In August of 2007, Judge Gilmore was interviewed by the Special Prosecutors about his role in the case of Dr. Richard Hammond, because of its possible relationship with the Peggy Hettrick murder which Tim Masters was accused of. There is a much fuller explanation of this here .
What I'm wondering about is: Presumably, the judge had known for months that he would be questioned about these matters. It didn't come as a surprise. An appointment was made for the date and time when the interview would be conducted.
Here are some of the various "answers" given by Judge Gilmore to the Special Prosecutors' questions.
I believe I went to the autopsy…
…I don’t know the year right now
…I really couldn’t give you a time period
…I believe
I don’t even now how long that was before…
I guess… I guess…
Not that I recall
… best of my recollection is the next day or perhaps the same day…
I don’t have any recollection of the exact sequence…
I’m just going on my recollection…
It’s my understanding…
I have a very limited recollection…
I think that would have been the process…
Wouldn't it have been appropriate to brush up on the chronology of these events? Isn't this why important people have secretaries, personal assistants, interns, and other various underlings, to do the research and brief them on stuff like this? I mean, if he doesn't remember whether or not he went to the autopsy, aren't records kept of this kind of thing? Let's get out the appointment book for that year and have a look, shall we? Who else gets away with a string of non-answers like this? Would this judge in his own courtroom tolerate such a string of non-answers from a witness?
Just asking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment