Watch the Footage archive

Scarab wrote:

JRPictures wrote:I'm not liking how this is going. There's got to be something we can do for Peter.

...Well I guess we could maybe form a campaign or something?

Wait! How about a petition? We have to at least show he has support from people in the world who don't believe he is getting a fair trial. If everyone in the forum signed in...

I somehow don't think a note from random internet people goes very far in our court system.

However, has anyone tried going to the statue Pan was headed for?

eli_gone_crazy wrote:

Scarab wrote:

JRPictures wrote:I'm not liking how this is going. There's got to be something we can do for Peter.

...Well I guess we could maybe form a campaign or something?

Wait! How about a petition? We have to at least show he has support from people in the world who don't believe he is getting a fair trial. If everyone in the forum signed in...

I somehow don't think a note from random internet people goes very far in our court system.

However, has anyone tried going to the statue Pan was headed for?

It isn't an echo nor Mr. Cake told us to do so, so we didn't.

So, Pan's trial is already going to shit and the judge is clearly leaning towards the prosecution.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

S_o_S wrote:So, Pan's trial is already going to shit and the judge is clearly leaning towards the prosecution.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

Better think some happy thoughts, Peter...

Well, this new video was certainly interesting.

Some observations:

1. The prosecutor is insane.
2. The prosecutor is clearly manipulating the judge behind the scenes ("uh-uh-uh").
3. The evidence actually... does not show what the prosecution claims it does. AT ALL. So if the jury is sane, he'll get off.
4. The odds that he'll get off are very slim.
5. Is it just me, or does Peter's lawyer look a lot like him?
6. Despite the fact that I'm worried about Peter, I think his lawyer just got another CMOF with that last line.
7. Is it possible that the prosecutor is Don Juan? Or someone otherwise connected with the Cabal? Because it would be in their interests to get him in prison, and there's something decidedly weird about how Pan's lawyer was so worried about him despite his apparent incompetence, and the fact that he's clearly got something over on the judge. [/Epileptic tree]

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Well, this new video was certainly interesting.

Some observations:

1. The prosecutor is insane.
2. The prosecutor is clearly manipulating the judge behind the scenes ("uh-uh-uh").
3. The evidence actually... does not show what the prosecution claims it does. AT ALL. So if the jury is sane, he'll get off.
4. The odds that he'll get off are very slim.
5. Is it just me, or does Peter's lawyer look a lot like him?
6. Despite the fact that I'm worried about Peter, I think his lawyer just got another CMOF with that last line.
7. Is it possible that the prosecutor is Don Juan? Or someone otherwise connected with the Cabal? Because it would be in their interests to get him in prison, and there's something decidedly weird about how Pan's lawyer was so worried about him despite his apparent incompetence, and the fact that he's clearly got something over on the judge. [/Epileptic tree]

1. Yes. This is very true.
2. No arguments here. That was some serious shit he pulled and shouldn't fly in any fair trial.
3. Hence why the prosecutor had to tell the jury what they were watching.
4. No arguments here either.
5. Probably a coincidence.
6. Yes.
7. Definitely not Don Juan, who should probably have at least some kind of Spanish accent. But connected to the Cabal? Possible. They do consider Peter the biggest threat for some reason.

The only way this ends well is if we can find the audio for the clip. Do we have anyone who can read lips?

I still haven't watched one minute in the video and I'm convinced that the prosecutor is insan-the teacher.
EDIT: Why is there a cam in a children's room?

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Well, this new video was certainly interesting.

Some observations:

1. The prosecutor is insane.
2. The prosecutor is clearly manipulating the judge behind the scenes ("uh-uh-uh").
3. The evidence actually... does not show what the prosecution claims it does. AT ALL. So if the jury is sane, he'll get off.
4. The odds that he'll get off are very slim.
5. Is it just me, or does Peter's lawyer look a lot like him?
6. Despite the fact that I'm worried about Peter, I think his lawyer just got another CMOF with that last line.
7. Is it possible that the prosecutor is Don Juan? Or someone otherwise connected with the Cabal? Because it would be in their interests to get him in prison, and there's something decidedly weird about how Pan's lawyer was so worried about him despite his apparent incompetence, and the fact that he's clearly got something over on the judge. [/Epileptic tree]

OK, next move. If you are willing, everyone with a FB account post on this new post and say that they watched the trial vid. Get outraged by the obvious plotting between the judge and prosecutor. I agree with Wacky's theory that the judge is probably being blackmailed, but don't bring that up. Just act mad. He will sympathize with you, comment, and expand on the situation a bit, probably with a minor rant. He appears to have dealt with this slime ball before due to his comments on that announcement recording, so he probably has some suspicions about the man's methods. If we can figure out what the douchebag is doing, perhaps make him slip up...

JackAlsworth wrote:The only way this ends well is if we can find the audio for the clip. Do we have anyone who can read lips?

Perfect idea! Ask the guy on FB if it is possible to bring in someone who reads lips as a witness!

Victin wrote:I still haven't watched one minute in the video and I'm convinced that the prosecutor is insan-the teacher.
EDIT: Why is there a cam in a children's room?

Possible, but we need more proof.
As for why there's a camera in the room, the bailiff said the video was from a child monitor. You know, just in case some one climbs through the window and takes the child away, they can identify the kidnapper.

I would say to bring in the girl, but the fact that the tape was provided for the prosecution means that the parents know, and will have already influenced the child's perception of Pan. At that age, with the parents as freaked out as they probably are, a favorable testimony is unlikely.

If the prosecution has the girl, the best odds the defense has is a cross-examination. For that to work, we need pretty definitive evidence that the prosecution was either asking the wrong questions or outright lying.

JackAlsworth wrote:If the prosecution has the girl, the best odds the defense has is a cross-examination. For that to work, we need pretty definitive evidence that the prosecution was either asking the wrong questions or outright lying.

...which means we'd need to wait and hear what questions the prosecutor DOES ask her.

JackAlsworth wrote:If the prosecution has the girl, the best odds the defense has is a cross-examination. For that to work, we need pretty definitive evidence that the prosecution was either asking the wrong questions or outright lying.

In other words, find the audio, get a lip reader.

Preferably pull out the lip reader and let the prosecution try their hardest to get the evidence overlooked, then pull out the audio to confirm it and show that the guy is a lying a-hole.

Now, I need the exact specification of that child monitor. Can someone for whom the vid actually works transcribe it?

Sicon112 wrote:

JackAlsworth wrote:If the prosecution has the girl, the best odds the defense has is a cross-examination. For that to work, we need pretty definitive evidence that the prosecution was either asking the wrong questions or outright lying.

In other words, find the audio, get a lip reader.

Preferably pull out the lip reader and let the prosecution try their hardest to get the evidence overlooked, then pull out the audio to confirm it and show that the guy is a lying a-hole.

That's it. Enjoy.

Sicon112 wrote:Now, I need the exact specification of that child monitor. Can someone for whom the vid actually works transcribe it?

It's a "Lavanna LVTW 500 Child Monitor", according to the bailiff. (I'm not positive about the Lavanna part, but that's sure what it sounds like.)

Sicon112 wrote:Now, I need the exact specification of that child monitor. Can someone for whom the vid actually works transcribe it?

It's a "Levana LVTW500 child monitor".
I might be spelling the first word wrong-- that's just what it sounded like.

This may provide more info on the camera: http://www.amazon.com/LEVANA-LV-TW500-D ... B00303GBO8

The page Wacky linked wrote:Watching your child on the computer is completely safe and private because of the password protection feature. It ensures that only authorized users are able to view your baby online. Create one password for you and up to three relatives or friends to use when watching your baby on the computer.

...They're going to make us crack this, aren't they?

JackAlsworth wrote:

The page Wacky linked wrote:Watching your child on the computer is completely safe and private because of the password protection feature. It ensures that only authorized users are able to view your baby online. Create one password for you and up to three relatives or friends to use when watching your baby on the computer.

...They're going to make us crack this, aren't they?

Yes.

We need information... Let me go over everything again...

WMG: the password is Wendy.
Since that's the kid's name, and we have absolutely nothing else to go on yet.

Someone get a frame by frame breakdown of those static sections. May be nothing, but it's worth trying. That already happened once.