January 4th we watched a very well prepared attorney, Dan Hawes play the master puppeteer. A serious number of motions, submitted in a proper and timely fashion, were NOT acted upon nor responded to as is required. The CA did not have a satisfactory answer for this with his reply that he "did not have time."
The evidence that VDOT has that would either have supported the charges or exonerated Skidmark were not preserved - the video tapes of the episode were recorded over, negligently IMO. Recorded tapes did exist and no one claimed they were "accidentally" destroyed. They were reported as reviewed by VDOT, the CA and sheriff's department personnel and then casually returned to the three (3) week cycle of rerecording. IMO - at the very least it was negligent to not preserve evidence.
Wyche, the "captain" of the contractor security guard team, is the "custodian of the record" and admitted in court that he had reviewed the video data (stored in digital format). He is also the person that Skidmark had his disagreement, and complaining witness on the brandishing charge (his affidavit was used in support of the obstruction charge as well). He obtained the criminal warrant on the same day as the incident, so there is no issue about time having lapsed so that the data was accidentally destroyed. He knew perfectly well how to save that data and decided not to do so. That data had been the subject of a subpoena.
Several motions to dismiss, based on the above, were made by User to which the bench choose to not respond to "at this time."
Again, w/o disclosing the game plan and the half time review and adjustments, we are generally pleased with the days events and have our marching orders. No stone shall be left unturned - the spot light is on Surry and they seem very uncomfortable.
It is a good thing that Skidmark is doing, even though he would have preferred to just have seen the changing colors along the James River and gone home to a nice, quiet meal that day last fall. He has stood tall and I for one will support him all the way.
The trial was postponed, as I understand it, so that the CA could file documents in response to motions for bills of particulars and for discovery. Additionally most of the witnesses had not filed the documents required by the subpoenas sent.
This post constitutes my observations solely in cooperation with a few other close associates. These remarks do not represent Skidmark nor his attorney.
See also post #643 by User:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?83848-**-Legal-Defense-fund-for-Skidmark-**/page26
Also see post #173 by User:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84128-Surry-meet-up-supporting-Skidmark-Jan-4th-2011-amp-March-15th-2011/page7
The evidence that VDOT has that would either have supported the charges or exonerated Skidmark were not preserved - the video tapes of the episode were recorded over, negligently IMO. Recorded tapes did exist and no one claimed they were "accidentally" destroyed. They were reported as reviewed by VDOT, the CA and sheriff's department personnel and then casually returned to the three (3) week cycle of rerecording. IMO - at the very least it was negligent to not preserve evidence.
Wyche, the "captain" of the contractor security guard team, is the "custodian of the record" and admitted in court that he had reviewed the video data (stored in digital format). He is also the person that Skidmark had his disagreement, and complaining witness on the brandishing charge (his affidavit was used in support of the obstruction charge as well). He obtained the criminal warrant on the same day as the incident, so there is no issue about time having lapsed so that the data was accidentally destroyed. He knew perfectly well how to save that data and decided not to do so. That data had been the subject of a subpoena.
Several motions to dismiss, based on the above, were made by User to which the bench choose to not respond to "at this time."
Again, w/o disclosing the game plan and the half time review and adjustments, we are generally pleased with the days events and have our marching orders. No stone shall be left unturned - the spot light is on Surry and they seem very uncomfortable.
It is a good thing that Skidmark is doing, even though he would have preferred to just have seen the changing colors along the James River and gone home to a nice, quiet meal that day last fall. He has stood tall and I for one will support him all the way.
The trial was postponed, as I understand it, so that the CA could file documents in response to motions for bills of particulars and for discovery. Additionally most of the witnesses had not filed the documents required by the subpoenas sent.
This post constitutes my observations solely in cooperation with a few other close associates. These remarks do not represent Skidmark nor his attorney.
See also post #643 by User:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?83848-**-Legal-Defense-fund-for-Skidmark-**/page26
Also see post #173 by User:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84128-Surry-meet-up-supporting-Skidmark-Jan-4th-2011-amp-March-15th-2011/page7
Last edited: