Did Dover defendants lie?
Electric stun belt for "hostile witnesses"?
====================================================
The "Judgment Day" TV program prompted me to revisit some of the issues in the Dover case. I decided to look more closely at the charge that defendants William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell lied about where they got the money to buy the copies of "Of Pandas and People" for the school library. Here is some of the court testimony (plaintiffs' attorney Steven Harvey questioning William Buckingham):
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Buckingham, I asked you specifically who donated the money, and you didn't tell me at your deposition on January the 3rd, 2005. Isn't that true?
A. The cash are you talking about?
Q. I asked -- let's review your testimony. Please go to Page 57, Line 9.
A. Of the March or --
Q. This is January 3rd.
A. 57, Line 9?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I'm there.
Q. I asked you the following questions, and you gave the following answers:
Question: The school district received a number of copies of the book Of Pandas and People. Correct? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you know how many copies? Answer: I've been told there were 60. I haven't seen them. Question: Do you know where that came from, who donated the money? Answer: No, I don't. Question: You have no idea? Answer: I have thoughts, but I don't know. Question: What are your thoughts? Answer: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell, who was board president at the time. Question: Why do you think -- I know you're not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell? Answer: Because he was the president of the board at the time, and I just deduced from that that.
That was the testimony that you gave on January the 3rd of 2005. Isn't that true?
A. Doesn't that reference the books, not the money?
Q. Isn't that the testimony that you gave on January the 3rd, 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if you'll turn, Mr. Buckingham, to -- or, actually, go down the page to Line 24 on Page 58. Didn't I ask you the following questions and you give the following answers:
Question: Were you ever at a board meeting where someone asked who donated the book to the school, in fact, Larry Snoke, a former board member asking who donated it? Answer: I think he expressed a wonder-type thing over where they came from. I don't think -- I don't remember anybody asking directly where they came from. Question: Were you curious to know where it came from? Answer: I know they came from someone in the public sector. I know we didn't use taxpayer funds to pay for them.
Question: Did you ask where it came from? Answer: No. Question: Why didn't you ask? Answer: Didn't want to know. Question: Why didn't you want to know? Answer: Well, what purpose would it serve? Question: Well, because you're a board member and the school district is part of your responsibility as a board member and maybe where these books came from would be something that you should know. Answer: No, I think it was a wonderful gesture, and I didn't concern myself with where they came from.
That was your testimony, wasn't it, Mr. Buckingham?
A. I believe Larry Snoke was asking where the money came from, not where the books came from, and that was why I answered that that way. And the rest of it is my testimony, yes.
Q. Well, when I asked you, why didn't you ask where it came from, and you said, didn't want to know, what you really meant to say was that you knew where it came from. That was the right answer there, wasn't it? That was the correct answer?
A. I didn't know who donated the cash. I knew they were in a certain building when they put it in the box, but I don't know who put the cash in the box.
Q. You knew that I was seeking that --
A. In the mailbox.
Q. You knew that I was seeking that information when I asked you those questions on January 3rd, and you didn't give me the -- you didn't tell me anything about donations being taken -- a collection being taken at your church. Isn't that correct?
A. I didn't consider it a collection. I didn't ask for it. They just did it because there was a need there. I didn't ask them for it.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, you lied to me at your deposition on January 3rd, 2005. Isn't that true?
A. How so?
Q. By not telling me, when I asked you those questions, that you knew that a collection had been taken at your church for the book Of Pandas and People.
A. I did not take a collection.
Q. Well, you wrote the check to Donald Bonsell, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you didn't tell me that you knew that -- anything about Mr. Bonsell, did you?
A. I don't recall if I did or not.
Q. Well, we just read your testimony. You didn't say anything about Donald Bonsell in that testimony, did you? Do you want to go back and look at it?
A. Well, there's more testimony than that. I don't know if I referenced him anyplace else in it or not.
Q. Well, when I was asking you about where the donation of Of Pandas and People came from, you didn't mention anything about Donald Bonsell, did you? Do we need to relook at your testimony again?
A. I'd like to, yes.
Q. Okay. Let's do that. January 3, Page 57, Line 9. Let me read it to you again, Mr. Buckingham, and you tell me if I've got it right.
Question: The school district received a number of copies of the book Pandas and People. Correct? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you know how many copies? Answer: I've been told there were 60. I haven't seen them. Question: Do you know where that came from, who donated them? Answer: No, I don't. Question: You have no idea? Answer: I have thoughts, but I don't know. Question: What are your thoughts? Answer: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at the time. Question: Why do you think -- I know you're not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell? Answer: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that. Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. No reference to Donald Bonsell in there. Right?
A. No, there wasn't.
Q. You should have told me about that at the time, shouldn't you, to be truthful?
A. I thought I answered the question the way you asked it. Money was given to Alan Bonsell to forward to someone, turning out to be his father, that it was going to go someplace else. I don't --
Q. Well, you knew that it was being given to Donald Bonsell because you wrote his name on the check?
A. That's true.
THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, why don't you move to the next area. I get the point, and you've made the point very effectively, and I don't think you need to stay in this area. I'll give you some more latitude if you want, a little bit, but --
MR. HARVEY: Your honor, I'm done.
It looks to me like a lot of Buckingham's alleged "lies" were really just minimal answers -- volunteering as little information as possible -- in answering witch-hunting, fishing-expedition type questions. For example, in answering the question of who donated the money, Buckingham told the truth when he said that he did not know -- most of the money came from anonymous cash donations at a church. The question of "where" donations came from could be interpreted as meaning who donations came from rather than the physical places where the donations were made. Some of the questions about Alan Bonsell and his father could be interpreted as questions about whether they donated the books or the money, not whether they purchased the books. And in some of the questions, there was the ambiguity of whether Harvey was talking about the books or the money. IMO Buckingham did lie when he claimed not to know how the Bonsells were involved, but when you are trying to give minimal answers, it is easy to slip up and tell some lies. Anyway, Harvey seemed to take Buckingham's "lies" personally -- he didn't just say "you lied" but said "you lied to me."
A lot of people have said that Buckingham and Bonsell should have been prosecuted for perjury or that they were lucky to escape perjury charges. However, to me, the reasons why they were not prosecuted for perjury are clear:
(1) Their alleged lies could not have affected the outcome in the case.
(2) Some of the alleged "lies" were not lies but were just minimal answers.
(3) Some of the questions were ambiguous.
(4) Immunity to a charge of perjury is usually granted when the whole true story is told.
(5) The question of where the money for the books came from was irrelevant because there was no tax money involved.
(6) Perjury charges would have made martyrs of them in the minds of a lot of people.
Anyway, Buckingham and Bonsell were not the only people here who were not completely honest. The Dover High School science teachers, by refusing to read the ID statement, reneged on their agreement to accept "Of Pandas and People" as a reference text in exchange for the school board's acceptance of a heavily pro-Darwinist main biology text. The newly elected school board members reneged on their campaign promises by not repealing the ID policy immediately. Judge Jones was dishonest when he pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. Judge Jones lied when he said through a spokesperson that he does not publicly comment on the specifics of the case. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Also, IMO calling Buckingham a "hostile witness" sounds disparaging, like he testified while wearing an electric stun belt or a straitjacket. All the term really means here is that the opposing side got to question him first. The term sounds derogatory and its use ought to be discontinued.
Anyway, I think that Buckingham and Bonsell came across pretty well in PBS NOVA's "Judgment Day."
.
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/17/2007 06:25:00 PM
24 Comments:
The only thing this proves is that not only was Buckingham a thug, but a slimy dishonest one as well. Reminds me of a certain presidential impeachment a while back.
There's no question that he knew where the money came from and was being intentionally vague and misleading about it because in this case, motive was the major deciding factor in booting ID out of the curriculum. Giving a straight answer that yes, the majority of the money to purchase the panda book came from church collections would have been another nail in the ID coffin, but it would have been the truth. Instead, he gave this gem of an answer:
"I knew they were in a certain building when they put it in the box, but I don't know who put the cash in the box."
The comically hypocritical lengths that you religious zealots go to disguise your true intentions never fails to amuse me...
> Did Dover defendants lie? <
Very definitely
> The question of "where" donations came from could be interpreted as meaning who donations came from rather than the physical places where the donations were made. <
This is one of your problems. You don't understand simple English. In this case "where" meant "where" not "who".
> Some of the questions about Alan Bonsell and his father could be interpreted as <
You need to stop interpreting. You are no good at it.
> when you are trying to give minimal answers, it is easy to slip up and tell some lies. <
It is impossible to accidentally lie. If your intent is evasion, you may do other unethical things.
> Anyway, Harvey seemed to take Buckingham's "lies" personally -- he didn't just say "you lied" but said "you lied to me." <
Becausing lying in general is not a crime. You lie regularly. Lying in court or in a sworn deposition is a crime.
Of course if you need lies to support your position, as the creationist whackos did in this case, you probably should reconsider your position.
> (1) Their alleged lies could not have affected the outcome in the case. <
Irrelevant. Whether perjury is perjury is not dependant on the possible consequences of that perjury.
> (2) Some of the alleged "lies" were not lies but were just minimal answers.
And others were just lies.
> (3) Some of the questions were ambiguous. <
Not to a reasonable mind.
> (4) Immunity to a charge of perjury is usually granted when the whole true story is told. <
Not if it comes only after a person is caught red handed. Suppose someone robbed a bank and then after they were caught offered to return the money. No harm, no foul?
> (5) The question of where the money for the books came from was irrelevant because there was no tax money involved. <
The question of whether it was tax money was irrelevant.
> (6) Perjury charges would have made martyrs of them in the minds of a lot of people. <
Only the whackos who though they were doing the right thing.
> Anyway, Buckingham and Bonsell were not the only people here who were not completely honest. The Dover High School science teachers, by refusing to read the ID statement... <
Had nothing to do with honesty.
> Judge Jones was dishonest when he pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. <
Making a decision based on facts and the evidence at hand has nothing to do with impartiality. A judge must begin with the assumption that a felon is innocent. After proof is entered that he murdered his grandmother with 100 witnesses present, a decision by the judge is not an abandonment of impartiality.
> "Judge not, lest ye be judged." <
So there shouldn't be a legal system. Criminals should not be punished? There should be no lawsuits? (Of course after your unbroken record of losses in lawsuits, your opinion may be different from others.)
> Also, IMO calling Buckingham a "hostile witness" sounds disparaging <
It merely sounds accurate.
> like he testified while wearing an electric stun belt or a straitjacket. <
You have no more of a concept of the term "hostile witness" than you do of other legal concepts.
> Anyway, I think that Buckingham and Bonsell came across pretty well in PBS NOVA's "Judgment Day." <
You also believe that the Los Angeles Times and the World Almanac are published with supernatural aid.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> The only thing this proves is that not only was Buckingham a thug, but a slimy dishonest one as well. <<<<<<<
As I showed in my article, Judge Jones, the Dover high school science teachers, and the new school board members were also slimy dishonest thugs, maybe more so.
>>>>>> There's no question that he knew where the money came from and was being intentionally vague and misleading about it because in this case, motive was the major deciding factor in booting ID out of the curriculum. <<<<<<
Pettifogger Steven Harvey was on a witch hunt and a fishing expedition. The donors' identities and motives should not have been a factor in the case and in fact the questioning about them should have been ruled out of order. In describing her new endorsement test, Justice O'Connor said, "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Fundies had the same standing as anyone else to anonymously donate money for the books.
>>>>>> Giving a straight answer that yes, the majority of the money to purchase the panda book came from church collections would have been another nail in the ID coffin, but it would have been the truth. <<<<<<
Buckingham was under no obligation to volunteer any information.
>>>>>Instead, he gave this gem of an answer:
"I knew they were in a certain building when they put it in the box, but I don't know who put the cash in the box." <<<<<<
Well, he was telling the truth -- he did not know the identities of the people who put the cash in the box. The donations were anonymous donations.
I did concede that Buckingham lied when he claimed to not know how the Bonsells were involved, but the involvement of the Bonsells was apparently minor. Apparently all the Bonsells did here was use the check to purchase the books.
I really like the way Buckingham returned Judge Jones' insults by calling him a "jackass" and saying, "if he called me a liar, then he's a liar." Good!
Good point about how Harvey's question should have been ruled out of order, Larry...but the defense would have had to OBJECT!
They let lots of chances go.
The lead counsel didn't even show up for DAYS at a time...leaving a second chair and an assistant against nine lawyers and assistants for the plaintiffs.
The lead counsel was either incompetent...or, IMHO, there was something even worse going on.
> As I showed in my article <
As usual you believe that stating something without support is "showing" it. Your obvious misunderstandings aside, you have shown no place where anyone but the old school board members and their counsel were dishonest. You are being dishonest in saying so.
> The donors' identities and motives should not have been a factor in the case <
Another typical Larry statement - unsupported and wrong.
> Justice O'Connor said, "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." <
So you don't understand Justice O'Connor either? I am sure that an explanation would be over your head.
> Buckingham was under no obligation to volunteer any information. <
He was under an obligation to truthfully answer the questions. Lying is not just evasion.
> Well, he was telling the truth <
He was twisting the truth at best.
As you can see, the truth doesn't support your cause. It can only be sustained by lies and illogic.
> I did concede that Buckingham lied when he claimed to not know how the Bonsells were involved <
Wow! Do you concede that the Sun rises in the east? How magnanimous of you!
> I really like the way Buckingham returned Judge Jones' insults by calling him a "jackass" and saying, "if he called me a liar, then he's a liar." Good! <
Naturally you would like it. It was childish and petty.
Did Fafarman Lie?
Always
Goldstein said...
>>>>>> Good point about how Harvey's question should have been ruled out of order, Larry...but the defense would have had to OBJECT! <<<<<<
(Ssshhh! Please don't say "good point" -- the trolls here are going to make another accusation of Charlie McCarthyism).
Yes -- an objection by the defense, even if overruled, would have helped protect Buckingham and Bonsell from accusations of perjury.
IMO there was a right to anonymously donate the books or money for the books -- this wasn't like political campaign financing, where there are some laws about disclosure of the sources of donations.
I believe that the plaintiffs even complained that they were unable to seek an injunction because of Buckingham's and Bonsell's stonewalling, but IMO a donation of books to a school library by a church is hardly grounds or contributing grounds for granting an injunction.
>>>>> They let lots of chances go. <<<<<<
I agree -- some of the things the Thomas More Law Center's attorneys did almost show incompetence:
(1) They gave the plaintiffs the board's solicitor's memo that advised against adoption of the ID policy. The TMLC should have claimed that this memo was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
(2) The TMLC opposed the intervention motion of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of "Of Pandas and People."
(3) The TMLC refused to allow their expert witnesses to have their own attorneys present during depositions. Dembski and others quit as a result.
(4) Opposed use of the endorsement test. Properly interpreted, the "political insiders and outsiders" concept of the endorsement test was in the defendants' favor.
(5) The TMLC asked Judge Jones to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. In retrospect, this was a bad idea. Also, one of Jones' defenses of his decision to rule on those merits is that both sides asked him to do it.
(6) The TMLC website has been silent about the case since the day after the decision was released.
(7) In the PBS NOVA "Judgment Day" program, TMLC's lead attorney Richard Thompson was far too generous in his assessment of the trial:
I think first of all you, you have to say we had a fair trial. I'm just disturbed about the extent of his opinion that it went way beyond what, what he should have gone into deciding matters of science.
Richard, remember that you encouraged him to decide matters of science, even though you now believe that he went too far in doing so.
>(Ssshhh! Please don't say "good point" -- the trolls here are going to make another accusation of Charlie McCarthyism). <
Feeling guilty Larry?
No -- but you should be.
Goldstein said...
>>>>>> The lead counsel didn't even show up for DAYS at a time...leaving a second chair and an assistant against nine lawyers and assistants for the plaintiffs. <<<<<<
Yes -- I heard that the plaintiffs had at least five attorneys in the courtroom on every day of the 40-week trial. It was a clearcut case of overkill. Judge Jones should have limited the number of plaintiffs' attorneys who could charge for their time. The law says that the attorney fee awards must be reasonable.
(1) They gave the plaintiffs the board's solicitor's memo that advised against adoption of the ID policy. The TMLC should have claimed that this memo was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
This had been shown to a reporter by a school board member before the case was even filed and so attorney-client privilege was lost on that document.
>>>>>> This had been shown to a reporter by a school board member before the case was even filed and so attorney-client privilege was lost on that document. <<<<<<
Do you have a reference for that?
Attorney-client privilege law is extremely complicated. Accidental or inadvertent disclosure of a privileged attorney-client communication could have a variety of consequences: sometimes the privilege might not be lost; sometimes the privilege can be recovered after it is lost; and sometimes the privilege may continue for some purposes, e.g., maybe the communication may not be used as evidence (the Kitzmiller opinion used the school board's solicitor's memo as evidence), while being lost for other purposes, e.g., publication of the communication may be allowed. IMO to simplify things, there should just be a rule that the client's permission must be obtained each time that an attorney-client communication is used as evidence. Also, the reporter here violated the following rules of the journalists' code of ethics by reporting accidentally or inadvertently disclosed confidential information:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects (the school board member might have been inexperienced in regard to the need to keep the memo confidential).
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.
Larry says "but it was the best butter."
It appears that Larry has reduced himself to trying to discuss the admissibility of the evidence.
Let's try discussing this from a scientific standpoint rather than that of an incompetent lawyer.
This is about science you know.
>>>>> It appears that Larry has reduced himself to trying to discuss the admissibility of the evidence. <<<<<
What do you mean, "Larry has reduced himself to trying to discuss the admissibility of the evidence"? The overwhelming majority of my discussions about the case have been about the legal issues as opposed to the scientific issues. And what is wrong with discussing the admissibility of evidence?
>>>>>> Let's try discussing this from a scientific standpoint rather than that of an incompetent lawyer. <<<<<
How is a scientific standpoint applicable here?
OK, let's try. Since you raised the issue, IMO you should start the discussion.
> OK, let's try. Since you raised the issue, IMO you should start the discussion. <
He didn't raise the issue. This is the issue that has been going on over your head for months.
Is there anyone other than Larry's sock puppets who doesn't see this?
Come back to Earth, Larry!
Here's the video.
Any questions?
JanieBelle said...
>>>>>> Here's the video.
Any questions? <<<<<<<
Yes -- how do you excuse the following:
The Dover High School science teachers, by refusing to read the ID statement, reneged on their agreement to accept "Of Pandas and People" as a reference text in exchange for the school board's acceptance of a heavily pro-Darwinist main biology text. The newly elected school board members reneged on their campaign promises by not repealing the ID policy immediately. Judge Jones was dishonest when he pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. Judge Jones lied when he said through a spokesperson that he does not publicly comment on the specifics of the case.
Voice in the Urbanness said...
>>>>>> OK, let's try. Since you raised the issue, IMO you should start the discussion. <
He didn't raise the issue. This is the issue that has been going on over your head for months. <<<<<<
As I said, on this blog I have concentrated on the legal issues. I have discussed little of the scientific issues, and most of that discussion has been about non-ID criticisms of evolution.
> As I said, on this blog I have concentrated on the legal issues.<
Why not limit yourself to something of which you have at least a basic understanding?
> Judge Jones was dishonest when he pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. <
Mindless repetition with out support as usual. You obviously don't understand that this absurd statement has already been shot to rags on this blog. I suppose you will pretend you haven't see that.
>>>>>>>>
Yes -- how do you excuse the following:
Blah blah blah Mr. Freeman
<<<<<<<<
Oh yeah, and how do YOU excuse Buckingham's willful defiance of the initial board ruling to deny the purchase and inclusion of the Panda ID textbook into the science curriculum?
When faced with this initial ruling, Buckingham solicit donations from the parishioners of his church, used said donations to purchase said textbooks without authorization from the school board, and "donated" them to the school library, where he instigated another vote to include to textbooks, this time with the odds heavily stacked in his favor since the textbooks were already available and paid for.
The teacher's refusal to follow the board's second ruling was over Buckingham's religion-fueled thuggery.
Nice try.
Q: You have never spoken to anybody else who was involved with the donation?
A: I don't know the other people.
A clear lie. He knew two other people involved with the donation - Buckingham and himself.
The list goes on. Courts are not a 'word game'. You take an oath (on a bible) to tell the "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
(1) Their alleged lies could not have affected the outcome in the case.
Sure it could. Had the prosecution believed them, and not dug up evidence that they were lying, the two could easily have continued lying in court. They fact they lied about various statements required calling in reporters, staff, other board members, and the public to testify to what the two actually said.
(2) Some of the alleged "lies" were not lies but were just minimal answers.
Some, sure. However, some were clear lies. Some were dodging the question. Some were evasive answers. That alone is evidence of intent to not be honest and up front. How many lies are folks allowed to tell in court?
(3) Some of the questions were ambiguous.
And some were not. However, they didn't appear ambuguous enough that those the two needed to ask for a clarification, nor did their lawyers object or ask for a clarification. Nor did the judge have to ask what the question meant when reading them. Nor does the man on the street.
(4) Immunity to a charge of perjury is usually granted when the whole true story is told.
Which is a reason why they might not press charges, not whether they lied. However, they didn't come clean. Bonsell never answered the judge on why he didn't give his or Buckingham's name when asked about others involved in the donations. He never answered the judge when asked why it was necessary for his father to buy the books. Buckingham kept saying stuff like not knowing what ID was, saying he never said creationism, calling reporters liars, etc.
(5) The question of where the money for the books came from was irrelevant because there was no tax money involved.
Nonsense. The fact that religious money (from Buckingham's church) was used to buy the books is buy the books demonstrates that there was a religious purpose to getting the books in school -- first part of the Lemon test. This led to a number of questions from the plantiffs and judge such as whether the church ever donated anything else to the school, or why it was necessary to hide the source of the money or lie to the school board and at lie to the plantiffs.
(6) Perjury charges would have made martyrs of them in the minds of a lot of people.
Again, that is a reason not to prosecute them, not that they didn't commit the crime.
Anyway, Buckingham and Bonsell were not the only people here who were not completely honest. ...
That is a justification arguement. Buckingham and Bonsell can lie because other people lie?
Anyway, I think that Buckingham and Bonsell came across pretty well in PBS NOVA's "Judgment Day."
Then you need help. As Judge Jones said "It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy."
I may object to folks wanting prayer in the schools, who think gays are bad, who protest outside of abortion clinics, etc. However, at least they are honest about their beliefs. However, those who lie about their actions to cover up their beliefs I have no respect for.
from Merriam-Webster online dictionaty
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie[3]
The purpose of his "minimal answers" was to create a "false or misleading impression". See #2
couldn't be more simple...
>>>>>>> The purpose of his "minimal answers" was to create a "false or misleading impression". <<<<<<
So what? As I pointed out in my original post, Judge Jones and the Dover teachers lied too -- and their answers were not "minimal."
Post a Comment
<< Home