Author Topic: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case  (Read 13529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2013, 11:02:06 PM »
I think it was supposed to be 'repudiation'.

Or as it's listed in the New Revised Palin Edition, "refudiation".

 ;D

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2013, 11:06:19 PM »
I think it was supposed to be 'repudiation'.

Yes, repudiation. I'll blame spell-check, since it can't defend itself.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2013, 02:13:08 AM »
Yes, repudiation. I'll blame spell-check, since it can't defend itself.

I just blame my keyboard, since for years my pens and pencils were far better at spelling than it is.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2013, 07:44:07 PM »
There was no recanting by witness 6 or 13.

I'm still curious about the unexplained introduction of W-13 into the discussion.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2013, 07:21:18 AM »
I can see a spell check with the limited vocabulary most of them seem to have changing refutation to reputation as it's only one letter and spell check is not "does that word, even if it is a word and even if it is spelled correctly for that word, really work in the sentence?" capable.

So, potshots at Palin aside, I think refutation, i.e., what happens when someone refutes something, is the word that was intended.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2013, 01:43:23 PM »
I can see a spell check with the limited vocabulary most of them seem to have changing refutation to reputation as it's only one letter and spell check is not "does that word, even if it is a word and even if it is spelled correctly for that word, really work in the sentence?" capable.

Firefox spell-check knows the word refutation, but the word I intended to type was repudiation. I was copying directly from the book. Spell-check should underline auto-changes like it does errors, but in a different color. Incorrect auto-changes are especially difficult to catch when proofreading, because being actual words, they don't stand out.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2013, 09:28:30 PM »
Firefox spell-check knows the word refutation, but the word I intended to type was repudiation. I was copying directly from the book. Spell-check should underline auto-changes like it does errors, but in a different color. Incorrect auto-changes are especially difficult to catch when proofreading, because being actual words, they don't stand out.

So this wasn't cut and paste, this was read and type?

Well, then, you've just ruined your good repudiation as a transcriptionist.   ;D

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2013, 05:33:16 PM »
I am surprised nobody pointed out that the name is Cashill, not Cahill.  My apologies.  His latest piece on the case make Matt Gutman the prime villain. 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2013, 02:56:57 AM »
His latest piece on the case make Matt Gutman the prime villain.

Cashill repeated the erroneous claim that W-6 was interviewed an hour after the shooting, and implied, incorrectly, that Serino interviewed W-6 before W-18 (37-38/184).

Serino was briefed on arrival by Ayala (37/184). That probably included information from the written statements. (W-6's written statement is on 86/184.)

It's ridiculous that Cashill claims getting information from one witness is a 'good reason' for feeding that information to another witness.

Cashill failed to make what I think is the most important point about this episode. W-18 didn't claim to know who was screaming. She had just leaped to the conclusion that the person calling for help must have been the one shot. Serino did 'correct' her, but not the substance of her statement. That doesn't justify Serino's action, but it does mean that ABC's reporting was inaccurate, and made it seem worse than it was.

RJ, would you care to explain why you think this person is worth linking?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2013, 03:12:42 AM »
Cashill
Quote
In her defense, Cutcher could be forgiven for thinking that Martin was, in fact, a little kid. Team Trayvon had been feeding the media only child-like images of Martin, and the media had been spreading them uncritically.

Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2013, 06:44:11 AM »
RJ, would you care to explain why you think this person is worth linking?
Originally, I thought that any book coming out on the case was notable.  Then I noticed that he wrote another article which said all sorts of things, not all true as you point out, about Matt Gutman's reporting.  Since MG is a potential witness, I thought that notable.  Lastly, I felt I needed to correct my spelling error.  Unless I think he really has something good on the case, I won't link to him anymore.   :-[

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2013, 08:41:07 AM »
Cashill
Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.

Yeah, he should have said that Cutcher/Mora made no mention of child like screams the night of the shooting either on Cutchers 911 call or Mora's statement to police (she said someone was yelling, almost crying).  He could speculate as to why Cutchers story was modified to include the child like whines to the media and question who set up the media interview for her, but the images of the 12 year old Trayvon that eventuall were "plastered all over the media" had not yet appeared.  Of course they did show up shortly after Cutcher made her public comments, so I think its possible her comments in the 3/1 interview were not coincidental to the images that later came out.  I think its possible Cuthcers public comments are related in someway (meaning collaboration, not just coincidence) to Gutmans reporting, but the only evidence I"ve seen is Julison (the publicist) being in the photo ops and interviews of Cutchers.  We don't know if/when Julison contacted her directly.  I think its possible Julison was feeding Gutman and was responsible for bringing out "modifications" to Cutchers narrative.

One thing that always bothered me about the revised Cutcher narrative that no one ever seemed to ask her is that if she and Mora heard this child screaming for help, why didn't they do a thing to help?  Their statements are that they went to look outside after hearing the gunshot.  Why would they look outside after hearing a gunshot, but do nothing while a supposed child was screaming for help in fear for 60 seconds or so?   I think the screams coming from a child was "concocted" later.  Not sure whether it was something they were just sitting around thinking about on their own, but it does seem likely that they would have been prompted to make them think it was a child.  No one else  mentions the screams sounding like they came from a child.  I do think it would be worthwhile for a reporter to explore.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2013, 09:03:17 AM »
One thing that always bothered me about the revised Cutcher narrative that no one ever seemed to ask her is that if she and Mora heard this child screaming for help, why didn't they do a thing to help?  Their statements are that they went to look outside after hearing the gunshot.  Why would they look outside after hearing a gunshot, but do nothing while a supposed child was screaming for help in fear for 60 seconds or so? 

I don't know that Cutcher and Mora ever claimed to have heard the word 'help', or any words.

In their SPD interviews, they said explicitly that they couldn't distinguish any words. In their TV appearances, I think they avoided the point, allowing viewers to assume they heard 'help' because of what was known from other sources.

ETA: I don't know where you're getting '60 seconds'. On the the 911 recording it's about 45 seconds, and I don't know that Cutcher and Mora ever estimated a length of time.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 09:06:17 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2013, 10:19:03 AM »
The caller on the call that captured the screams said the screams happened before she called 911.  I think an estimate of 15 seconds to hear the screaming beginning, to picking up the phone to call,  to being connected with the operator to be reasonable.  Its possible it was a few seconds more or less, but clearly longer than what was captured on the 911 call.

I've read several articles saying Cutcher and Mora heard screams for help.  On looking back at those articles, it says the witnesses heard screams for help, but when quoting Cutchers words, it does just say she heard screaming or a child crying.  That at least some of the words were "help" is fairly easily discernible on the 911 call.  The more important point was that neither Cutcher or Mora mentioned that they thought the screams were from a child until their media interviews and if they thought a child was calling for help for a minute, why didn't they do anything?   She made comments about certain things she sure didn't happen because they would have easily heard them, so she was either making that point up or could hear the screaming quite clearly.  I tend to think its the former and they didn't really hear the screams that clearly and their media narrative was enhanced for whatever reason. 

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2013, 10:26:51 AM »
Cashill
Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.
The Orlando Sentinel was covering the story by 2/29/12, and Fox 35 Orlando had reported on it even earlier:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-02-29/news/os-fatal-shooting-sanford-townhomes-20120226_1_gated-community-death-sunday-night-shot

There's a box in the article that has a link that no longer works (at least there is on my computer); it appears to have had a photo sourced from Facebook, captioned "Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot to death in Sanford Sunday, February 26, 2012, police say."

The excuse given for the circulation of the "Hollister" picture is that it was the first one given out by TM's family (not sure which member allegedly provided it) because they were pressed by the media for a photo and it was the only one they had handy.

Could the "Hollister" photo have been the one originally in the article linked above? If so, could that have been what made Cutcher say "a little kid" on 3/1/12?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking