/27 is because that's date that Marchese called me and told me to call back -- I told him the call was being traced and he didn't believe me and he's ---- he said he would call back and when he called back, officer DelGadillo was there so I had the police report number and that's why I know the date of the two calls received that date because Marchese called back when the officer was there and talked to the officer but there were other calls that I can't remember the dates on.
Q Okay. Let's talk about that?
A Shoo you are. |
