Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by MikeAndrews, Aug 19, 2013.
He confirmed it. But it didn't happen.
Not to mention the fact that ACN's lawyers are worried that Maggie's testimony would be discredited by her mental state, but it seems that what she would testify to ("he said 'it happened'") supports Dantana's case.
Maggie's testimony is that she heard him say "It happened".
In the scene we saw, she was on her way out the door when he said "It happened", but still enough in the room that she could have heard it.
The "it happened" was in response to Dantana's pre-video questions while he was completing the set-up, as Maggie was leaving the room.
Also, the "it happened", IIRC, was saying that Genoa happened, not that the Sarin drop happened.
I believe Mac was interviewed by MGH at the end of the first episode.
They may have pointed that out but the person who gave the go ahead was Charlie.
A lot of those other connections are very tenuous or circumstantial.
For example the MX-75 (or whatever it was) on the manifest might have been the radio jammer, not chemical weapons.
The rescuers might have been in MOP gear because of a warning about potential enemy chemical weapons, or even because they planned to use tear gas (or similar) as an incapacitating agent to assist in recovering the captured Marines alive.
Yep that matches me memory. But tonight we saw that as soon as the General got his way kicking her out he actually did say "it happened".
Now he might have been referring to something else, but that word pair did pass his lips.
She testified that he said it, or that he didn't? I don't remember and you and busyba seem to disagree.
My recollection is that Maggie testified fairly emphatically that the General never said "it happened".
If my memory is correct that means her testimony was incorrect on that point.
Here's a good rule of thumb: if someone is disagreeing with me, they're probably wrong.
Simply from a logic standpoint, it is not possible for her to testify that the general "never said" something. Especially if she spent a significant portion of time not in the room in which the general and the presumed plaintiff were alone together.
She can testify that he said "it never happened" or that he said "it happened" (depending upon her recollection), but she can't say he never said "it happened".
Aindik is allegedly a lawyer, so he should know that.
That might have been the point of what they showed. That she couldn't possibly say that, but she said it.
Also, the night before she got drunk and went home with a guy she met at a bar. To which Jim was a witness. She then hopped on a Shuttle to DC first thing in the morning, and then Dantanna told her she looked tired.
I just pulled the episode out of the Deleted Items folder and it turns out I was wrong (it happens 3 or 4 times a year ).
Her testimony is that the general did not say "it happened".
I still stand by my assertion, however, that to testify to such a thing is a logical impossibility, regardless of whether or not she's got a messed up state of mind.
Except for the fact that she can say that he didn't say "it happened" while she was in the room, and the real raw footage of the interview while she was out of the room will show that he didn't say it then, either. I presume that if it's Jerry that's been fired and has filed a lawsuit, then the ACN staff knows about the doctored video.
She's testifying to something she couldn't possibly testify to. I think that's the point of the storyline. Both Dantanna and the general know it.
Do we know the whereabouts of the general in the time frame when the lawyer interviews are going on? Did he commit suicide a la Col. Markinson? Because if he's still alive, he's a credible witness (IOW, he's not the party on the other side) who can shoot her testimony to hell.
Except (and this is something that had not been in our discussion, but that I came across as I rewatched it just now) the plaintiff's complaint alleges that Maggie did in fact hear him say "it happened".
What I'm inferring is that Dantanna (assuming that he's the plaintiff), is saying that the general said "it happened" and he's saying that "Maggie heard it too, so I'm telling the truth."
And Maggie is saying "nope, he didn't say it."
And the interview of Maggie by Marcia Gay Harden ostensibly was to see how easily her testimony of "nope, he didn't say it" can be discredited.
My problem with all that is that it doesn't matter if she sits on the witness stand wearing a strait-jacket and flanked by two guys in white jumpsuits holding butterfly nets, if she says "nope, he didn't say it", the best the plaintiff's can achieve is "she doesn't remember him saying it" or "she wasn't paying attention and missed him saying it" or "she's too nutty to remember that he said it".
And none of that does any good at all for the person alleging that he said it. Discrediting a hostile witness who is not corroborating your story does not somehow result in your story getting corroborated by default.
Now, if the defendant was alleging that he never said it, and were offering up Maggie's testimony as proof, this whole exercise would make a little more sense (except for the previously mentioned issues), but that does not appear to be the case.
Upon rewatching it again, that's not exactly true.
What we actually know from the interview is that Dantanna swore out an affidavit that says that Maggie was super messed up and in no position to be able to say that the general did not say "it happened".
So it's not necessarily clear whether it is the plaintiff or the defense who initially claimed anything about Maggie and what she did or did not hear the general say.
This is actually a problem with the show this season. I can't remember very much of the testimony that happened three or four episodes ago that is finally addressed in the current episode when they show what actually happened. I just don't have the time or the opportunity to go back.
Some NSFW language in the article.
And why not? Beats working for a living.
The comments above about what Maggie said are missing one big point: She wasn't asked a question. So having the answer without the question is also problematic.
If the question was "while you were in the room" then she could say he never said something. The question could also be about what she heard, not where she was standing. Could she hear from outside the door? Did she use "the old glass on the door trick" to hear better?
She was blurting out statements, but we haven't seen her being asked the question.