KDUH UPDATE

[schoolgirl]

Just thought you would like to know what the latest is:

Former KDUH Reporter Ordered to Pay Fine & Make Restitution For Tape Erasure
A former KDUH reporter was fined $330 and was ordered to make $3,250 in restitution after entering a no contest plea in Scotts Bluff County District court to a reduced charge of misdemeanor criminal mischief. 24 year old Breda Murphy had orginally faced a felony criminal mischief count for allegedly erasing between eighty and ninety video tapes on June 3rd, the day before she resigned from the Scottsbluff TV station.

Murphy and co-defendant 23 year old Daniel Camp, also a reporter at the station, were charged with erasing the tapes. Scottsbluff Police say the reporters were upset with their employer and felt the material on the tapes was theirs. Camp had resigned three days before the tape erasures.

During a hearing in October, District Judge Randy Lippstreu ruled the tapes had enough of a value to warrant the original felony count against Murphy. Prior to Lippstreu's ruling, Camp's case was sent back to county court by Judge Robert Hippe due to questions about the method of assessing the tapes' value. Deputy County Attorney Jeff Hill says Camp has waived his preliminary hearing in county court and will enter the same plea as Murphy when he is arraigned in district court at a yet to be determined date.

[ December 16, 2005, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: schoolgirl ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?

Smart move on her part. If you're concerned about the high cost of a trial. A trial would have cost this fine young reporter three times this amount .... to win.

Which she would have done, of course.

There's no law against erasing videotape.

[ December 16, 2005, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Fast Guy ]

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I wish them well. Their talents demand it.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?

Smart move on her part. If you're concerned about the high cost of a trial. A trial would have cost this fine young reporter three times this amount .... to win.

Which she would have done, of course.

There's no law against erasing videotape.Idiot..if she truly thought she could win, she would have taken it to trial. Who, in their right mind, would pay this amount when there was a "certainty" that they wouldn't have to?

[Mr. Fast Guy]

You know little.

The cost of a defendant to go to trial is very high. The attorney fees would be much higher than $3,000 for a simple one day trial. I'd bet it would wind up being in the 7-10 thousand dollar range.

And that's what it costs to win.

On the other hand, she's offered a $3 thousand dollar out and a reduction to a misdemeaner charge. And she can plead nolo contendre, which in case you didn't know means she's not admiting guilt to any criminal allegation, but will accept the courts punishment as if she were guilty.

Oh, the youngsters among us. Save us from their stupidity.

[ December 16, 2005, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Fast Guy ]

[Go Sox]

Working for the Duhammels will drive you to do some pretty crazy things.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

That's a good defense. Someone actually used it many years ago when they were accused of embezellment.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
You know little.

The cost of a defendant to go to trial is very high. The attorney fees would be much higher than $3,000 for a simple one day trial. I'd bet it would wind up being in the 7-10 thousand dollar range.

And that's what it costs to win.

On the other hand, she's offered a $3 thousand dollar out and a reduction to a misdemeaner charge. And she can plead nolo contendre, which in case you didn't know means she's not admiting guilt to any criminal allegation, but will accept the courts punishment as if she were guilty.

Oh, the youngsters among us. Save us from their stupidity.Hell, yes, it's a good move on her part. She'd be looking at jail time, otherwise! Do me a favor, oh wise one....name ONE FREAKIN' PERSON on this board you've convinced with your months and months of superior wisdom. That ought to tell you what this reporter's chances were in open court.

[ December 16, 2005, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: TV Dad ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
Name ONE FREAKIN' PERSON on this board you've convinced with your months and months of superior wisdom. That ought to tell you what this reporter's chances were in open court.The popular answer is not always the right one.
It is not necessary to be popular to be right.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TV Dad:
Name ONE FREAKIN' PERSON on this board you've convinced with your months and months of superior wisdom. That ought to tell you what this reporter's chances were in open court.The popular answer is not always the right one.
It is not necessary to be popular to be right.</font>[/QUOTE]True, but I get the feeling you think this board isn't an accurate representation of what an actual jury would be. Do you think your argument of "tapes were made to be erased" would fly with a grandmother from Middletown, USA who is trying to see how that argument might be valid if this reporter had erased the videotapes of the birth of her first grandchild? There IS a value to the pictures recorded on video tape that is much more precious than the cost of the tape itself.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TV Dad:
Name ONE FREAKIN' PERSON on this board you've convinced with your months and months of superior wisdom. That ought to tell you what this reporter's chances were in open court.The popular answer is not always the right one.
It is not necessary to be popular to be right.</font>[/QUOTE]True.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you.

[Kace]

And good at false quoting, too! smile.gif

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TV Dad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TV Dad:
Name ONE FREAKIN' PERSON on this board you've convinced with your months and months of superior wisdom. That ought to tell you what this reporter's chances were in open court.The popular answer is not always the right one.
It is not necessary to be popular to be right.</font>[/QUOTE]True.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you.</font>[/QUOTE]Nice dodge. You still haven't named one person who's buying what you're selling. lol It's not enough for you and your client to be convinced. There's a judge and twelve jurors that also have a say in things.

[Media Hack]

Don't feed the troll!

It's over. These chumps know they have no defense and now they'll pay the price.

Let's let it go at that.

[Laughing Angel]

Let Mr Fast Guy keep right on talkin'.

There's a bigger price to be paid for this type of stupidity. Stories like these tend to follow a "fine young reporter" around, and prevent said reporter from securing employment in his/her chosen field. After all, who wants to hire a person with a history of sabotage against an employer?

[s'news]

They got off pretty easy. The judge could have ordered community service at a bulk-tape-erasing business.

[SamG]

You know what Mr. Fast Guy is forgetting (leaving out)...
Originally posted by schoolgirl:
During a hearing in October, District Judge Randy Lippstreu ruled the tapes had enough of a value to warrant the original felony count against Murphy.

[Produce man]

I'm glad it's over. Now these two idiots can enjoy their careers in the house cleaning or food service industry.

[MyracleMan]

Fine and restitution... she got off easier than she deserved. But, on the other side, her career is ruined. Anyone doing a background check would come across this information, and any news director in their right mind would never hire her or her partner in crime.
It's over... let SpeedyFastGuyPonderingSanchezWhiteVoice continue to try and tell us they did nothing wrong, and let the rest of us ignore the troll.

[JoinUsForCake]

So, Mr. Fast Guy...

How's your new job as Evening Shift Manager at the Scotts Bluff Taco Bell going?

[kneedinthegroin]

Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
So, Mr. Fast Guy...

How's your new job as Evening Shift Manager at the Scotts Bluff Taco Bell going?BTW a bit of advice the beans are made to be refried. So don't worry about that.

[Fearmonger]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?

Smart move on her part. If you're concerned about the high cost of a trial. A trial would have cost this fine young reporter three times this amount .... to win.

Which she would have done, of course.

There's no law against erasing videotape.There may be no valid theft charge but there is a vaild charge of CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY which is exactly what happened here.

The dollar amout of the damage would be computed on the cost to gather the images that were removed. That would make it either a felony or misdemeanor.

Mid to lower grade felonies will almost always get reduced to misdemeanors for defendants with no prior recods. Misdemeanors will stay on you record for the rest of your life.

In any event there careers as reporters are over for good now. They're washed up. What a stupid thing to do.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well...they got the satisfaction of "revenge."

I'm sure the clarity of this decision will become more clear with each burrito supreme they serve up and urinal cake they replace now that the Dynamic Duo have elevated themself from their horrible indentured-servitude like existence of t.v. news.

[Produce man]

What a waste of education. One year out of school and their careers are f#cked for life. I'll bet their parents are beaming with pride.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?
Well, she certainly didn't take yours.

YOU told her to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

She didn't do that.

So, if she got good legal advice, she got it from a real attorney, not you.

And I think it's hilarious that she now has to give money back to the employer she so despised.

[ December 16, 2005, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[sportzchick]

If she was "innocent" and took it to court and won (as you say she would have)... couldn't she have asked the prosecution to pay for her attorney fees?

[Pro]

Originally posted by sportzchick:
If she was "innocent" and took it to court and won (as you say she would have)... couldn't she have asked the prosecution to pay for her attorney fees?Not in a criminal case. A grand jury indictment or preliminary hearing that sends the case to trial means that the state has a right to try the case.

[MLC]

I guarantee that no one who has posted on this topic knows as much about the case as I do.

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

I have the transcript of the preliminary hearing in which KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3250 this week and said nothing.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value. Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

If you haven't seen the transcript of the preliminary hearing, you don't know all there was to know.

[Tripe Face]

So MLC, who the ***** are you that you think you know so much about how prosecutors do their jobs?

She has a criminal record now. What she did was wrong. I hope she and her buddy never work in the news media again.

Now you and your friend Sir-Mr.-Speedy-Fast-Guy- Premature-Ejaculation-Boy, just leave MediaLine forever (and yeah I hoep you two never work in news either.)

[MLC]

Why so angry, Tripe? Do you have a personal stake in this situation?

Seems strange that reference to an actual record of testimonial evidence would evoke a profane outburst. I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's recent comment: "I love the truth - - it's facts I don't like."

Nothing I have read on this topic, in the various threads started since May, appears to have had any basis in the actual facts of this case. I say this with regard to those who have criticized Miss Murphy and, frankly, also with regard to those who have posted supportive words. That strikes me as ironic, insofar as presumably the majority of posters on this site are in the business of finding and reporting facts rather than operating only on assumptions and emotion.

The facts have, since about August, been a matter of public record. The preliminary hearing was transcribed and is available for review in the district court file.

The KDUH station manager was ordered in a one-paragraph subpoena to bring the binders that he claimed established the contents of the morgue tapes. A second KDUH employee was also ordered to appear and bring the binders. The second employee did not appear at all; the station manager appeared, but did not bring the binders. He claimed that he didn't read the part (in the single paragraph of text) that told him to bring the binders. The binders have never been made available for review.

Check out the transcript and read it. Or, just continue to fulminate and attack those who present facts. I hear that Fox News has openings for that kind of "talent."

[Laughing Angel]

So what exactly is your point MLC?

Your explanation sounds like another way to excuse this young woman's stupid, malicious and (as described by the court) criminal behavior.

Interestingly, you only discuss the trouble the prosecution would face in trying this case. What about the defense? This young woman and her equally goofy pal weren't just playing around and "accidentally" erased the tapes. They made a concious decision to walk in, grab specific material and bulk erase it all. This included video and packages that *other* employees shot, edited, voiced and ultimately aired. Remember, it's not just the "station" being harmed by this malevolent behavior.

BTW, while you're giving us your opinion on the case, why not tell us--do you think what they did was right or wrong? We haven't gotten your take on that part of the story yet.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by MLC:
The KDUH station manager was ordered in a one-paragraph subpoena to bring the binders that he claimed established the contents of the morgue tapes. A second KDUH employee was also ordered to appear and bring the binders. The second employee did not appear at all; the station manager appeared, but did not bring the binders. He claimed that he didn't read the part (in the single paragraph of text) that told him to bring the binders. The binders have never been made available for review.So the station manager's a dork.

That has exactly no mitigating effect on the fact that what these kids did was wrong, and they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by MLC:
Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

I have the transcript of the preliminary hearing in which KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3250 this week and said nothing.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value. Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.] These apes are hopeless. Most if not all have never set foot in a courtroom, yet pretend to know something about covering trials.

Your post will shame into silence the most outrageous offenders.

I've been telling them for months that there wasn't anything of value on those file tapes. I've been telling them for months the "cost" the station came up with was arbitrary.

I've been telling them for months that Murphy would plead to a misdemeanor and why. The costs of going to trial when you can plead out to a handslap, even if you're not guilty of a crime, demand it.

There was a case that went to trial in Rapid City many years ago involving the Duhamels. But it went to trial because the heavy felony penatly demanded that it be fought, and won.

And win they did.

A Rapid City attorney defended the comptroller or head office manager or whatever for Duhamels, way back in the late 60s or early 70s. The guy---I have no idea what his name is, but I'll call him "Joe" for ease of description---was this very straight-laced, boring CPA type. He got arrested for embezzling this huge amount of money (I was told me it was in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars) from Duhamels. "Joe" started to do very weird-for-him things with the money, and it was as if he was trying to get caught. He bought a race car to race at the Black Hills Speedway, spent lavishly on women, wine and song, etc. Sure enough, he got busted.

The lawyer sent "Joe" to a local psychiatrist or psychologist (I can't remember what rank of professional qualifications he had), Frank Buzzetta (now deceased), to have him evaluated. Dr. Buzzetta diagnosed "Joe" as having done all this in order to punish the Duhamels, rather than actually wanting the money himself. That's why "Joe" spent it all, and so ridiculously lavishly, and also why he "tried to get caught."

The reason he wanted to hurt the Duhamels? It was because of all the dastardly, cheap and cheating deeds he'd seen the Duhamels do in conducting their business. An example was that of Ol' Lady Duhamel. I guess the Duhamels had a number of commission adverstising sales people working for them. One of the sales guys---a family man, very dedicated, loyal, been with Duhamels for years and years, and so forth---had one big account: Jacobs Motors. It was his main way of feeding his family. Well, Ol' Lady Duhamel one year decided that she wanted a fancy new car, and fancied one at Jacobs Motors. So rather than dipping into her millions to buy it, she decided she'd do some bartering: if Jacobs Motors would give her the car, she'd give them a bunch of free advertising. Of course, it meant that the poor, innocent sales guy lost his commission on the Jacobs Motors account because of it. Didn't mean squat to Ol' Lady Duhamel.

That was but one example, I guess. I guess in the criminal trial, the defense attorney introduced example after example of Duhamel dirty tricks to show the jury some justification for "Joe"'s embezzlement. Sure enough, the jury was incensed enough that they acquitted him of embezzlement and convicted him only of tax evasion on the money that was taken.

[AlterEgo]

I can just feel the Christmas spirit in this thread

My thing is, I don't know who taught these 2 individuals to be this disrespectful of other people's property. Even if you want to say that they shot it so it's their's, I don't know who taught them to be that disrespectful of their own property.

[Fearmonger]

Originally posted by MLC:
I guarantee that no one who has posted on this topic knows as much about the case as I do.

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

I have the transcript of the preliminary hearing in which KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3250 this week and said nothing.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value. Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

If you haven't seen the transcript of the preliminary hearing, you don't know all there was to know.That's total balony about plea agreements! Prosecutors always offer them or the wheels of justice would grind to a halt trying every case.

Your legal information was obviously pulled out of someone's ass.

This video tape case would have been a cake walk to prosecute for any second year law student. The statements/confessions of the two morons who erased the station's tapes made to the cops would have been fed to the jury.

As for the value they need only add up the money paid to the crews to create them in the first place and that amount only need to exceed the felony threshold amout of the state involved. That can be as little as $150.00.

[ December 18, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

The two KDUH reporters who resigned and erased their work on file tapes were arrested for felony criminal mischief and trespassing. But they're completely innocent of the charges.

I have long ago wished them well and continue to hope these two fine young examples of reporters well in the future. If they had the money, they certainly would have taken the case to trial. You know the station damn sure didn't want that to happen. There would be much unflattering but honest testimony. Perhaps the KDUH work enviornment problems will be given full light in the community and that would surely damage the station's reputation beyond repair. The damage could be seen in the entire broadcast community, not just Scottsbluff. Paltry news department salaries would be exposed, where reporters are subjected to work overtime at HALF pay. Not time and half - half pay. Hours would have been discussed, and you know they're long. Managment practices would be examined and you know they've made numerous mistakes.

Yes, for one thing, something had to be terribly wrong at that station for two high profile journalists to resign in tandem. Why would those two people whow were at the begining of promising careers want to take what they gave the station (their work) so the station could never profit from it again?

For starters, since the fine young journalists resigned one would have to assume they were not under a legally binding contract.

I think there are some interesting legal questions and they are not at all cut and dry.

Did they "damage" the tapes? No. Absolutely not. They allegedly erased their personal contributions to the legacy of the station. The tapes remain very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No. Check the record.

Would the station likely have used some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

It's outrageous that this station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes. If the old work of these former employees is indeed that valuable to the station, and it were discovered that copies were made, would you expect the station to cut a $10,000 check to the employees? No. Maybe 50 bucks, tops. They wouldn't get that much on eBay. Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well. Hell, according to the station, just never to be seen repeats of their work efforts are worth a whopping 10-grand!

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station?

These two young reporter/anchors have a story to tell about that news operation and I pray to God that one day they get to tell it.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Couldn't you just post a link to the other 7,594 times you've posted this same material? It would save bandwidth.

[Fearmonger]

The tapes were the sole property of the staion for whatever reason. The two goofs can now learn how to swing a mop. They are now convicted criminals.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
[QUOTE]I've been telling them for months that Murphy would plead to a misdemeanor and why.Of course, she did NOT plead guilty. Nolo Contendre is not a guilty plea.

Which makes you wrong.

How about that.

[SamG]

Mr. Speedy-fast-guy-minute-man is right about one thing. The duo ARE innocent of the felony charges, BECAUSE they pled down to a misdemeaner. So, when asked if they've ever been convicted of a felony, then can legaly, and honestly say "no".

BUT, if they're asked if they've ever COMMITTED a felony, they can't use that same answer. Again, from the judge in the case... District Judge Randy Lippstreu ruled the tapes had enough of a value to warrant the original felony count

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?
Well, she certainly didn't take yours.
YOU told her to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
She didn't do that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Huh? She plead to a misdemeanor.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. But she didn't plead guilty.

If you want to be a legal expert, you're going to have to pay closer attention.

[ December 18, 2005, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Mr. Ass Guy, refresh our memory. Are you still denying that you're Sir Speedy?

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?
Well, she certainly didn't take yours.
YOU told her to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
She didn't do that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Huh? She plead to a misdemeanor.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. But she didn't plead guilty.</font>[/QUOTE]She got the case over with an admitted guilt. Even though we all know she did nothing criminally wrong.

It was all about saving money.

[Fearmonger]

A misdemeanor is still a crime no matter the "kind" of plea or reduced charges. This is a crime of dishonesty and would be used to deny business licenses and such. Getting most civil service jobs are out of the question too.

They are criminals and will be branded as such.

[ December 18, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Boy, did she get good legal advice or what?
Well, she certainly didn't take yours.
YOU told her to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
She didn't do that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Huh? She plead to a misdemeanor.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. But she didn't plead guilty.</font>[/QUOTE]She got the case over with an admitted guilt. Even though we all know she did nothing criminally wrong.

It was all about saving money.</font>[/QUOTE]Sure is lucky that I used the "quote" function" so people could be reminded that you said she would plead guilty then got confused and insisted she did plead guilty, when in fact, she did not.

Nice of you to yank your post saying that I was wrong (along with a snide comment) when you suddenly realized you were the one in error, by the way.

[ December 18, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
This is a crime of dishonesty and would be used to deny business licenses and such.
They are criminals and will be branded as such.As well it should. But KDUH got away with inflating the cost of the file tapes which were not at all damaged and held nothing of real value.

They're the criminals.

[Fearmonger]

They had her by the short hairs and she caved in to avoid a much bigger penalty. She's a criminal, nothing more and nothing less.

[ December 18, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by MLC:
Why so angry, Tripe? Do you have a personal stake in this situation?

Seems strange that reference to an actual record of testimonial evidence would evoke a profane outburst. I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's recent comment: "I love the truth - - it's facts I don't like."

Nothing I have read on this topic, in the various threads started since May, appears to have had any basis in the actual facts of this case. I say this with regard to those who have criticized Miss Murphy and, frankly, also with regard to those who have posted supportive words. That strikes me as ironic, insofar as presumably the majority of posters on this site are in the business of finding and reporting facts rather than operating only on assumptions and emotion.

The facts have, since about August, been a matter of public record. The preliminary hearing was transcribed and is available for review in the district court file.

The KDUH station manager was ordered in a one-paragraph subpoena to bring the binders that he claimed established the contents of the morgue tapes. A second KDUH employee was also ordered to appear and bring the binders. The second employee did not appear at all; the station manager appeared, but did not bring the binders. He claimed that he didn't read the part (in the single paragraph of text) that told him to bring the binders. The binders have never been made available for review.

Check out the transcript and read it. Or, just continue to fulminate and attack those who present facts. I hear that Fox News has openings for that kind of "talent."So true. So true. Breda and Daniel could teach Media Hack and his minion a thing or two about reponsible reporting.

I wish them well.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If you want to be a legal expert, you're going to have to pay closer attention.Remember when that fraud Diggin' Bear said County Attorney Doug Warner would not reduce the charge?

I laughed and laughed and laughed.

He thought he was pretty good at playing reporter.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
I wish them well.I wish you Hell.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If you want to be a legal expert, you're going to have to pay closer attention.Remember when that fraud Diggin' Bear said County Attorney Doug Warner would not reduce the charge?

I laughed and laughed and laughed.

He thought he was pretty good at playing reporter.</font>[/QUOTE]But we're not talking about him.

We're talking about you and the fact that you were wrong, despite your multi-posted multiparagraph dissertations explaining how you knew exactly what would happen.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If you want to be a legal expert, you're going to have to pay closer attention.Remember when that fraud Diggin' Bear said County Attorney Doug Warner would not reduce the charge?

I laughed and laughed and laughed.

He thought he was pretty good at playing reporter.</font>[/QUOTE]But we're not talking about him. </font>[/QUOTE]I am. It was and is too funny to forget.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
If you want to be a legal expert, you're going to have to pay closer attention.Remember when that fraud Diggin' Bear said County Attorney Doug Warner would not reduce the charge?

I laughed and laughed and laughed.

He thought he was pretty good at playing reporter.</font>[/QUOTE]But we're not talking about him. </font>[/QUOTE]I am. It was and is too funny to forget.</font>[/QUOTE]Then the fact that you didn't understand what actually transpired would be at least as funny. More, even, since you couldn't be bothered to find out the details before you posted your usual lengthy comments.

[Chief Engineer]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Breda and Daniel could teach Media Hack and his minion a thing or two about reponsible reporting.
Yeah, like how to ruin your career by getting busted . Master Fast Kid, I do not care about the legalities of this situation. Your average 10 year old knows that what these "2 fine reporters" did was wrong. All of your brilliant legal analysis, coupled with your somewhat strained rationalizations of the value of archival footage does not change that fact. You and I obviously have different ideas about the meaning of "reponsible."

[SamG]

Here it is folks... Mr. Fast-Speedy-Minute Man guy ADMITS the duo are CRIMINALS!

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fearmonger:
This is a crime of dishonesty and would be used to deny business licenses and such.
They are criminals and will be branded as such.As well it should. </font>[/QUOTE]

[MLC]

Still not seeing anyone who claims to have gotten their hands on some actual facts.

Thus, a few more notes:

1- Failing to comply with a subpoena does not make one merely a "dork"; it is a sign of trying to conceal evidence. The prosecutor offered a plea agreement at a time when the next step would have been challenging the station manager's refusal to comply with the subpoena.

If the station manager was in the right and had no weaknesses in his claim, why not bring the binders as ordered by his subpoena and let the defense examine them?

Remember that the Constitution (the right of confrontation, specifically) says that when one is bringing a felony criminal accusation, he has to man up and support his accusation with facts - - and be confronted by the person whom he is accusing. The station manager showed early indications that he did not want to do this, when he did not comply with the subpoena. This, along with the admissions that appear in his preliminary hearing testimony, should have legitimately concerned the prosecutor (and evidently did concern him).

2- If a citizen accused of a felony were concerned about the risk of jurors rushing to judgment without waiting to hear the proverbial "rest of the story," the postings on this board would certainly confirm those concerns. The point of a jury trial - - in fact, the point of any evidentiary hearing - - is ostensibly to glean competent, admissible evidence that rises above emotional tirades and personal attacks.

3- I don't know Fast Guy or have any idea who he is. I do, however, know the facts of this case. Don't fear the facts. Read the transcript, for confirmation that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); that no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; that as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is damaged actually had value before its damage. If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a felony.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by MLC:
1- Failing to comply with a subpoena does not make one merely a "dork"; it is a sign of trying to conceal evidence. Then charge him.

But his actions, even if they're illegal, do not lessen the illegality of the actions of the kids in question.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by MLC:
at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); that no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; These two concepts contradict each other.

[Fearmonger]

More comments from jailhouse lawyers.

It's standard practice for nearly every news outlet to ignor Subpoenas. That's not a crime at all. What happens is the court orders a hearing, to Show Cause Why The Witness Should Not Be Held In Contempt. This affords the news outfit and their lawyers a way to make a case for a 1st Amendment reason to refuse at the hearing. Another way to do this is to file a Motion for Protective Order to protect information from public disclosure.

If the hearing goes against the news provider they must produce what's asked for, or else. If they lose and don't turn over the material someone will need to carry their toothbrush with them.

[ December 18, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Fearmonger]

Nobody gives a rat's ass what was on the tapes. What was on the tapes was the property of the station. The minimum loss is the cost to create the now missing images.

THIS WAS A REAL CRIME

[smartyjones]

Man, This thread is irritating,but I cant take it anymore.I know that those of you defending those two losers are just trying to stir things up because no RATIONAL person would defend what they did. A RATIONAL person might quibble about the extent of the charges, but there is no doubt they should have been filed. And no RATIONAL news director will ever hire them again.As someone who worked at KDUH many years ago I know that it is a small market dump and that management can be "quirky". But you do your time, take your lumps,move on and let some other young reporter get a shot at starting a career. As far as 80 percent of morgue tapes never being used, if they figured out a way to erase the 80 percent that will never be used then we wouldn't have this problem would we ? Its like the bosses who told me to not shoot so much tape at a football game..only shoot the touchdowns. Yeah...right.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by MLC:
Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is damaged actually had value before its damage. If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a felony.Those here who are love with their own shallow argument don't now know nor will they ever know this basic legal concept.

Most here are not reporters. They're photographers or producers or directors. And they're guessing out loud.

You can tell in a lot of ways, but it's obvious when they don't recognize the financial reality of a plea bargain and how the prosecution counts on that when overcharging a case.

Most of what I'm doing with these posts is trying to get them to stop and think about what they think and why. To force them to put it into words in the hope they realize they don't know why they thinking as they do.

While it works with intelligent adults, it's not a very effective method with children.

I have a question I wish you answer, is there anything legally binding which says KDUH must use the restitution money in a certain way? Meaning of course do they have to spend the 6 grand they're getting from these kids to replace the file tapes? Because they're not going to go shoot video of something they're never going to use again. And they never were going use the vast majority of that file video ever again. That could have been proven easily.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
Nobody gives a rat's ass what was on the tapes. My point exactly.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
It's standard practice for nearly every news outlet to ignor Subpoenas. That's not a crime at all. You should change your username to FunnyGirl.

Hillarious.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Most here are not reporters. They're photographers or producers or directors. And they're guessing out loud.So are you.

Just like when you assured us that she'd plead guilt to a lesser charge.

She didn't.

Your opinion is just as fallible as everyone else's.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fearmonger:
It's standard practice for nearly every news outlet to ignor Subpoenas. That's not a crime at all. You should change your username to FunnyGirl.

Hillarious.</font>[/QUOTE]See, now I know you're guessing, because I know Fearmonger and I know his legal training and eperience, which is substantial. And he's right.

The fact that you don't realize that many subpoenas are routinely ignored shows that (a) you don't work in a newsroom, and (b) you don't really know the law.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
I have a question I wish you answer, is there anything legally binding which says KDUH must use the restitution money in a certain way? Meaning of course do they have to spend the 6 grand they're getting from these kids to replace the file tapes? Because they're not going to go shoot video of something they're never going to use again. And they never were going use the vast majority of that file video ever again. That could have been proven easily.I don't believe there is anything that says money received in restitution has to be used to replace that property which was lost. Nobody can say whether or not that file video would ever be used again. We can guess, but there's no way of knowing for sure. Which is why staions archive it, of course. What's the value of a story done with a local dog catcher about not leaving your dogs locked in the car during the summer? What's it's value if that dog catcher turns out to be the BTK killer?

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
The fact that you don't realize that many subpoenas are routinely ignored shows that (a) you don't work in a newsroom, and (b) you don't really know the law.Subpoena is latin for bring with you under penalty.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
The fact that you don't realize that many subpoenas are routinely ignored shows that (a) you don't work in a newsroom, and (b) you don't really know the law.Subpoena is latin for bring with you under penalty.</font>[/QUOTE]No kidding.

Hey, I'm telling you how it's done in the real world, not in your textbook guessing game.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
I don't believe there is anything that says money received in restitution has to be used to replace that property which was lost.A agree. I don't think there is any way to dictate that someone use the money for a specific purpose.

In this case KDUH will not spend a dime to replace the file video. Know why?

It's no loss.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Subpoena is latin for bring with you under penalty.No kidding.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No kidding.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Subpoena is latin for bring with you under penalty.No kidding.
</font>[/QUOTE]No kidding.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What penalty did the KDUH station manager suffer for failing to bring the subpoenaed materials with him?

[Fearmonger]

What a bunch of dopy posts by ignorant goofs!

The images on the tape HAVE the minimun value of at least what it cost to create them. The potential income produced by the material later can also be a factor in the value of the tape and loss to the station.

The victim (The news organization)can do whatever they want with any money paid via restitution.

There is nothing to prevent the victim here from also filing a civil lawsuit against the defendants seeking damages and punitive damages to punish the morons who pulled off this really stupid stunt.

The station won't sue because of the reality that you can't get blood out of a turnip. These defendants will have a tough time staying employed because of their crime.

[ December 19, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
But KDUH got away with inflating the cost of the file tapes which were not at all damaged and held nothing of real value.

They're the criminals.Once again, you cannot comprehend that THE MATERIAL RECORDED ONTO the tapes was what this was all about. They destroyed that material. The magnetic images & sounds encoded onto the file tapes had monetary value. You & your friend(s) LOSE.

You're pathetic, Mr. Ass Guy. Truly pathetic.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
You should change your username to FunnyGirl.

Hillarious.And you should change your name to
Mr. I-Can't-Spell-Hilarious-Because-I'm-A-*****ing-Dipsh*t-Retard Guy.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Merry Dyckerson:
[QUOTE]And you should change your name Ho, ho, ho.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
[QUOTE]They destroyed that material.They erased the images from eraseable videotape just as eraseable tape is meant to function.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
What penalty did the KDUH station manager suffer for failing to bring the subpoenaed materials with him?None. It's pretty obvious to everyone paying attention that the prosecution and judge were on the same team. Know what they would have done if it were the defense which ignored the subpoena?

A mounting fine. Time in the Scotts Bluff County Jail. Or both.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
They destroyed that material.They erased the images from eraseable videotape just as eraseable tape is meant to function.</font>But they didn't have permission to do so.

By your repeated "theory," it would be all right for anyone to erase any eraseable medium. I challenge you to go into your bank and erase their hard drives, which are, after all, made to be erased. Tell the police that as they're putting the handcuffs on you.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
I have a question I wish you answer, is there anything legally binding which says KDUH must use the restitution money in a certain way? Meaning of course do they have to spend the 6 grand they're getting from these kids to replace the file tapes? Because they're not going to go shoot video of something they're never going to use again. And they never were going use the vast majority of that file video ever again. That could have been proven easily.I don't believe there is anything that says money received in restitution has to be used to replace that property which was lost. </font>[/QUOTE]I think the judge has the option to specify how the restitution money must be spent and to ask for proof, or otherwise vacate that part of the sentence.

I don't think this will happen in this case though.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
What penalty did the KDUH station manager suffer for failing to bring the subpoenaed materials with him?None. It's pretty obvious to everyone paying attention that the prosecution and judge were on the same team. Know what they would have done if it were the defense which ignored the subpoena?

A mounting fine. Time in the Scotts Bluff County Jail. Or both.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, now the judge and the prosecution are in on it, too! Yay, a conspiracy theory!

Of course, you spent a lot of space on this board saying the judge was a smart man who knew what he was going back when the decision appeared to be going your way.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
They destroyed that material.They erased the images from eraseable videotape just as eraseable tape is meant to function.</font>But they didn't have permission to do so.</font>[/QUOTE]No clear policy prohibiting it.

[Tripe Face]

OH, for chrissake... THREE PAGES of this inane bickering. Just STOP. PLEASE STOP.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
Oh, now the judge and the prosecution are in on it, too!Pretty obvious to those of us with experience. And not altogether uncommon.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
you spent a lot of space on this board saying the judge was a smart man who knew what he was going back when the decision appeared to be going your way.Different judge.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
They destroyed that material.They erased the images from eraseable videotape just as eraseable tape is meant to function.</font>But they didn't have permission to do so.</font>[/QUOTE]No clear policy prohibiting it.</font>[/QUOTE]Is there a specific law where you live that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank?

Because, by your theory, if you can't show me a law that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank, you're welcome to do so.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
you spent a lot of space on this board saying the judge was a smart man who knew what he was going back when the decision appeared to be going your way.Different judge.</font>[/QUOTE]I see. And so, your evidence that the judge and proescution are in collusion is, what? That the judge didn't charge the station manager?

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
[Is there a specific law where you live that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank? If I worked in a bank and part of my job entailed erasing and reusing hard drives on computers, then the analogy is apt. And I would have broken no law.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
Oh, now the judge and the prosecution are in on it, too!Pretty obvious to those of us with experience. And not altogether uncommon.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't even know the difference between a plea of "guilty" and a plea of "nolo contendre", a few pages back, so your claims that you have experience mean nothing.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
[Is there a specific law where you live that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank? If I worked in a bank and part of my job entailed erasing and reusing hard drives on computers, then the analogy is apt. And I would have broken no law.</font>[/QUOTE]So the reporters had, as part of their normal jobs, the task of erasing and reusing file tapes?

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
you spent a lot of space on this board saying the judge was a smart man who knew what he was going back when the decision appeared to be going your way.Different judge.</font>[/QUOTE]I see. And so, your evidence that the judge and proescution are in collusion is, what? That the judge didn't charge the station manager?</font>[/QUOTE]The judge doesn't charge anyone with a crime. But he can demand that the court's order to supply the defense with information be fulfilled, under penalty of jail or a fine or both. Yup.

Then, if it can be proved that the subpoenaed material was destroyed or hidden subsequent to the issuance and receipt of the subpoena, there can be criminal charges brought by the prosecutor for destroying or hiding evidence, "misprison of a felony," or obstruction of justice.

I remember one day I went to the third floor of the old courthouse, and there was a judge on the telephone to the sheriff's department telling them to go and pick up some physician---in handcuffs---who refused to obey a subpoena to give testimony at a child molestation or rape trial. The doctor had examined the victim and was needed to supply testimony, and was subpoenaed for the trial. Because the witness fee was only $20, the doctor refused to come in, saying that he had patients of his own to treat [what he really meant, obviously, was that he wanted big bucks to come testify]. So, the judge had him brought in because of contempt of court regarding the subpoena. Sure enough, the cops brought in the doc in handcuffs.

The key is whether the judge and/or prosecutor wants to punish the miscreant. Apparently the prosecutor was too lily-livered, or too much in cahoots with KDUH, to raise a stink, even when it was the prosecutor's leg that got pissed on. Same with the judge.

Just goes to show you what the realities are of "justice" in these United States.

[ December 19, 2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Fast Guy ]

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
[Is there a specific law where you live that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank? If I worked in a bank and part of my job entailed erasing and reusing hard drives on computers, then the analogy is apt. And I would have broken no law.</font>[/QUOTE]So the reporters had, as part of their normal jobs, the task of erasing and reusing file tapes?</font>[/QUOTE]Yup. Videotape. No clear written policy on file tapes.

Did you miss that part?

[Tripe Face]

These two morons are posting an average of one new post a minute... there's no way they are even reading what the other one says (if they can even read).

Take it off line, that's what PMs are for.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
[Is there a specific law where you live that says one may not go into a bank and erase the hard drives on the computers in that bank? If I worked in a bank and part of my job entailed erasing and reusing hard drives on computers, then the analogy is apt. And I would have broken no law.</font>[/QUOTE]So the reporters had, as part of their normal jobs, the task of erasing and reusing file tapes?</font>[/QUOTE]Yup. Videotape. No clear written policy on file tapes.
</font>[/QUOTE]I see. And had they erased file tapes previously as part of their jobs?

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Tripe The Halls:
These two morons are posting an average of one new post a minute... there's no way they are even reading what the other one says (if they can even read).

Take it off line, that's what PMs are for.Does it have a serious deleterious effect on you if we post here? If so..don't read it.

[Tripe Face]

Yes, I'd much rather have MediaLine topics devoted to women, beer and Mighty Dyckerson's twisted sense of humor. All this talk about work sucks!

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
And had they erased file tapes previously as part of their jobs?The reporters and photographer erase video tape and reuse videotape daily as part of their jobs in the newsroom. Those tapes were NEVER to be erased? Might have helped to have a clearly written policy stating that PRIOR to the tapes being erased, don't you think? Do you work in a newsroom or previously work in a newsroom or happen to know anybody who does?

They didn't break the law. They didn't even violate newsroom policy. Because there was none. Maybe there is now.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Tripe The Halls:
Yes, I'd much rather have MediaLine topics devoted to women, beer and Mighty Dyckerson's twisted sense of humor.This does not surprise anyone.

[Fearmonger]

I’ve got it!

The loser reporters turned criminals and their supporters on this board are both pissed and depressed, right?

I can help you! Just make yourselves a big holiday cocktail of half eggnog and half Prestone antifreeze. Drink it all down I won’t read another pathetic phucking post about these reporters turned convicts!

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
I’ve got it!

The loser reporters turned criminals and their supporters on this board are both pissed and depressed, right?

I can help you! Just make yourselves a big holiday cocktail of half eggnog and half Prestone antifreeze. Drink it all down I won’t read another pathetic phucking post about these reporters turned convicts!Amen Fearmonger, A-*****ING-MEN!

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
And had they erased file tapes previously as part of their jobs?The reporters and photographer erase video tape and reuse videotape daily as part of their jobs in the newsroom. Those tapes were NEVER to be erased? Might have helped to have a clearly written policy stating that PRIOR to the tapes being erased, don't you think? Do you work in a newsroom or previously work in a newsroom or happen to know anybody who does?

They didn't break the law. They didn't even violate newsroom policy. Because there was none. Maybe there is now.</font>[/QUOTE]So did they routinely erase file tapes as part of their jobs?

The questions asks for a yes-or-no answer. Can you supply it?

There letters or two letters. That's all.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally posted by Tripe The Halls:
Yes, I'd much rather have MediaLine topics devoted to women, beer and Mighty Dyckerson's twisted sense of humor. Tripe, you are a fine young man. I wish you well. Your talent demands it.

[almostlive]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
Oh, now the judge and the prosecution are in on it, too!Pretty obvious to those of us with experience. And not altogether uncommon.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't even know the difference between a plea of "guilty" and a plea of "nolo contendre", a few pages back, so your claims that you have experience mean nothing.</font>[/QUOTE]Experience as a defendant.

[almostlive]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
And had they erased file tapes previously as part of their jobs?The reporters and photographer erase video tape and reuse videotape daily as part of their jobs in the newsroom. Those tapes were NEVER to be erased? Might have helped to have a clearly written policy stating that PRIOR to the tapes being erased, don't you think? Do you work in a newsroom or previously work in a newsroom or happen to know anybody who does?

They didn't break the law. They didn't even violate newsroom policy. Because there was none. Maybe there is now.</font>[/QUOTE]Funny. I've never worked in a newsroom that erases archive tapes. Of course, that's kind of a moot point since the guilty (er... "no lo contendre") party DID NOT WORK THERE ANYMORE.

[CrazyProducer]

OH MY GOOOOODDDDD!
This debate is STILL going on?!?!?!?

Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! graemlins/eusa_doh.gif

[almostlive]

Originally posted by CrazyProducer:
OH MY GOOOOODDDDD!
This debate is STILL going on?!?!?!?

Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! Make it stop! graemlins/eusa_doh.gif Think of it as an easy way to pad your "posts" count.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Merry Dyckerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripe The Halls:
Yes, I'd much rather have MediaLine topics devoted to women, beer and Mighty Dyckerson's twisted sense of humor. Tripe, you are a fine young man. I wish you well. Your talent demands it.</font>[/QUOTE]Is that because of my love of beer?

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake:
They destroyed that material.They erased the images from eraseable videotape just as eraseable tape is meant to function.</font>I know of no other TV station where morgue tapes are considered "reusable" and you and everyone else in this business damn well know that they are considered permanent records.

By your logic, we should go to all courthouses, erase legal documents like marriage licenses, birth certificates, and property deeds in order to reuse the paper they were printed on. After all, the paper is still there!

Idiot.

[ December 19, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: JoinUsForCake, just NOT fruitcake ]

[MyracleMan]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
And had they erased file tapes previously as part of their jobs?The reporters and photographer erase video tape and reuse videotape daily as part of their jobs in the newsroom. Those tapes were NEVER to be erased? Might have helped to have a clearly written policy stating that PRIOR to the tapes being erased, don't you think? Do you work in a newsroom or previously work in a newsroom or happen to know anybody who does?

They didn't break the law. They didn't even violate newsroom policy. Because there was none. Maybe there is now.</font>[/QUOTE]All right, I've done my best to stay out of this, but I can remain silent no longer...

Reporters and photographers erase and reuse tape on a daily baisis, yes, BUT they do not, on a daily basis, erase and reuse morgue tapes!!!!!

I will ask you again, Mr. SpeedyFastGuyPondering, how do you know there was no written newsroom policy stating the file tapes were not to be erased?

Besides, even if they had not been told not to, anyone who has ever spent a minute in a newsroom knows what morgue tapes are for, and that they are not to be erased. It is common knowledge. It is one of those things you learn from experience, like fire burns or water is wet.

If they haden't broken the law, the judge would have thrown out ALL the charges, not just referred it back to the lower court.

If they hadn't broken the law, they never would have pled down to a misdemeanor charge and agreed to pay restitution, because any future employer will look at this as an admission of guilt, and it will weigh heavily on their decision.

As for whether or not the Duhamels owed them anything, that is absolutely and completely irrelevant. The Duhamels suck to work for. They are sneaky, conniving, tight-fisted @ssholes, and no one in their right mind should ever work for them. However, this does not justify what these two reporters did.

They will never work in this business again. I wish them well in their positions as assisitant managers at Taco Bell.

As for you, Mr. FastGuySpeedyPonderingSanchezWhite, give it up. Even MLS doesn't share your opinion.. he just is trying to point out the legalities of the case. It's over. Give it up. Admit you're wrong, and let it go.

[SamG]

Since SpeedyFastGuy keeps repeating his argument, I'll keep repeating that HE ADMITS IT'S A CRIMINAL ACT:

quote:Originally posted by Fearmonger:
They are criminals and will be branded as such.
[Sir Speedy]
As well it should.

[Fearmonger]

DIE GOD DAMN IT DIE ALREADY!!!!!

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Myracle On 34th Street Man:Reporters and photographers erase and reuse tape on a daily baisis, yes, BUT they do not, on a daily basis, erase and reuse morgue tapes!!!!!Video tape is video tape. What makes a morgue tape a morgue tape?

A clearly written policy.

They didn't even violate a newsroom policy. How can they be charged with a crime? It's a misuse of authority and a travesty of justice in Scottsbluff.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Myracle On 34th Street Man:Reporters and photographers erase and reuse tape on a daily baisis, yes, BUT they do not, on a daily basis, erase and reuse morgue tapes!!!!!Video tape is video tape. What makes a morgue tape a morgue tape?

A clearly written policy.</font>[/QUOTE]That's your claim. By no means is it reality.

Anything you say on this subject must be taken with the fact in mind that you didn't know the difference betwen a plea of "guilty" and one of "no contest," which is first-year law student material.

[SamG]

FastSpeedyMan, how can you in one posting say it is a crime, and in another say it isn't? Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
This is a crime of dishonesty and would be used to deny business licenses and such.
They are criminals and will be branded as such.
[Mr. Fast Man:]
As well it should.

[NewsMom]

FastSirSpeedyScott:

The entire world of acceptable/unacceptable behavior is not reduced to written policy. DUHHHHH.

How many newsrooms have written policies prohibiting reporters from walking into the control room and turning off all the equipment during a newscast? It's not against the law, you know. And there's no written policy saying you can't do it. But gee, dummy, don't cha think the staffer would get fired?

You don't particularly like intellectual property laws. So what? That doesn't mean they're not valid.

Please keep posting. We love to ridicule your sophomoric logic.

[Fearmonger]

Originally posted by NewsMom:
FastSirSpeedyScott:

The entire world of acceptable/unacceptable behavior is not reduced to written policy. DUHHHHH.

How many newsrooms have written policies prohibiting reporters from walking into the control room and turning off all the equipment during a newscast? It's not against the law, you know. And there's no written policy saying you can't do it. But gee, dummy, don't cha think the staffer would get fired?

You don't particularly like intellectual property laws. So what? That doesn't mean they're not valid.

Please keep posting. We love to ridicule your sophomoric logic.That act of turning off all the equipment during a newscast would be both disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property. The disrupted newscast is property and has value.

There's no station policy that says you can't murder the news director, does that act somehow become legal?

Mr. Fast Guy, get a life, visit your physician and get some medication, this too will pass...

[News Is Broken]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
DIE GOD DAMN IT DIE ALREADY!!!!!Oh hell no, don't listen to him! Please keep it up, this is funny stuff.

I'm sure the two reporters-turned-fry-cooks are enjoying the debate as well.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

The next person who posts on this thread is the biggest *****ing moron on the planet.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
[QUOTE]
There's no station policy that says you can't murder the news director, does that act somehow become legal?

It's still techinically illegal to murder a New Director... but it will make you a hero.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by MLC:
I guarantee that no one who has posted on this topic knows as much about the case as I do.

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

I have the transcript of the preliminary hearing in which KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3250 this week and said nothing.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value. Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

If you haven't seen the transcript of the preliminary hearing, you don't know all there was to know.
Why so angry, Tripe? Do you have a personal stake in this situation?

Seems strange that reference to an actual record of testimonial evidence would evoke a profane outburst. I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's recent comment: "I love the truth - - it's facts I don't like."

Nothing I have read on this topic, in the various threads started since May, appears to have had any basis in the actual facts of this case. I say this with regard to those who have criticized Miss Murphy and, frankly, also with regard to those who have posted supportive words. That strikes me as ironic, insofar as presumably the majority of posters on this site are in the business of finding and reporting facts rather than operating only on assumptions and emotion.

The facts have, since about August, been a matter of public record. The preliminary hearing was transcribed and is available for review in the district court file.

The KDUH station manager was ordered in a one-paragraph subpoena to bring the binders that he claimed established the contents of the morgue tapes. A second KDUH employee was also ordered to appear and bring the binders. The second employee did not appear at all; the station manager appeared, but did not bring the binders. He claimed that he didn't read the part (in the single paragraph of text) that told him to bring the binders. The binders have never been made available for review.

Check out the transcript and read it. Or, just continue to fulminate and attack those who present facts. I hear that Fox News has openings for that kind of "talent."

Still not seeing anyone who claims to have gotten their hands on some actual facts.

Thus, a few more notes:

1- Failing to comply with a subpoena does not make one merely a "dork"; it is a sign of trying to conceal evidence. The prosecutor offered a plea agreement at a time when the next step would have been challenging the station manager's refusal to comply with the subpoena.

If the station manager was in the right and had no weaknesses in his claim, why not bring the binders as ordered by his subpoena and let the defense examine them?

Remember that the Constitution (the right of confrontation, specifically) says that when one is bringing a felony criminal accusation, he has to man up and support his accusation with facts - - and be confronted by the person whom he is accusing. The station manager showed early indications that he did not want to do this, when he did not comply with the subpoena. This, along with the admissions that appear in his preliminary hearing testimony, should have legitimately concerned the prosecutor (and evidently did concern him).

2- If a citizen accused of a felony were concerned about the risk of jurors rushing to judgment without waiting to hear the proverbial "rest of the story," the postings on this board would certainly confirm those concerns. The point of a jury trial - - in fact, the point of any evidentiary hearing - - is ostensibly to glean competent, admissible evidence that rises above emotional tirades and personal attacks.

3- I don't know Fast Guy or have any idea who he is. I do, however, know the facts of this case. Don't fear the facts. Read the transcript, for confirmation that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); that no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; that as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is damaged actually had value before its damage. If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a felony.

I've compiled the MLC posts so anyone new to this thread or topic can read them on this page, and perhaps learn something. Nobody's likely to get that from the juvenile jabbering going on here by the unruly children.

It's also time for me to answer my own question about restitution. I was hoping to draw out someone other than MLC with some basic understanding of legal matters. But of course no one knew, because no one here other than MLC and myself actually have any experience in what we're discussing.

The planted question about whether a judge can enter as a condition of restitution that the victim only be allowed to spend the money for a specific purpose, i.e. replacing the file tape library.

The answer is: Nope, the judge can' t issue such an order. A "fine" goes to the State. A "restitution payment" goes to the "victim." The victim can do anything he or she wants with it. Needless to say, the veracity of a claim of value is often far more accurately shown after recompense is received, than before, simply through what use is made of the compensation received.

So there you go.

I'm also reposting my simple to follow understanding of the case as well, for the same reason.

The two KDUH reporters who resigned and erased their work on file tapes were arrested for felony criminal mischief and trespassing. But they're completely innocent of the charges.

I have long ago wished them well and continue to hope these two fine young examples of reporters well in the future. If they had the money, they certainly would have taken the case to trial. You know the station damn sure didn't want that to happen. There would be much unflattering but honest testimony. Perhaps the KDUH work enviornment problems will be given full light in the community and that would surely damage the station's reputation beyond repair. The damage could be seen in the entire broadcast community, not just Scottsbluff. Paltry news department salaries would be exposed, where reporters are subjected to work overtime at HALF pay. Not time and half - half pay. Hours would have been discussed, and you know they're long. Managment practices would be examined and you know they've made numerous mistakes.

Yes, for one thing, something had to be terribly wrong at that station for two high profile journalists to resign in tandem. Why would those two people whow were at the begining of promising careers want to take what they gave the station (their work) so the station could never profit from it again?

For starters, since the fine young journalists resigned one would have to assume they were not under a legally binding contract.

I think there are some interesting legal questions and they are not at all cut and dry.

Did they "damage" the tapes? No. Absolutely not. They allegedly erased their personal contributions to the legacy of the station. The tapes remain very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No. Check the record.

Would the station likely have used some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

It's outrageous that this station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes. If the old work of these former employees is indeed that valuable to the station, and it were discovered that copies were made, would you expect the station to cut a $10,000 check to the employees? No. Maybe 50 bucks, tops. They wouldn't get that much on eBay. Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well. Hell, according to the station, just never to be seen repeats of their work efforts are worth a whopping 10-grand!

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station?

These two young reporter/anchors have a story to tell about that news operation and I pray to God that one day they get to tell it.

[ December 21, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Fast Guy ]

[Fearmonger]

Is this over yet? graemlins/horse.gif graemlins/sleep.gif

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
Is this over yet? graemlins/horse.gif graemlins/sleep.gif Nope...sorry. We're keeping it alive so we can give it up as one of our New Year's resolutions. graemlins/icon_kidra.gif

[SamG]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fearmonger:
Is this over yet? graemlins/horse.gif graemlins/sleep.gif Nope...sorry. We're keeping it alive so we can give it up as one of our New Year's resolutions. graemlins/icon_kidra.gif </font>[/QUOTE]What about those of us who don't make New Year's Resolutions? Can we keep it going? :D

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MLC:
I guarantee that no one who has posted on this topic knows as much about the case as I do.

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

I have the transcript of the preliminary hearing in which KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3250 this week and said nothing.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value. Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

If you haven't seen the transcript of the preliminary hearing, you don't know all there was to know.
Why so angry, Tripe? Do you have a personal stake in this situation?

Seems strange that reference to an actual record of testimonial evidence would evoke a profane outburst. I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's recent comment: "I love the truth - - it's facts I don't like."

Nothing I have read on this topic, in the various threads started since May, appears to have had any basis in the actual facts of this case. I say this with regard to those who have criticized Miss Murphy and, frankly, also with regard to those who have posted supportive words. That strikes me as ironic, insofar as presumably the majority of posters on this site are in the business of finding and reporting facts rather than operating only on assumptions and emotion.

The facts have, since about August, been a matter of public record. The preliminary hearing was transcribed and is available for review in the district court file.

The KDUH station manager was ordered in a one-paragraph subpoena to bring the binders that he claimed established the contents of the morgue tapes. A second KDUH employee was also ordered to appear and bring the binders. The second employee did not appear at all; the station manager appeared, but did not bring the binders. He claimed that he didn't read the part (in the single paragraph of text) that told him to bring the binders. The binders have never been made available for review.

Check out the transcript and read it. Or, just continue to fulminate and attack those who present facts. I hear that Fox News has openings for that kind of "talent."

Still not seeing anyone who claims to have gotten their hands on some actual facts.

Thus, a few more notes:

1- Failing to comply with a subpoena does not make one merely a "dork"; it is a sign of trying to conceal evidence. The prosecutor offered a plea agreement at a time when the next step would have been challenging the station manager's refusal to comply with the subpoena.

If the station manager was in the right and had no weaknesses in his claim, why not bring the binders as ordered by his subpoena and let the defense examine them?

Remember that the Constitution (the right of confrontation, specifically) says that when one is bringing a felony criminal accusation, he has to man up and support his accusation with facts - - and be confronted by the person whom he is accusing. The station manager showed early indications that he did not want to do this, when he did not comply with the subpoena. This, along with the admissions that appear in his preliminary hearing testimony, should have legitimately concerned the prosecutor (and evidently did concern him).

2- If a citizen accused of a felony were concerned about the risk of jurors rushing to judgment without waiting to hear the proverbial "rest of the story," the postings on this board would certainly confirm those concerns. The point of a jury trial - - in fact, the point of any evidentiary hearing - - is ostensibly to glean competent, admissible evidence that rises above emotional tirades and personal attacks.

3- I don't know Fast Guy or have any idea who he is. I do, however, know the facts of this case. Don't fear the facts. Read the transcript, for confirmation that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); that no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; that as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is damaged actually had value before its damage. If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a felony.

I've compiled the MLC posts so anyone new to this thread or topic can read them on this page, and perhaps learn something. Nobody's likely to get that from the juvenile jabbering going on here by the unruly children.

It's also time for me to answer my own question about restitution. I was hoping to draw out someone other than MLC with some basic understanding of legal matters. But of course no one knew, because no one here other than MLC and myself actually have any experience in what we're discussing.

The planted question about whether a judge can enter as a condition of restitution that the victim only be allowed to spend the money for a specific purpose, i.e. replacing the file tape library.

The answer is: Nope, the judge can' t issue such an order. A "fine" goes to the State. A "restitution payment" goes to the "victim." The victim can do anything he or she wants with it. Needless to say, the veracity of a claim of value is often far more accurately shown after recompense is received, than before, simply through what use is made of the compensation received.

So there you go.

I'm also reposting my simple to follow understanding of the case as well, for the same reason.

The two KDUH reporters who resigned and erased their work on file tapes were arrested for felony criminal mischief and trespassing. But they're completely innocent of the charges.

I have long ago wished them well and continue to hope these two fine young examples of reporters well in the future. If they had the money, they certainly would have taken the case to trial. You know the station damn sure didn't want that to happen. There would be much unflattering but honest testimony. Perhaps the KDUH work enviornment problems will be given full light in the community and that would surely damage the station's reputation beyond repair. The damage could be seen in the entire broadcast community, not just Scottsbluff. Paltry news department salaries would be exposed, where reporters are subjected to work overtime at HALF pay. Not time and half - half pay. Hours would have been discussed, and you know they're long. Managment practices would be examined and you know they've made numerous mistakes.

Yes, for one thing, something had to be terribly wrong at that station for two high profile journalists to resign in tandem. Why would those two people whow were at the begining of promising careers want to take what they gave the station (their work) so the station could never profit from it again?

For starters, since the fine young journalists resigned one would have to assume they were not under a legally binding contract.

I think there are some interesting legal questions and they are not at all cut and dry.

Did they "damage" the tapes? No. Absolutely not. They allegedly erased their personal contributions to the legacy of the station. The tapes remain very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No. Check the record.

Would the station likely have used some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

It's outrageous that this station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes. If the old work of these former employees is indeed that valuable to the station, and it were discovered that copies were made, would you expect the station to cut a $10,000 check to the employees? No. Maybe 50 bucks, tops. They wouldn't get that much on eBay. Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well. Hell, according to the station, just never to be seen repeats of their work efforts are worth a whopping 10-grand!

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station?

These two young reporter/anchors have a story to tell about that news operation and I pray to God that one day they get to tell it. </font>[/QUOTE]bump

[almostlive]

A reminder to all: Beyond the inane arguments made by Fastman (ie: there's no value to intellectual property), he likes to ignore the fact that Breda was NOT AN EMPLOYEE of the station when she destroyed their archives. Keep it in mind next time he posts "there's no company policy" against erasing tape, or "tapes are meant to be erased." She had resigned and left the company when she wreaked her vengeance. While his "company policy" argument is stupid to begin with, it's also based on the misconception that the guilty party... er, "nolo contendre" party... was still an employee.

[Chief]

Originally posted by Hanukkah: Festival of almostlive:
Breda was NOT AN EMPLOYEE of the station when she destroyed their archives.Dude, I've read the posts adnauseum.

She resigned the day after the erasures were discovered.

[Paper Trail]

Originally posted by schoolgirl:
A former KDUH reporter was fined $330 and was ordered to make $3,250 in restitution after entering a no contest plea in Scotts Bluff County District court to a reduced charge of misdemeanor criminal mischief. 24 year old Breda Murphy had orginally faced a felony criminal mischief count for allegedly erasing between eighty and ninety video tapes on June 3rd, the day before she resigned from the Scottsbluff TV station.

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Originally posted by Hanukkah: Festival of almostlive:
A reminder to all: Beyond the inane arguments made by Fastman (ie: there's no value to intellectual property), he likes to ignore the fact that Breda was NOT AN EMPLOYEE of the station when she destroyed their archives. Keep it in mind next time he posts "there's no company policy" against erasing tape, or "tapes are meant to be erased." She had resigned and left the company when she wreaked her vengeance. You are SO busted.

[Doctor Depends]

Originally posted by Baby Cakes:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hanukkah: Festival of almostlive:
A reminder to all: Beyond the inane arguments made by Fastman (ie: there's no value to intellectual property), he likes to ignore the fact that Breda was NOT AN EMPLOYEE of the station when she destroyed their archives. Keep it in mind next time he posts "there's no company policy" against erasing tape, or "tapes are meant to be erased." She had resigned and left the company when she wreaked her vengeance. You are SO busted.</font>[/QUOTE]This is too funny.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Open mouth, insert foot. Really dumb to keep this thread going by laying out a provably untrue premise. Really dumb.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Take it easy on almost live and the others. They're just young and inexperienced and don't know better.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Take it easy on almostlive and the others. They're just young and inexperienced and don't know any better. They're coming here to learn. And that's what I hope is happening. Don't discourge them. Mistakes will be made, that's a given. It's not the first factually untrue thing they've posted. And it probably won't be the last. Don't rub his or anyone else's nose in it like a puppy dog who just soiled the carpet. It's better just to ignore it and post what you know. Classier too. They'll catch on. I have faith that they'll catch on.

[almostlive]

Originally posted by Paper Trail:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by schoolgirl:
A former KDUH reporter was fined $330 and was ordered to make $3,250 in restitution after entering a no contest plea in Scotts Bluff County District court to a reduced charge of misdemeanor criminal mischief. 24 year old Breda Murphy had orginally faced a felony criminal mischief count for allegedly erasing between eighty and ninety video tapes on June 3rd, the day before she resigned from the Scottsbluff TV station.</font>[/QUOTE]Not the day before she resigned... at least, not according to several published and broadcast accounts. Resigned that day (no two weeks notice, either -- effective immediately)... erased tapes that night. No longer an employee. Here's one of the reports, which contradicts the text above:

Reporters Arrested (http://www.tracybroadcasting.com/archivenews.php?id=7480&type=news)

Two former KDUH TV reporters were arrested Friday on charges related to the erasure of 92 video tapes containing news stories and other footage.

24 year old Daniel Camp and 25 year old Breda Murphy were charged with criminal mischief, and Camp was also charged with trespassing.

KDUH contacted police after discovering that the tapes had been erased. Both Murphy and Camp, who had resigned their positions prior to the incident, were named as suspects.

The pair contend the tapes contained footage which they had shot, and therefore was their property.

KDUH says the tapes are station property, for use by station employees, and estimated damages at $10,000.

---------------

By the way, if the report I'm citing (and the others) is wrong, I stand corrected and retract my claim that Fastboy is making an irrelevant argument. His position would then be moronic, legally unfounded and proven wrong... but relevant.

[ December 21, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Hanukkah: Festival of almostlive ]

[SamG]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
They'll catch on. I have faith that they'll catch on.Why? It obviously didn't work for you.

[Fearmonger]

Will somebody please lock this stupid phucking thread!

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
Take it easy on almostlive and the others. They're just young and inexperienced and don't know any better. They're coming here to learn. I hope they don't learn from you, someone who had to be taught that "guilty" and "no contest" are two different pleas.

[CrazyProducer]

STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
My a$$ itches...
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!

[ December 21, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: CrazyProducer ]

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Originally posted by CrazyProducer:
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
My a$$ itches...
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!
STOP THE THREAD!!!I don't know how a post like this accomplishes anything other than bringing the thread back to the top of the page.

Hasn't anyone explained this to you?

I'd still like to see how the other guy, Camp, fares with his sentence before a different judge. So I assume this thread will live at least as long as that.

Anyone got an update?

[CrazyProducer]

Originally posted by Baby Cakes:
I don't know how a post like this accomplishes anything other than bringing the thread back to the top of the page.

Hasn't anyone explained this to you?
Thanks for the explanation Baby Cakes. And while we're explaining things...it's call sarcasm. It runs rapid on this board. Hasn't anyone explained this to you? The KDUH issue has been going on for MONTHS, thanks to the enthusiasm of Mr. Sir Speedy/ Fast Guy. graemlins/horse.gif
MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[ December 22, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: CrazyProducer ]

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Originally posted by CrazyProducer:
it's call sarcasm.I don't think you understand sarcasm. You are lacking in preparation in addition to presentation. There was no cutting ironic remark intended to wound in your comment: Stop the thread, my ass itches.

Where's the wit in that? Was it supposed to be comedic? Just what was it's intent? If you genuinely intended to make someone the the butt of contempt or ridicule, you succeeded only in offering yourself as a silly little person incapable of advancing the dialogue in any meaningful manner. Unless of course, you were just looking for online sympathy because of an unfunny medical condition. Then your preparation was on the money - Preparation H.

Good luck with that hemmorhoid problem. I hear it's common with producers who sit on the large asses all day.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

Originally posted by Hanukkah: Festival of almostlive:if the report I'm citing (and the others) is wrong, I stand corrected and retract my claim that Fastboy is making an irrelevant argument.Breda was given the opportunity to resign the day the erased tapes were discovered. They were erased the previous evening, while she was still an employee. That is why only Camp was charged with trespassing, not Murphy.

Get the facts, then come join the argument. Otherwise, it's just silly.

[Desert Rat]

Update....

The two reporters in question committed suicide....something about feeling extremely guilty about the "no contest" plea...

In the note, it was also stated to now officially end this thread as their last wish.

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by Mr. Fast Guy:
They'll catch on. I have faith that they'll catch on.I hear the crabbing industry in Alaska is always hiring. I think the former KDUH morons could really rake in the dungeoness crabs. Their talents demand it.

[Mr. Fast Guy]

In the days since this issue was raised on this board, I've done a little thinking. I have conducted a thorough soul searching on the difficult questions of Speed Demon, his hero Sir Speedy, mob lynching, defending the innocent, attacking the minority and my own personal religious shortcomings. I have done this with typical judicious care.

The result has been an epiphany. Actually, multiple epiphanic moments. The shivers come and go in pleasant tingling waves with each deeper understanding. "Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road," he said.

Think about it. Really think about it.

He's left quite a legacy. Now we find ourselves collectively waiting once again for compelling legal news out of Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

For those of you new to the discussion, I will try to recall as best I can the gist of it.

Murphy and Camp were arrested for felony criminal mischief. But they're completley innocent of any crime. That bogus criminal mischief charge was dismissed against Camp. Murphy's charge was in legal limbo for awhile a judge weighed the weak case against her, ultimately choosing to believe that the worthless tapes had a value of at least $1,500.

Did the station explain the file tape policy clearly? Was it in writing?

No.

There are some interesting legal questions. Did they "damage" the tapes? No. The tapes are very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the worthless tapes contained non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and county fair.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well.

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station? Why didn't it protect the video as it did with other videos which were locked in a basement safe? Because the file video upstairs was worthless.

These two young reporter/anchors have a righteous story to tell about that news operation and their roles in it. And I hope and I pray to God above they someday get to tell it. Perhaps they'll write book. Perhaps they'll erase the whole episode from their memories.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. It isn't only Sir Speedy who added to my personal education and current pleasant feelings. The persistant defense and well thought out rationale gave me pause, of course, as I'm sure it did a few silent others. I poured over the reactions they provoked again and again. And I saw the anger of others build like a raging fire on the wild Nebraska prarie. And I saw it grow from afar like a fire on the wild Nebraska prarie at night. The heat of another attack. The glow as the flames accepted another cruel accusation or denunciation. The shooting embers as the wood charred and popped in the infernal heat. And then, the unexplainable banishment and cheers.

It reminded me of another execution. I think we all know who I'm talking about. It should be obvious that I'm translating the passionate posts to Aramaic, Latin and some Greek and Hebrew and sending them to Mel Gibson for the thoughful movie treatment it deserves. The Passion part two will be "buono per l'anima, non buono per il portafoglio".

It would be difficult to adequately thank all those who widened my experience of the nature of evil. Let me just say that I have benefited. My one great hope is that others will soon follow.

And that Ms. Murphy and Mr. Camp someday can forgive you, as I have learned to do.

[Fearmonger]

The two felons and Mr. Fast Guy need wooden stakes driven though their HEARTS! DIE VAMPIRES, DIE!

[ January 01, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

FastSpeedyGuy, we all know where you stand on this issue. You have repeated it ad nauseum.

Importantly, we don't care what you think.. You're dishonest and egotistical and you write the same things over and over, frequently cutting and pasting your own comments back into your own posts.

Your latest post is the bulletin board version of talking to hear oneself talk.

[ January 01, 2006, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Michigan J. Frog ]

[Speed Racer]

Merry Christmas to Breda and Daniel. May you be warm and merry and may your hearts be light.

[Fearmonger]

That's the kind of criminal conviction that will keep you unemployed for the rest of your life. That was a really stupid and malicious criminal act.

This conviction is not the result of a lack of money! Removing the work product from the tape was criminal damage to property in most every stste. That case would have resulted in a felony conviction for sure had it gone to trial.

No lawyer will let you plead out a case where there is any real wiggle room. It was a much softer landing then was deserved under the circumstances.

That misdemeanor conviction is a permanet public and a searchable media record. I think the punishment of a very difficult future will be more severe than many felony convictions.

[ December 20, 2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Speed Racer]

Originally posted by Fearmonger:
That's the kind of criminal conviction that will keep you unemployed for the rest of your life. That was a really stupid and malicious criminal act.

This conviction is not about a lack of money! That case would have resulted in a felony conviction for sure had it gone to trial. It was a much softer landing then was deserved.

That conviction is a permanet public record.Conviction of a misdemanor isn't even something you have to cop to when applying for any job...

You are overstating the case.

[Fearmonger]

Originally posted by Speed Racer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fearmonger:
That's the kind of criminal conviction that will keep you unemployed for the rest of your life. That was a really stupid and malicious criminal act.

This conviction is not about a lack of money! That case would have resulted in a felony conviction for sure had it gone to trial. It was a much softer landing then was deserved.

That conviction is a permanet public record.Conviction of a misdemanor isn't even something you have to cop to when applying for any job...

You are overstating the case.</font>[/QUOTE]Since I do and have done many background investigation for several TV news organizations I can say that this would be discovered and reported to the employer. I can't imagine a single employer hiring anyone who was involved in that kind of activity.

Hell most media organizations won't hire someone with a domestic relations restraining order in their past where there was never even an arrest or court hearing!

[ December 20, 2006, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Fearmonger ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Speed Racer:
Merry Christmas to Breda and Daniel. May you be warm and merry and may your hearts be light....and may you get a lump of coal in your stocking if you're still doing stupid things like you did when you erased those tapes.

[The Mockingbird]

When you work for a station with a contract, any original pieces you make are considered a work for hire. The contracting station is the owner, unless they sell those rights to some other party.

As much as I hate crappy TV news operations, the two reporters were in the wrong.

Now, should they be completely ostracized from ever having a decent job ever again? Well, it depends on what you consider decent. Sounds like they were getting screwed in the industry, anyway.

One of the most dangerous things in our society is the social stigma of crime. Are we supposed to never forgive people, as Fearmonger suggests, once they have paid their debt to society? Because if that's true, then we don't have justice system, we have a mockery of one.

If a person who has committed a crime is incarcerated, and then treated differently by the government once he is released, then perhaps he or she shouldn't have been released at all, as his punishment was not strong enough.

The main problem with recidivism for convicted suspects is the conveyor-like apparatus that leads them right back in to prison.

Just a thought.

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by Speed Racer:
Merry Christmas to Breda and Daniel. May you be warm and merry and may your hearts be light.Merry Christmas to them! I think I saw them working the Aunt Anne's Pretzel kiosk when I was doing some Christmas shopping at the mall yesterday! One day maybe they will become a Lead Pretzel Twister - their talents demand it.

[Speed Racer]

In the days since this issue was raised on this board, I've done a little thinking. I have conducted a thorough soul searching on the difficult questions of Speed Demon, his hero Sir Speedy, mob lynching, defending the innocent, attacking the minority and my own personal religious shortcomings. I have done this with typical judicious care.

The result has been an epiphany. Actually, multiple epiphanic moments. The shivers come and go in pleasant tingling waves with each deeper understanding. "Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road," he said.

Think about it. Really think about it.

He's left quite a legacy. Now we find ourselves collectively waiting once again for compelling legal news out of Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

For those of you new to the discussion, I will try to recall as best I can the gist of it.

Murphy and Camp were arrested for felony criminal mischief. But they're completley innocent of any crime. That bogus criminal mischief charge was dismissed against Camp. Murphy's charge was in legal limbo for awhile a judge weighed the weak case against her, ultimately choosing to believe that the worthless tapes had a value of at least $1,500.

Did the station explain the file tape policy clearly? Was it in writing?

No.

There are some interesting legal questions. Did they "damage" the tapes? No. The tapes are very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the worthless tapes contained non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and county fair.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well.

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station? Why didn't it protect the video as it did with other videos which were locked in a basement safe? Because the file video upstairs was worthless.

These two young reporter/anchors have a righteous story to tell about that news operation and their roles in it. And I hope and I pray to God above they someday get to tell it. Perhaps they'll write book. Perhaps they'll erase the whole episode from their memories.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. It isn't only Sir Speedy who added to my personal education and current pleasant feelings. The persistant defense and well thought out rationale gave me pause, of course, as I'm sure it did a few silent others. I poured over the reactions they provoked again and again. And I saw the anger of others build like a raging fire on the wild Nebraska prarie. And I saw it grow from afar like a fire on the wild Nebraska prarie at night. The heat of another attack. The glow as the flames accepted another cruel accusation or denunciation. The shooting embers as the wood charred and popped in the infernal heat. And then, the unexplainable banishment and cheers.

It reminded me of another execution. I think we all know who I'm talking about. It should be obvious that I'm translating the passionate posts to Aramaic, Latin and some Greek and Hebrew and sending them to Mel Gibson for the thoughful movie treatment it deserves. The Passion part two will be "buono per l'anima, non buono per il portafoglio".

It would be difficult to adequately thank all those who widened my experience of the nature of evil. Let me just say that I have benefited. My one great hope is that others will soon follow.

And that Ms. Murphy and Mr. Camp someday can forgive you, as I have learned to do.

[!]

The result has been an epiphany. Actually, multiple epiphanic moments. The shivers come and go in pleasant tingling waves with each deeper understanding. "Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road," he said.
Wow, I wish I had two IDs on this board so I could quote myself like Speed Racer quotes his other ID here.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Trip trap
Trip Trap
TRIP TRAP
TRIP TRAP
TRIP TRAP

"Whoooo's that walking across my bridge" bellowed the troll.

"It is I, the little Billy Goat Gruff, and I'm going to the other side to eat the sweet green grass."

[!]

Trip trap
Trip Trap
TRIP TRAP
TRIP TRAP
TRIP TRAP

"Whoooo's that walking across my bridge" bellowed the troll.

"It is I, the little Billy Goat Gruff, and I'm going to the other side to eat the sweet green grass."If he keeps this up, he's going to mix up the log-in names eventually. Then Paper Trail will be defending the KDUH kids, or Speed Racer will be arguing Spike's traffic ticket. Just a matter of time.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

At least the Dyckerson stable of multiple personalities attempt to be humorous.
Zero and his brain trust play the circular argument game and engage in other anti-social hijinks.
I'm starting to warm up to the clown boy.

[Spike]

... or Speed Racer will be arguing Spike's traffic ticket.

Already happened. (http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=412585#post412585)

[NotImpressed]

The big point here is two people kissed their careers goodbye and Speed Racer is an idiot.

[Speed Racer]

I think not.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the worthless tapes contained non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and county fair.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

At least the Dyckerson stable of multiple personalities attempt to be humorous.

For the last time, Buffalo Chip, there is one and ONLY ONE Dyckerson. Accept no imitations or substitutes.

And how would you know I'm humorous? You're ignoring me, remember??

[The Fedora]

I would think that speedracerzerosirspeedypapertrail would have no problem with speedy driving.

[Mr. Pratfall]

Sweet, it's 2005 again. I'm going to stock up on gasoline and milk.

[ewink]

I have concluded Zero is right.

And I am going to use his logic as a defense to all sorts of internet based shenanigans.

Downloading music?! Technically, I am not in possession of anything. The magnetic particles on my HDD were there when I purchased it. I've stolen nothing.

Illegal porn? It's not actually there. I am in no physical possession of anything!

I'll let you guys know how this works out! :cheers:

[MyracleMan]

I think not.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the worthless tapes contained non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and county fair.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

Jack@ss.

[Gail sirens]

So does anyone know whatever happened to Murphy and Camp?

[newz2me]

KDUH? K-DUH?? Great call letters. Suppose it has a sister station, K-DOH

[!]

So does anyone know whatever happened to Murphy and Camp?
Yes, the 7-11 and McDonald's corporations, respectively, do.

[TAFKA wacowx]

...Now we find ourselves collectively waiting once again for compelling legal news out of Scottsbluff, Nebraska...

Who's 'we'? Everyone put this crap behind us years ago except for you.:bs:

[NotImpressed]

I have concluded Zero is right.

And I am going to use his logic as a defense to all sorts of internet based shenanigans.

Downloading music?! Technically, I am not in possession of anything. The magnetic particles on my HDD were there when I purchased it. I've stolen nothing.

Illegal porn? It's not actually there. I am in no physical possession of anything!

I'll let you guys know how this works out! :cheers:

Exactly. It's hard to believe one person (Speedracer) could be quite as obtuse as he pretends to be. Methinks he/she is actually Camp or Murphy. Wonder if it was worth crashing their careers over?

[Produce man]

Methinks he/she is actually Camp or Murphy.Well, duh...

[JoinUsForCake]

Sir Speedy Racer Camp Murphy,

Get Over It

[Speed Racer]

Hey look, they can't possibly get over it. It's been YEARS AND THEY STILL CAN'T GET OVER IT.
Can't you see the obvious? Hope for the fools who believe Murphy and Camp guilty is lost.

And why? Because they staunchly believe themselves to be in the right? No. Of course no. Obviously that can't be the case. They cling together by a gossimer thread of delusion because they can't admit that they are wrong. And they are so provably wrong that it's ***in' reeediculous.

Were either Murphy or Camp convicted of felonies? No they were not. Just as I said.

They were offered a cheap out of an expensive legal system which can cost even the innocent a lot of money. And what of the alleged victim? KDUH was given the legal option of pursuing the matter where it rightfully belonged - not in criminal court, but civil court.

Why?

Obviously because no crime was committed.

And did KDUH pursue a civil case against what they alleged was thousands of dollars of lost property?

No. They did not.

Just as I said.

It was that obvious.

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case. They are paid the same whether they go to trial or not. The risk to a prosecutor is not financial, but rather the risk of being unable to prove the necessary elements of the offense he chose to charge the defendant with.

Conversely, Miss Murphy would have to pay legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing morgue footage) of potentially $50,000 to take this to trial.

Who broke the law? KDUH. In the transcript of the preliminary hearing, KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly and illegally overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then, without explanation, it changed its estimate to $21,000. It accepted Miss Murphy's payment of $3,250 and said nothing more.

Why not? They were happy to eat an incredible $245,000 in losses? Or even $18,000? No. They were caugth in a lie and they wanted it to quickly end.

In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, which they were. But video tapes were made to be erased and reused. We all know that. But the state also had to prove, beyond a reasononable doubt, that the contents of the tapes had actual value.

Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. These tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

I know that they know that I am right. I have always been right. I will always be right.

And it bothers them greatly. As it very well should.

Good God it should keep them awake nights in restless bouts of fitful anger.

Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road.

Murphy and Camp know this. They have been able to move on with their lives in a successful manner, both financially and emotionally.

Tis more than I can say about the pitiful members of this board. Tis much, much more.

Did the station explain the file tape policy clearly? Was it in writing?

No.

Did they in any way "damage" the videotapes? No. The tapes remain very much intact to this very day. The tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to have a record of what reporters such as Camp and Murphy did while at KDUH.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No, they were not.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The real truth is that unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER EVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the videotapes contained such non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and the annual county fair. Is that a loss? No it is not. File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

Am I wrong? No, I am not.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 or higher price tag on the nearly worthless tapes.

Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $5,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about $30,000 dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's $300,000 they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would quickly be convicted!

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a good job and they did a good job and KDUH was happy to ask sponsors to pay for the privilage to air the results. Murphy and Camp did their jobs and apparently they did it very well.

Did KDUH really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station? NO. Why didn't KDUH protect the video as it did with other videos which were locked in a basement safe? I'll tell you why. Because the file video upstairs was worthless.

These two young reporter/anchors have a righteous story to tell about that news operation and their roles in it. And I hope and I pray to God above they someday get to tell it. Perhaps they'll write book. Perhaps they'll erase the whole episode from their memories.

My one great hope is that others will soon follow.

And that Ms. Murphy and Mr. Camp someday can forgive you, as I have learned to do.

Justice is not always an easily reached destination. Sometimes you gotta honk your horn. Sometimes you gotta flash your lights. Sometimes you gotta roll over small furry animals in your path and leave them lifeless and bloodied on the side of the road.

Murphy and Camp know this. They have been able to move on with their lives in a successful manner, both financially and emotionally.

Tis more than I can say about the pitiful members of this board. Tis much, much more.

[MyracleMan]

And I say again...

jack@ss.

[Speed Racer]

And I say again...

jack@ss.

Jack what? It would take a miracle for you and others to see what you've so far missed. Namely that failing to comply with a subpoena is a sign of trying to conceal evidence. Who did that? Murphy? No. Camp? No. KDUH? Yes.

The prosecutor quickly offered a gift plea agreement at a time when the next step would have been challenging the KDUH station manager's refusal to comply with the subpoena.

If the station manager was in the right and had no weaknesses in his claim, why not bring the binders as ordered by his subpoena and let the defense examine them?

You can't answer that because you're a ***in idiot.

Remember that the Constitution (the right of confrontation, specifically) says that when one is bringing a felony criminal accusation, he has to support his accusation with facts and be confronted by the person whom he is accusing. The KDUH station manager showed early indications that he did not want to do this, when he did not comply with the subpoena. This, along with the admissions that appear in his preliminary hearing testimony, should have legitimately concerned the prosecutor (and evidently did concern him).

If anyone accused of a felony were concerned about the risk of jurors rushing to judgment without waiting to hear the proverbial "rest of the story," the crazy ass postings on this board would certainly confirm those concerns. The point of a jury trial, in fact, the point of any evidentiary hearing, is ostensibly to glean competent, admissible evidence that rises above emotional tirades and personal attacks.

I know the facts of this case. And I don't fear the facts. Read the transcript for confirmation that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%) and was never going to be used; that no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; that as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is damaged actually had value before its damage. If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage did not constitute a felony.

But you keep on shouting at the wind and telling crazy lies to the choir.

If that's what you want to do, I'm not going to stop you.

[The Fedora]

Question: was there malicious intent to destroy station property irregardless of its worth?

And were the file tapes that were erased sitting in the garbage dumpster, or were they labeled and in cases on shelves?

[ewink]

How can such moronity have reached 8 pages?!?!

[Another side]

Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case.

I don't much care about the Camp/Murphy story, or even whether you were right or wrong all along.

But those two sentences alone tell me -- in staying with the robust nature of your insulting, back-patting posts -- you're an idiot.

[SamG]

Did the station explain the file tape policy clearly? Was it in writing?

Yes it was. It was explained and given to them on their first day of employment.

[!]

Yes it was. It was explained and given to them on their first day of employment.He knows that. He worked there.

[Marty McFly]

I think not.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the worthless tapes contained non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and county fair.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

From day one it was outrageous that KDUH station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

Wow... Post #36 was eerily similiar! So much for original thought...


Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No. Check the record.

Would the station likely have used some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

It's outrageous that this station management should put a $10,000 price tag on the tapes.

[!]

Wow... Post #36 was eerily similiar! So much for original thought...
That's becaue Speedy/PaperTrail/Guy thinks simply cutting and pasting his own comments over and over makes his point more valid. (What more would you expect from a guy who quotes himself in his signature block?)

He does this same thing as Zero on the other board, too.

[Speed Racer]

Question: was there malicious intent to destroy station property irregardless of its worth?

And were the file tapes that were erased sitting in the garbage dumpster, or were they labeled and in cases on shelves?

Did Camp or Murphy in any way "damage" the videotapes? No. The tapes remain very much intact to this very day. Do not forget that the tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former news stories on file? No. They just wanted to have a record of what reporters such as Camp and Murphy did while at KDUH.

Was the station ever planning to airing any single story or all of those stories ever again? No, they were not.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? Perhaps, but most likely not. The vast majority of that file video was NEVER EVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the videotapes contained such non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and the annual county fair. Is that a loss? No it is not. File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

Am I wrong? No, I am not.

[Speed Racer]

you're an idiot.
I see that you're in dire need of instruction. Well write this down:
Prosecutors do not offer plea agreements as a matter of course. They do it only when there is a problem with being able to prove their case.

They are both ethically and legally obligated to prosecute alleged criminals for the crimes they are alleged to have committed. They are not "nice guys" doling out favors nor are they as a group lazy lawyers who regularly insult lady justice by allowing the guilty to walk on lesser charges just so they don't have to go to trial.

If you believe that, then you are, in a word, a much bigger idiot than you can ever possibly allow us to know within the confines of an internet message board.

Prosecutors take cases to trial, unless they believe they may lose at trial. If you know of a prosecutor who considers it his or her job to undercut justice with favors, let us know. Or better yet, inform the state bar. Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious charge.

[!]

Am I wrong? No, I am not.In your mind, no, you (and you as Zero) can never be wrong. in the real world, however, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Speed Racer]

The tapes remain very much intact to this very day. Do not forget that the tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

[Marty McFly]

Do not forget that the tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Well that really depends, doesn't it? The station has certain tapes that are designated to be used over and over again (field tapes) and then other tapes that are to be used ONCE and kept for a certain period of time (archive tapes).

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former news stories on file? No. They just wanted to have a record of what reporters such as Camp and Murphy did while at KDUH.

What's your point? The station isn't bound by law to have a coffee machine either. I've never worked at a station that has archive tapes set aside to keep a record of what reporters have done. They have archive tapes set aside to to keep a record of every story that has aired in a newscast though.

Was the station ever planning to airing any single story or all of those stories ever again? No, they were not.

That's PROBABLY true. But it's QUITE LIKELY the station was planning on being able to HAVE THE OPTION to air PORTIONS of previously aired stories.
The two twits removed the station of having that option.

Would the station likely use some of the file video in the future? Perhaps, but most likely not. The vast majority of that file video was NEVER EVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

But it doesn't matter, does it? The station may never use the old computers tossed away in an old storage area, but it doesn't give anyone the right to go erase the hard drives.

It has been suggested by KDUH that the videotapes contained such non essential video of cows in the field, Chadron State College, and the annual county fair. Is that a loss? No it is not.

Non-essential to whom? It may not be a loss in YOUR eyes, but they weren't your tapes, either.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

Wow. Then the networks really fouled up airing all that TWELVE YEAR OLD JonBenet FILE footage yesterday. Maybe they should have sent a crew to Boulder to go get the 'fresh' footage?

[The Fedora]

Hey Speedy...

Did I refer to the tapes when I mentioned station property? Nope. I meant the intellectual property that belonged to the station that is protected by law. I did not mention any price value, nor did I say that the intellectual property would or even should be used again.

:D

The video shot with company equipment on company time belongs to said company, not an employee.

[!]

Don't bother to argue the points with Speedy/PaperTrail/Zero. He will just continue to repeat his (clearly flawed) arguments over and over, happy that he thinks he's right, even though that he can't support his statements with anything other than his own claims, as if that made them fact.

[Diggin' Bear]

Man, fishin's good today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrA_kGB007U

[The Fedora]

:doh:YEAH DB... I REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

This message is hidden because Speed Racer is on your ignore list.

Just so I am never tempted to respond again

[NotImpressed]

The laughable parts:

1) Speed doesn't understand you can't destroy other people's property
2) Speed doesn't understand that file video has value
3) Speed doesn't understand that being unhappy with a station doesn't give you the right to destroy footage you shot

He is just purposely obtuse. But who cares. He/she (whichever of the two Speed is) knows they lost their careers. I am sure they think about it every day when their shift at the car wash starts.

[Speed Racer]

The laughable parts:
1) you can't destroy other people's property
2) file video has value
3) being unhappy with a station doesn't give you the right to destroy footage you shot


1) The tapes were not destroyed
2) File video of cows and buildings has no value
3) No destruction occurred. Tapes were made to be erased

[Spike]

I can't believe people are still arguing about this with this fool.

[Mr. Pratfall]

I think he'll go away if we can trick him to say his name backwards.

For 90 days, anyway.

[Clever Login Name]

Question: was there malicious intent to destroy station property irregardless of its worth?

And were the file tapes that were erased sitting in the garbage dumpster, or were they labeled and in cases on shelves?

"Irregardless", Fedora? Shame, shame!

Okay, so I just wanted to post on an 8-page thread that I care nothing about. Maybe I'll erase my post later. I can do that, you know. 'Cuz it's mine.

[The Fedora]

dammit. i didn't catch that as i was blazing through that post...

sorry CLN... :(

[JoinUsForCake]

1) The tapes were not destroyed
2) File video of cows and buildings has no value
3) No destruction occurred. Tapes were made to be erased.
S.T.F.U. you friggin' idiot

[SamG]

I just wanted to be the 200th reply.

[Produce man]

Well, you're #201.

You fail.:p

[ewink]

Well, you're #201.

You fail.:p
No, he's the 201's post. He's the 200th reply, since the original post is the original post.:p

Pooned? :cheers:

[News Is Broken]

Hey McFly, keep it safe for work would ya?! Damn dude...

[Marty McFly]

Better?
http://www.own3d.at/players/4617/gallery/owned.jpg

[Produce man]

No, he's the 201's post. He's the 200th reply, since the original post is the original post.:p

Pooned? :cheers:**sigh**

Pooned.:(

[Mighty Dyckerson]

No, he's the 201's post. He's the 200th reply, since the original post is the original post.:p

Pooned? :cheers:

Well done! :thumbsup:

[Marty McFly]

Back on topic to Speedy...

I'm curious if KDUH had a policy about erasing/"cleaning" tapes that run in the newscast. Once the show was over, how long until those tapes were 'cleaned?'

A day? Week? Month?

If the tapes were meant to be erased, why weren't they doing it right when a show was over?

[Produce man]

Back on topic to Speedy...

I'm curious if KDUH had a policy about erasing/"cleaning" tapes that run in the newscast. Once the show was over, how long until those tapes were 'cleaned?'

A day? Week? Month?

If the tapes were meant to be erased, why weren't they doing it right when a show was over?This is interesting. At every other shop I've worked at, the tapes that aired were seperate from the archive tapes. The AP would dub all the stories of the day to a seperate archive tape. So if you knew the day it aired, it was easily retrievable. At my current shop, the tapes that air ARE the archive tapes. This means that all the stories that aired on one particular day are on seperate tapes.

Thankfully, though, we're about to eliminate tapes altogether.

[JoinUsForCake]

This is interesting. At every other shop I've worked at, the tapes that aired were seperate from the archive tapes. The AP would dub all the stories of the day to a seperate archive tape. So if you knew the day it aired, it was easily retrievable. At my current shop, the tapes that air ARE the archive tapes. This means that all the stories that aired on one particular day are on seperate tapes.
Exactly - are there any stations who don't keep a morgue? Or routinely erase their morgue? Doubt it.

Either way, those reporters knew that those morgue tapes were not to be reused as daily run-n-gun scratch tapes. How come everyone here understands this except for dimwit Speedy and his amateur friends *wink*wink* who have self-blackballed from this business?

[Speed Racer]

Either way, those reporters knew that those morgue tapes were not to be reused as daily run-n-gun scratch tapes.

The legal question which you sidestep is whether or not erasing video tape is a crime.

It is not.

The legal question which you sidestep is whether the images on the videotape held any monetary value. In fact, another station in the market offered to SELL KDUH their file video which KDUH could use, and you know what KDUH did? They declined. Do you know why? It wasn't necessary. Do you know why? It was never going to be used again.

Just because you think something is right, doesn't make it necessarily so.

Camp and Murphy pleaded to misdemeanor crimes in order to save themselves time and money. Even though no crime was committed, it was the right thing to do.

[DoneThatToo]

[quote=Speed Racer;414759] . . . The legal question which you sidestep is whether the images on the videotape held any monetary value. In fact, another station in the market offered to SELL KDUH their file video which KDUH could use, and you know what KDUH did? . .

Just because you think something is right, doesn't make it necessarily so.

. . .quote]

Now I'm confussed. Seems like you want the tapes in question to have no value but then follow that with a statement that seems to say old footage does have value. You even said the reason XYZ didn't buy was because it wasn't needed, not that there wasn't an honest dollar value for the offered product. Face it. Tapes belong to the station, material on the tapes belong to the station, if you work for the station you belong to them for the time that they pay you. Pretty simple and applies to every job (in or out of the business) that I have had the pleasure of holding.

[Produce man]

They pled guilty even though they commited no crime?

They're duhmber than I thought.

[Marty McFly]

If the tapes held no value, why did another station offer to SELL them their file footage rather than just GIVE it to them?

You also ignored my question (like Pro does). If 'cleaning' the tapes that ran in a newscast isn't a big deal, why didn't the station have a policy or guidelines in place where someone 'cleaned' the tapes when a newscast was over?

'Whew. Six show is over. Now it's time to erase these tapes.'

[Speed Racer]

If the tapes held no value, why did another station offer to SELL them their file footage rather than just GIVE it to them?

To make money.

You can put a price on any worthless thing and sell it. Since KDUH was CLAIMING that file video had a dollar amount, it looked as if they might back that up by spending dollars to buy file video. That they did not speaks volumes about their bogus claims.

[Speed Racer]

Tapes belong to the station, material on the tapes belong to the station.
It is not now nor has it ever been illegal to erase video tape on eraseable video tapes.

Had the station wished to preseve the contents and prevent erasure, steps could have and should have been taken.

Didn't happen.

[Marty McFly]

To make money.

You can put a price on any worthless thing and sell it. Since KDUH was CLAIMING that file video had a dollar amount, it looked as if they might back that up by spending dollars to buy file video. That they did not speaks volumes about their bogus claims.

Thanks for answering one of my two questions. The other question you skipped over:

If 'cleaning' the tapes that ran in a newscast isn't a big deal, why didn't the station have a policy or guidelines in place where someone 'cleaned' the tapes when a newscast was over?

[Speed Racer]

If 'cleaning' the tapes that ran in a newscast isn't a big deal, why didn't the station have a policy or guidelines in place where someone 'cleaned' the tapes when a newscast was over?
A policy or guideline wasn't necessary. Just file the tapes in a closet and reuse them or clean them when necessary.

[Speed Racer]

They pled guilty even though they commited no crime? They're duhmber than I thought.
They plead nolo contendere, meaning they did not admit to the charge, but they chose not to dispute the allegation. It was the right thing to do. These two young reporters would have paid up to $50,000 to take this to trial, when you consider legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing truly valuable morgue footage, or lack thereof).

The real criminals are KDUH, who alleged the tapes were valued at over $250,000. Then, without explanation, they changed the estimate to $21,000. It accepted Murphy's payment of $3,250 and said nothing. Do you know why? Because it basically amounted to legal extortion. Pay us money, or we'll continue this charade of crying crime, crime, crime! And it would have cost these two fine young reporters tens of thousands of dollars just to be found not guilty.

That's not dumb.

[Produce man]

What part of "guilty plea" do you not understand.

And how's life outside TV news?

[Speed Racer]

I repeat, They plead nolo contendere, meaning they did not admit to the charge, but they chose not to dispute the allegation. It was the right thing to do. These two young reporters would have paid up to $50,000 to take this to trial, when you consider legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing truly valuable morgue footage, or lack thereof).

The real criminals are KDUH, who alleged the tapes were valued at over $250,000. That's the cost of a Spyker C8 sports car.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Spyker.jpg

Then, without explanation, KDUH changed the estimate of the tape value all the way down to $21,000. That's comparable to the price of a brand new Ford Escape.

http://z.hubpages.com/u/178525_f520.jpg

But do you know what happened? KDUH accepted Murphy's payment of $3,250 and said nothing. That's about the cost of a good triathlon bike.
http://www.powertri.com/ProductImages/xlab/xlab_avenger.jpg

So you are willing to believe that KDUH lost a Spyker C8 and were content to replace it with a bike? Does that make any sense at all?

I find that preposterous. Do you know why they did it? Because what KDUH was doing basically amounted to legal extortion. Pay us money, or we'll continue this charade of crying crime, crime, crime! And it would have cost these two fine young reporters tens of thousands of dollars just to be found not guilty.

That's not dumb. And that's not guilty.

[SamG]

Just file the tapes in a closet and reuse them or clean them when necessary.
So why EXACTLY was it "necessary" to "clean" the archive tapes? Were ALL the archive tapes needed for another purpose?

You also never said what was dirty about the tapes. After all, if they weren't dirty, they didn't need cleaned.

[Produce man]

It's simple. These two morons decided to flip off their employers by erasing archive tapes.

They broke the law.

They pleaded guilty.

The will never work in a newsroom again.

End of story.

[ewink]

To make money.

You can put a price on any worthless thing and sell it. Since KDUH was CLAIMING that file video had a dollar amount, it looked as if they might back that up by spending dollars to buy file video. That they did not speaks volumes about their bogus claims.
The worth of something is not judged by the person selling, but what the person buying is willing to pay.

I am sure I have said this before, but there is also costs associated with having to have someone go out and shoot new cows instead of using the files cows.

You can deny it till your head explodes, but there is a very good basis for placing a monetary value on - not the tapes, as you continue to point out despite it not being relevant, the tapes were not damaged - the intellectual property that was being stored on the tapes.

It's just like my previous analogy that you ignored. By your logic if I download 17824738240983201948019283091280312 songs via my favorite P2P program, I have committed no crime as I have not physically stolen anything. I am not in physically possession of the songs, just a bunch of 1s and 0s which rearranged are nothing.

In fact, I am not even in possession of the 1s and 0s, as my computer simply magnetized Ferric oxide that I paid for.

Had the station wished to preseve the contents and prevent erasure, steps could have and should have been taken.

Didn't happen.
Do you know for a fact that the record inhibit tab was not activated? Do you know for a fact that the people in question did not deactivate it?

I assume you know something for a fact, since I - like many others - believe you are one of the two people.

Intellectual property was destroyed. The fact you deny it proves that:

1) You are having a good laugh at our expense, by making us believe you are really this dumb...

2) You really believe you did nothing wrong, proving you are this dumb...

or 3) You are actually some random outsider who thinks they did nothing wrong and you are unbelievably dumb.

May I ask, would you be upset if I came in and bulk erased all of your video tapes, hard drives, floppy disks and flash drives? All of those are made to be erased.

[Chief Engineer]

They plead nolo contendere

So did former Vice President Spiro Agnew of nattering nabobs of negativism fame. It did wonders for his career.

[Another side]

They plead nolo contendere, meaning they did not admit to the charge, but they chose not to dispute the allegation.

And after a no-contest plea, the judge makes a finding of "guilty." It is entered as a conviction. I'm not a lawyer, but in 30-plus years running around the courts I've never seen a judge make a finding of "not guilty" following a no-contest plea. They now have a criminal record as a result of being found guilty of a misdemeanor.

And if they were truly young reporters with no funds, wanting to defend themselves against criminal charges, they could have asked for appointed counsel.

As I previously said, you really are an idiot.

[Speed Racer]

The worth of something is not judged by the person selling, but what the person buying is willing to pay.

Well said. And what price did the file video for sale bring?

Zero.

Which proves my point. The file video was worthless. It was treated as disposable garbage. KDUH did not replace it because it was not necessary to the successful operation of their news department.

[Speed Racer]

They broke the law.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, against any state or federal law to erase videotape.

They pleaded guilty.

They pleaded no contest, which does not admit guilt.

The will never work in a newsroom again.

Camp and Murphy were valued newsroom contributors whose talents indicated a strong successful future in the occupation of news gathering and delivering. It is not at all unusual for onair newsroom professionals to alter a given name in the pursuit of a legitmate career.

End of story.

Not quite. The rest of the story has yet to be written.

The two KDUH reporters who resigned and erased their work on file tapes were arrested for felony criminal mischief and trespassing. But they're completely innocent of the charges.

I have long ago wished them well and continue to hope these two fine young examples of reporters well in the future. If they had the money, they certainly would have taken the case to trial. You know the station damn sure didn't want that to happen. There would be much unflattering but honest testimony. Perhaps the KDUH work enviornment problems will be given full light in the community and that would surely damage the station's reputation beyond repair. The damage could be seen in the entire broadcast community, not just Scottsbluff. Paltry news department salaries would be exposed, where reporters are subjected to work overtime at HALF pay. Not time and a half - but half pay. Hours would have been discussed, and you know they're long. Managment practices would be examined and you know they've made numerous mistakes.

Yes, for one thing, something had to be terribly wrong at that station for two high profile journalists to resign in tandem. Why would those two people whow were at the begining of promising careers want to take what they gave the station (their work) so the station could never profit from it again?

For starters, since the fine young journalists resigned one would have to assume they were not under a legally binding contract.

I think there are some interesting legal questions and they are not at all cut and dry.

Did they "damage" the tapes? No. Absolutely not. They erased their personal contributions to the legacy of the station. The tapes remain very much intact. Those tapes were MADE to be erased and reused again and again. That's not damage. It's cleaning.

Was the station legally bound to have video copies of former stories on file? No. They just wanted to.

Was the station planning on airing any or all of those stories ever again? No. Check the record.

Would the station likely have used some of the file video in the future? I give that a very small maybe, because I'm much more honest than station management. The truth is, unless the station is doing a special end-of-year retrospective, the vast majority of that file video was NEVER going to see the broadcast light of day again.

File video should be avoided at all costs in the news business. That's why they call it NEWS.

It's outrageous that this station management should put a $250,000 then later $21,000 price tag on the tapes. If the old work of these former employees is indeed that valuable to the station, and it was discovered that copies were made, would you expect the station to cut a $10,000 check to the employees? No. Maybe 50 bucks, tops. They wouldn't get that much on eBay. Let's say there was an accidental fire at that station and only the file video closet and it's contents was damaged. Let's say that consistent with their current outrageous criminal claims, the station told it's insurance agent that their file video collection was worth $125,000 a year for each reporter who ever worked there.

It's a small station, so that would be about a million dollars a year. And let's say ten years worth of tapes were destroyed. That's ten million dollar they'd claim they were owed by the insurance company. Do you think the insurance company would pay? Absolutely not.

You know what? If the station even tried that, they'd be charged with insurance fraud. And the bastards would be convicted. And rightly so. And justly so.

The station paid those two reporter/anchors to do a job and they did it and they aired the results. They did their jobs and apparently they did it very well. Hell, according to the station, just never to be seen repeats of their work efforts are worth a whopping $250,000!

Does the station really think that keeping a hard copy of the results of that hard work in a closet for years is vital to the continuing operation of a news station?

These two young reporter/anchors have a story to tell about that news operation and I pray to God that one day they get to tell it.

[Speed Racer]

I've never seen a judge make a finding of "not guilty" following a no-contest plea. After a no-contest plea, the judge makes a finding of "guilty."
As is REQUIRED by law, you foolish simple minded man. The judge has no other legal option. The defendants have chosen to not contest the charges, as is their right, by offering a legal defense.
It's really quite simple, even for the moderately educated.
Have you ever really been inside a courtroom? I find that assertion difficult to believe. If you had, you might be aware that if a judge feels that there is no factual basis to the allegations, he or she does not find the defendant "not guilty", he or she dismisses the case with prejudice.

That is why you have never seen a judge make a "not guilty" finding to a no-contest plea. Need I explain it further? Do you now see the root of your confusion?

These fine young reporters had money for legal counsel, but the high cost of expert testimony realistically precluded them from mounting the necessary defense without piling up enormous legal bills which by far exceeded the expense of simply pleading "no contest."

[Another side]

As is REQUIRED by law, you foolish simple minded man. The judge has no other legal option. The defendants have chosen to not contest the charges, as is their right, by offering a legal defense.
It's really quite simple, even for the moderately educated.
Have you ever really been inside a courtroom? I find that assertion difficult to believe. If you had, you might be aware that if a judge feels that there is no factual basis to the allegations, he or she does not find the defendant "not guilty", he or she dismisses the case with prejudice.

You're an idiot.

If there's "no factual basis to the allegations " then the case is dismissed at the initial probable cause hearing and the defendants are never asked to enter a plea.

But If there's no factual basis for a no contest plea, the judge refuses to accept it, enters a "not guilty" plea on the defendant's behalf, and sets the case down for trial. Judges never dismiss at the plea stage -- I'm not even sure they have that authority.


The fine young reporters had money for legal counsel, but the high cost of expert testimony realistically precluded them from mounting the necessary defense without piling up enormous legal bills which by far exceeded the expense of simply pleading "no contest."

And as a result they're now convicted criminals. They were found guilty and sentenced.

They weren't found innocent, they didn't win. They're convicted criminals.

You're an idiot.

[Sparky]

I think maybe the only idiots here are these posters ... you know - the ones with the hook embedded in their cheek and the glassy eyed look that's keeping them from seeing the ride they've been taken on. But, whatever. Carry on.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/02/63/22426302.jpg

[Speed Racer]

If there's "no factual basis to the allegations " then the case is dismissed at the initial probable cause hearing and the defendants are never asked to enter a plea.

I'm laughing at your devestating ignorance. And I'm sighing at the prospect of reversing even a small portion. Yet, I'll try.

There is no way a judge knows if there is indeed no factual basis to the allegations until after they have entered an initial plea of not guilty, which they did, and the case goes through a preliminary hearing, which it did, and evidence is presented before the court through documents, testimony and artifacts.

The KDUH station manager was required to bring a binder detailing the alleged contents of the videotapes, yet he violated the court order and offered as an excuse his inability to follow directions. And the judge let it slide. Don't you find that interesting? Probably not, because you obviously do not have a requisite inquisitive mind. But let me point out that proof of what you claim once existed and the alleged value of the material might be important when determining the basic elements of the case, which was a monetary loss. But, no matter.

In these two cases, one judge refused to send the case forward to trial after the preliminary hearing, because of legitimate legal concerns about KDUH's outrageously unsupported estimate of the garbage videotape's value.

The other magistrate was not nearly as judicious in his appraisal of the law.

But no matter. It is incredibly easy to meet the very light legal burden of "criminal mischief", which as I'm sure you are aware was the criminal charge against these two fine young reporters. Yes, they were accused of being mischievous, not thieves, not vandals, but mischiefs. And of that they were not guilty. It is not a crime, it is not even mischievous to erase erasable videotapes. It's a standard popular feature enjoyed by probably every American over the age of five.

[Marty McFly]

Sometimes you have to go back and highlight questions for Speedy because he looks over them.

Please answer this gem from ewink: May I ask, would you be upset if I came in and bulk erased all of your video tapes, hard drives, floppy disks and flash drives? All of those are made to be erased.

[ewink]

Don't bother.

He's going to ignore anything that doesn't have to do with the physical damage to the actual videotapes, since that is what his whole argument is based on.

I find contentment in knowing that I have beaten him, and that I (and the rest of the group, but mostly me) am right and he is wrong.

[Marty McFly]

I'm still confused how someone can plead guilty when no crime is committed... :rolleyes:

On another note, which one of the two fired nimrods is Speedy?

[Speed Racer]

Please answer this gem from ewink: May I ask, would you be upset if I came in and bulk erased all of your video tapes, hard drives, floppy disks and flash drives? All of those are made to be erased.

I ignored it because it's an ignorant question.
Yes, I'd be upset. But you won't be charged with a crime. It's not against the law to erase video tape.

[Speed Racer]

I'm still confused how someone can plead guilty when no crime is committed...
Nobody entered a guilty plea. The plead was no contest.

And here's a newsflash for you bub, just because a crime is alleged, doesn't mean one was committed.

[Marty McFly]

I ignored it because it's an ignorant question.
Yes, I'd be upset. But you won't be charged with a crime. It's not against the law to erase video tape.

WOW! I'd like to see you rent 10 dozen movies from Blockbuster, erase (or 'clean') their tapes and try that argument.

How do you think that would work out?

[MyracleMan]

It's simple. These two morons decided to flip off their employers by erasing archive tapes.

They broke the law.

They pleaded guilty.

The will never work in a newsroom again.

End of story.

Exactly. It's idiots like Sir Speedy/Speed Racer/Mr. Fast Guy that have never spent a single day in a newsroom that don't understand what file video is for, and don't understand that by erasing these tapes, these two kids, no matter how 'bright and promising' they might have been, effectively erased their future.

I repeat, They plead nolo contendere, meaning they did not admit to the charge, but they chose not to dispute the allegation. It was the right thing to do. These two young reporters would have paid up to $50,000 to take this to trial, when you consider legal fees and expert witness fees (appraisers with expertise in valuing truly valuable morgue footage, or lack thereof).

The real criminals are KDUH, who alleged the tapes were valued at over $250,000. That's the cost of a Spyker C8 sports car.

Then, without explanation, KDUH changed the estimate of the tape value all the way down to $21,000. That's comparable to the price of a brand new Ford Escape.

But do you know what happened? KDUH accepted Murphy's payment of $3,250 and said nothing. That's about the cost of a good triathlon bike.

So you are willing to believe that KDUH lost a Spyker C8 and were content to replace it with a bike? Does that make any sense at all?

I find that preposterous. Do you know why they did it? Because what KDUH was doing basically amounted to legal extortion. Pay us money, or we'll continue this charade of crying crime, crime, crime! And it would have cost these two fine young reporters tens of thousands of dollars just to be found not guilty.

That's not dumb. And that's not guilty.

Once again, I say...

Jack@ss.

[ewink]

Yes, I'd be upset. But you won't be charged with a crime. It's not against the law to erase video tape.
Why would you be upset?

All of that media is made to be erased. I don't understand. I have not physically damaged any of that media.

[Spike]

Ten pages of this crap?

[ewink]

Ten pages of this crap?
Are you trying to create an eleventh? :)

[Another side]

I'm laughing at your devestating ignorance. And I'm sighing at the prospect of reversing even a small portion. Yet, I'll try.

There is no way a judge knows if there is indeed no factual basis to the allegations until after they have entered an initial plea of not guilty, which they did, and the case goes through a preliminary hearing, which it did, and evidence is presented before the court through documents, testimony and artifacts.

Uh-oh ... I believe now Sparky is right ... you're really putting evereyone on and I've taken it hook, line and sinker.

I mean Ewink has slapped you around unmercifully, and Marty's question (rephrased slightly by me) --"How can you be (found guilty) of something if no crime was committed" -- begs for an answer you refuse to provide. Why else would you continue on if it wasn't just for giggles?

But as far as my own little side-path into the legal process, I'm in too deep now to withdraw so I'm going to add one more post and then leave you the last word. Because you're an idiot (and, as Sparky suggests) I may be too, but I'll at least I'll be an idiot gone.

When someone is arrested on a felony, it works like this:

First appearance: If a formal complaint has not been filed (say a burglary suspect got nabbed in the house by an officer on patrol) then the judge/magistrate reviews the officer's arrest affidavit for "probable cause" for the arrest. If the suspect is still in jail, bail is set, and the defendant is ordered to return to court at a later date for the reading of formal charges.

Once that occurs, a preliminary hearing date is set to determine whether a felony occurred and the liklihood of this defendant committing it.

If the court agrees with the state that a felony occurred and there is (in the light most favorable to the state) reason to believe this defendant committed it, an "arraignment" follows -- sometimes right then, sometimes at a later date -- at which time the defendant enters a plea.

If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, a sentencing date is set.

If the defendant pleads not guilty, a hearing date is usually set for "status" (to see if "plea negotiations" might cancel the need for a jury trial) or pre-trial motions to be heard.

In the federal system (and some states) grand juries eliminate the need for a preliminary hearing -- the prosecutor presents its evidence to the grand jury, which then decides whether to indict the defendant. If it chooses to indict, a court appearance -- an "arraignment" -- is scheduled to take a plea.

No one pleas BEFORE they are indicted by a grand jury, and no one pleas BEFORE a judge holds a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to believe the suspect committed a felony.

And in some cases, the judge will throw out a case after the preliminary, though not often, and in many cases the defense waives its right to the preliminary hearing, enters a not guilty plea and asks the court to set it down on the trial docket.

If the charge is a misdemeanor, then there is no preliminary hearing. The suspect may plead guilty on the spot and be sentenced , or plead not guilty and hire a lawyer to defend him/her at trial.

I don't know how else to say it. It's not conjecture, it's not opinion, it's not guess-work -- it's how the process works.

And you can claim your two criminal friends are "innocent" all you want, and that they commited "no crime" all you please. But that's not what the record reflects.

The record shows they were found guilty of a misdemeanor in criminal court, and that they were punished for it and ordered to pay fines and whatever else the judge decided. The record shows they are convicted criminals.

Idiot.

[The Fedora]

and according to our friend sirspeedyzerospeedracer that the two reporters may have changed their names and may be working in the biz, again.

murphy, camp. hope you keep your fingers away from the delete button.

[Another side]

Well, I'm all for them getting another chance. I don't like the changing of the names, though.

[Marty McFly]

It shouldn't be that difficult to find out IF they changed their names and what they changed them to, would it?

[NotImpressed]

It's not against the law to erase video tape.

Ok Speed E-Racer, do me a favor: go into Wal-Mart with a demagnetizer and start erasing all the VHS tapes in the place. When the cops come, try the "it's not against the law to erase videotape" defense.

You got fired. You got arrested. You had to pay thousands in damages. And you ruined your career. And all you are left with is posts on a message board, venting the rage that no doubt got you in this mess in the first place.

If only you'd vented on the message boards before you ruined your life on one Saturday afternoon, you'd be so much better off.:moon:

On the other hand, please continue to post. I love watching you stew in your own juices. It proves to me that whatever you have moved on to in life, it isn't interesting enough to keep you from living in your past mistakes.

[Diggin' Bear]

Man, fishin's REALLY good today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4mDIpYHxWY

[!]

You got fired. You got arrested. You had to pay thousands in damages. And you ruined your career. And all you are left with is posts on a message board, venting the rage that no doubt got you in this mess in the first place.

If only you'd vented on the message boards before you ruined your life on one Saturday afternoon, you'd be so much better off.

On the other hand, please continue to post. I love watching you stew in your own juices. It proves to me that whatever you have moved on to in life, it isn't interesting enough to keep you from living in your past mistakes.
It actually proves that he hasn't moved on at all.

[The Mockingbird]

Two words: Intellectual Property.