Dallas News Blog

Just curious, why did the DO refuse to give the court a copy of the interview tape?

That's what I figured, fair enough.

"Citing to some vague constitutional protection unknown to this Court, the Observer declined to produce the tape to the Court. Because of the Observer's refusal to produce the tape, the Court cannot assess the accuracy of the story..."

HA! "This court" doesn't know the first amendment? Scary.

I'm glad the observer is the crew of principled rebels it is.

Buzz's response is a big non-answer.

Why does the DO believe the First Amendment protects the tape? You're not protecting an anonymous source. You wouldn't hesitate to produce the tape if a libel allegation came up. (Assuming, of course, the tape backed up the article.)

So now we have the DO refusing to turn over the tape, a juror saying Sam didn't accurately report what she said, didn't ask obvious questions . . . and now Sam's incognito. Again, I ask: just how accurate WAS Sam's story? Not very, according to the juror.

@ louis douglas williams

1) The first one -- THE Corrupt Practice Act.

2) There is no Justice for such a victum, sadly.