Transcript Tuesday

I'm going to start a series that I'm going to call "Transcript Tuesdays". Each Tuesday I will post a small bit of court transcript, or maybe several small sections. My overall goal is, well, multiple reasons, really, but mainly to show just how conflicting or cagey some political creatures are when the threat of perjury is upon them.

For the first installment, and for many of the upcoming ones, I'm going to use sections from the trial of Lea Lakeside-Scott vs. Multnomah County and Jann Brown, a court case for which I was, in fact, a witness for the plaintiff. I have a copy of the transcripts from all three days of trial (archived here as PDFs or here as text).

The court met from Tuesday 16 November to Thursday 18 November 2004. Presiding judge was the Honorable Michael W. Mosman.

The section I want to highlight is from the testimony of Daniel W. Gorton, at the time the Desktop Support Services Manager for Multnomah County. Mr. Gorton was called as a witness for the defense; the section below comes from his cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff.

The main reason I highlight this section is to point out how even the simplest of questions seems to cause confusion for Mr. Gorton. Even when the counsel is simply repeating a question that the counsel for the defense asked him moments before!

Fun stuff. Enjoy. My emphasis added, along with running commentary.

Q. Mr. Gorton, do you remember -- first of all, did you participate in the decision to place Mrs. Scott on administrative leave?

A. No.

Q. I think you said that in your affidavit submitted in support of the summary judgment motion in this matter, correct?

A. I might have said that.

Don't go out on a limb, there, Mr. Gorton.

Q. And you and I had a deposition together, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall my asking you the question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave"?

A. Yes, I recall it.

Q. Do you recall your answer?

A. Yeah. I believe I said I participated in it, but after -- I mean, that deposition was a bit confusing for me, the questions that were asked were confusing, and I -- that's the first time I'd been in that situation. After I thought about it -- and I think I'd mentioned I'd confused John Turner's investigation with a lot of other things that had gone on in that period of time.

Q. The question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave," confused you? Is that your testimony?

A. Could you repeat that. Could you repeat that, please.

...you mean like you just did?

Q. The statement, "Did you" -- the question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave" confused you?

A. Yes.

This might be his first (only?) honest answer here.

Q. Were you aware that at the time you signed your affidavit for the summary judgment that you had stated something different in your deposition?

A. No.

Q. You did not review your deposition prior to signing an affidavit stating that you did not participate?

A. I read my deposition afterwards.

Q. You testified in response to counsel's question about -- I think the statement was by counsel an unprecedented breach by Mrs. Scott in accessing computer-related materials. Do you remember that testimony?

A. No, I don't.

Q. I'm talking about today.

A. Unprecedented?

Q. I believe counsel's question -- that's my phrase, that's my recollection, I may be wrong. I understood him to ask you the question, did you believe that Mrs. Scott's access of certain aspects of the County computer system was an unprecedented breach of trust. I think that was the phrase. That's my recollection. Do you recall that question?

A. Yes.

Q. And you agreed with him, didn't you?

A. I don't -- I'm not sure I'm understanding. The question I'm hearing you say is access. What I heard him saying was the -- it was more that the inappropriate access. So I'm hearing two different questions.

Q. Okay. Do you understand the question now?

A. Just the access wasn't an issue, it was the type of access and the people that were being accessed that were the issue.

Q. Okay. That's fine. You do remember that exchange then?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was unprecedented in your view, I assume, because no one else had done it?

A. I said that I haven't seen anyone that's done that level of checking.

Ooooh! Cagey... For those scoring at home, the definition of "unprecedented", according to Dictionary.com is: "Having no previous examples." I just love people who can't just come out and agree with someone, but has to restate their agreement in their own words.

So, in summary, he wasn't involved even if he'd said he was before, he doesn't remember anything, including the previous 10 minutes, and he's not sure why he's here in the first place, and besides, he doesn't remember anything.

Check back next Tuesday for more snippets and sections from the transcripts! Believe me, there's plenty of juicy stuff in there...