[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 10/25/03
Time: 7:44:05 AM
Remote Name: 209.240.198.63
Pat, I don't doubt that Garvey had an "agenda" about OJ"s demeanor---none at all. She did not say on the stand half of what she said outside. On the stand--she was under oath--outside, she was not.
My point is that about the time--at that point she had no reason to slant the time to a LATER time. In fact, she was going against the common understanding of when the recital was over. As Jean pointed out--Denise said 7--which I didn't recall but as the trial went on--they were trying to have the Browns at the Mezz prior to 7 and that flew in the face of Denise and Candy Garvey's statements that the recital wasn't over til later--or at least that they didn't leave the school til later.
LIke the time that the Browns left the Mezz got morphed back from 9 pm til closer to 830...when it became obvious a more than hour trip couldn't have been made in 35 minutes.
Doesn't the Mezz receipt say that they opened the bill at a couple minutes past 7?
If Denise and Candy are correct--something is wrong there.
Or was Nicole's "errand" that she did after the recital a trip to the Mezz and Preorder and tell them they were running late?
We never learned of what this "errand" was that Nicole did after the recital.
Garvey was concentrating on the demeanor evidence not the time...yet the time was something she had reason to know because of her trip home to feed the baby.
I question the time due to the morphing of the time backwards in other issues. Recall the mgr of the Mezz said they were already seated by the time he arrived at 645 which flies in the face of what Denise said at first as well as what Garvey says.
As stated before--any witness from the recital that was not connected to the case could have cleared this up--like one of the teachers or one of the parents.
charlie