Stephanie McIlvain Hates Lance

On 9/23/2010 9:01 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
She's just ****ed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well.
Foolish of her.


I'm curious. Do you think she hasn't talked to legal counsel
that is more competent than a guy like yourself that can't
find work in the profession?

Seems unlikely.

Fred Flintstein

What makes you think I can't get work in the profession? I'm retired
from practice, ****Wit.

I'm beginning to think her lawyer spoke with you. The thing is, she
probably doesn't know what some of the others have testified to. That
could really be her undoing. Time will tell.

BLafferty wrote:
On 9/23/2010 9:01 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
She's just ****ed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well.
Foolish of her.


I'm curious. Do you think she hasn't talked to legal counsel
that is more competent than a guy like yourself that can't
find work in the profession?

Seems unlikely.

Fred Flintstein

What makes you think I can't get work in the profession? I'm retired
from practice, ****Wit.

I'm beginning to think her lawyer spoke with you. The thing is, she
probably doesn't know what some of the others have testified to. That
could really be her undoing. Time will tell.

Dumbass,

I realize that being a retard doesn't preclude working as a lawyer.
But not everyone retires voluntarily. You've got some pretty clear
issues with OCD, that would seem to work against your finding
gainful employment.

Other people have an interest in her testimony. Oakley, for one.
Your man-crush LANCE for another. It's in both their interests for
her to have good legal advice.

Given that neither she nor Betsy have said anything relevant to
LANCE's tenure with US Postal I just think it's unlikely that the
Feds will go after her. Especially since her testimony while under
oath has been consistent and there are a million ways to explain
away the phone message to Betsy, which wasn't made under oath.
Dumbass.

Fred Flintstein

On Sep 23, 5:52*pm, BLafferty wrote:


She's just ****ed off the prosecution. *She will be charged. *And the
AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well. *Foolish
of her.

How do you know she ****ed off the prosecution?
Do you have personal knowledge, or is it just an inference?
I only have personal knowledge that she ****ed off you.

According to her lawyer, she testified that she had no
personal knowledge of doping by LANCE. It's entirely
possible, for example, that she had no personal knowledge
of doping by LANCE or Georgie-Porgie, and yet said
on the phone to Andreu or Lemond (I forget which) that
Georgie was so full of dope it was a miracle his kids
weren't deformed. She might just have been 100%
convinced of their dopertude without ever having seen
it happen. I am pretty convinced LANCE used EPO,
but I have no personal knowledge of it.

B. Andreu is quoted as commenting, "The weight of the
evidence will show she's lying." This strikes me as
imprudent, especially since Andreu doesn't yet know what
McIlvain actually said. Recall Simeoni got Armstrong into a
legal battle when Armstrong called Simeoni a liar (which he
probably was not).

Fredmaster Ben

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
On 9/23/2010 7:52 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Sep 22, 6:06 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

The only thing that's news here is that McIlvain was summoned
TODAY.
That's
relevant. Everything else here is old stuff. Including your
subject
line.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep...nce-armstrong-...

DR

=======
"Bienert said McIlvain "testified truthfully. Most of what she was
asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the
greatest recall. But she confirmed she had no personal knowledge of
Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs.""

Well, doesn't look like she changed her tune. We'll now see if she's
convicted of perjury as many here have said she will. My bet is she
won't be charged.

Brad Anders
========

If it's at all reasonable to charge her with perjury, they *HAVE* to.
Her situation is so well-known (the recorded conversations with BA)
that
her treatment sets a standard that all others will be looking to,
regarding their own cases.

If they (the Grand Jury & prosecutor) let her walk, without
challenging
her, they're nuts. The lost leverage would be extreme.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

She's just ****ed off the prosecution. She will be charged. And the
AUSA has probably got a major hard on now to get Lance as well.
Foolish of her.


Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal
counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into
conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of
fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the
moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the
team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process
(no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not
recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a
promise of significant compensation for her, er, work).

It could work.

How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 9/24/2010 12:16 AM, Keith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:52:31 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

=======
"Bienert said McIlvain "testified truthfully. Most of what she was
asked about was between five and 14 years old, so she didn't have the
greatest recall. But she confirmed she had no personal knowledge of
Lance Armstrong using or taking performance-enhancing drugs.""

Sounds like they're playing on words and going for a "technicality",
i.e. hearing someone say they took drugs might not qualify according
to them as "personal knowledge", unlike "I saw lab certified doping
results that he had doped". I doubt they were amused...

Dumbass,

She can say anything she wants, they can't prove she's lying.

Fred Flintstein

On 9/23/2010 11:33 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.

The phone messages prove she lied to someone about something. It
doesn't prove to whom. If there are perjury charges it'll just
be for harassment.

Fred Flintstein

On Sep 23, 9:33*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.

IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?

Brad Anders

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.

========
IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?

Brad Anders
========

Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on
he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to
testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff
previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that
you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer
immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and
if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie...

If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I
let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of
any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort
of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving
credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they
can say or not say whatever they want.

Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
something will come of this.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Sep 24, 8:01*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Brad Anders" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be
brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon.

========
IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for
the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the
prize in your sights?

Brad Anders
========

Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on
he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to
testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff
previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that
you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer
immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and
if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie...

If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I
let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of
any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort
of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving
credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they
can say or not say whatever they want.

Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
something will come of this.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

You're right, Novitsky is no dummy, which is why he won't go after
her. She's previously testified under oath that she had no direct
knowledge of LA taking PEDs. She's now testified under oath that she
has no direct knowledge of LA using PEDs. She gave a perfectly
believable, albeit lame, excuse for why she told others she heard LA
talk about taking PEDs when in fact she had not direct knowledge of
him taking PEDs. None of her conversations knowing that LA used
PEDs were under oath, and if she claims now that she was just BS'ing
all along, that's not exactly illegal.

So, unless Novitsky has definitive proof she DID have direct knowledge
of LA using PEDs, how can he possibly prove perjury? AND, if he has
definitive proof that she has direct knowledge of LA using PEDs, this
whole thing would be over 'cause he'd have proof of LA using PEDs.

If he can not at this time prove LA used PEDs, how could he possibly
prove that she knew about him using PEDs?

The only way she gets charged for perjury is if they eventually prove
LA used PEDs AND during the course of the remainder of the
investigation it becomes clear she knew, then he goes after her.

Fred

On Sep 24, 7:01*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented
he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the
absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on
he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to
testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff
previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that
you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer
immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and
if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie...

If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I
let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of
any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort
of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving
credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they
can say or not say whatever they want.

Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect
something will come of this.

Novitsky is an investigator. He is not the prosecutor.
I assume he works closely with the prosecutors, but
Novitsky will not make decisions about whom to
indict. (The tendency to personify the investigation and
prosecution as all-Novitsky makes me think he really does
have a good press agent.) A prosecutor will make those
decisions and it probably will be based largely on whether
the prosecutor thinks the case can be won. Indictments
can be tactical, but in general, prosecutors don't bring
cases if they don't think they can win - losing makes them
look bad and gives their bosses a bad impression.

Indictments are likely to be based on gathering most
or all of the grand jury testimony and seeing what can
support a case; I kind of doubt that you will see the
prosecutors turn around and indict McIlvain now,
right away.

If you think back to the Scooter Libby case, there was a
long investigation, lots of testimony, and all sorts of
overheated speculation about who would be indicted
before Patrick Fitzgerald finally returned indictments
against Libby. Liberals speculated Rove would be
indicted (Fitzgerald didn't think he could prove that in the
end) and conservatives speculated Joe Wilson would be
indicted (Yes, this really was speculated).

Fredmaster Ben