'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Videos*

Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

Jesus Jumped-up Christ. Two mental midgets trying to outwit 21. This should be fun.

I'm getting popcorn, anyone else want some?

 

Re: SF Chron Guys and Troy Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Freshly Revisited - U

I've been trying to read this and figure out what's going on, because it seems like it might be important, and I must say: I'm confused.

For those of you who are working on this -- Is there any way you could summarize this down to a few short black text on white background sentences with nothing bolded or underlined or italicized, so I can at least figure out the gist of what you're saying?

 

Re: SF Chron Guys and Troy Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Freshly Revisited - Uh Oh

Rok will do this - I am busy editing & uploading the video (some of which got shot with too tight a shot - ah well).

We will get you guys more soon.

 

Re: SF Chron Guys and Troy Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Freshly Revisited - Uh Oh

Gee, I hope the video is in hi-def.

 

Re: SF Chron Guys and Troy Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Freshly Revisited - Uh Oh

What is CLEAR is that what happened HERE has NOTHING to do with the fact that you KNOW the PEOPLE INVOLVED (a claim which probably is a lie anyway). You even say it is CLEAR to me what went down, which means you are SPECULATING, not presenting EVIDENCE. You are NAME-DROPPING, period.

Also, lose the ALL CAPS in EVERY other WORD.
You'll look less like the high schooler writing trash than you do now.

 

Re: SF Chron Guys and Troy Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Freshly Revisited - Uh Oh

Ok our videos are posted on Balco reporters on You tube

Here they are:

These are fun and action packed. JDV & RokSki go tag team.

Scope how the pros break it all down!

One take, no edits, no cue cards (as usual).

JDV is that damn good

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

For those who didn't enjoy JDV's McGwire videos, or who don't understand what we were trying to explain here, relative to the importance of the 12.1.04 and 12.28.04 dates, I would suggest not watching the videos, as they will almost certainly not make those dates and their importance any clearer.

To those who have asked, I will write a summary about why these two dates are so important in light of Ellerman's plea. I just haven't been able to step back and do so yet, and I do apologize for that.

For anybody who just wants to enjoy JDV (and me via speakerphone), and have some fun, you might like the videos. But I want to be clear: These videos were not made for sports journalists, but for a layman looking to get some kind of handle on the situation given Ellerman's plea. Thanks.

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

I disagree with Rok here.

I think the videos do cover a lot of territory and do make it much easier to follow the events in context. There is 25 minutes of coverage there. I don't think this story is hard to follow/understand at all - but if you haven't got how important this is yet - or what is going on, then the videos will likely help you.

Plus we make additional points that are not covered here.

The fact that the videos are also fun & entertaining helps make the time fly.

Good stuff & number 2 especially is solid (but they have an order and context so watch all of them).

Any cool - scope them out. I am going to crash so I will see you guys later.

John

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

Nice job putting together a very revealing timeline, Villareal boys.

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

Thanks Cranberry - you rock!!

Lot of work was put into that story, research, & videos. Glad you enjoyed it!!

John

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

Rok,
I appreciate the time and passion you put into researching the timeline. But you and your brother have mentioned your "scoop" has been reported. Your brother with his big IQ has erroneously thrown that word at us so many times, it's hard not to roll the eyes when he brags about another "scoop." He might as well be working at Baskin Robbins.

Where can we find the details of your research, after it's gone through the normal channels of journalism -- checked and re-checked by editors, run by the company lawyers, etc? A reputable news gathering site? Newspaper? TV?
I'm not suggesting this site isn't reputable, but the standards are quite different. And YouTube doesn't count. Like MySpace, you can rant about monsters living under the streets of Manhattan but that doesn't mean it's credible journalism.
So again, where can we find your work? I'd certainly like to read more. From what I understand, you review movies, so maybe this is something you're covering freelance? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And sorry JVD, no matter how much you think you know the ethics of the SF lawyers/judges/court officers, you don't know if they absolutely never would leak something to the press. It appears they didn't here,
and I'd like to think they never would, but try using that in court. Hey, judge, I know this person (I was their trainer, bodyguard, whatever), and he would never do something wrong or out of character, and if you don't believe me you better watch it 'cause I can bench press you.
You write: "Uh dork - it is because I KNOW the judges and prosecutors out here and never believed they were leaking s@@@, especially to that magnitude. It was CLEAR what was going down at least to me (which is why Rok and I broke this story)."

Again, where did you break it? I don't care if it's the Hungry Horse News or the Washington Post, I'd still like to read it after it's gone through check fact and lawyers and editorial meetings and all the other hoops true journalists deal with every day.

 

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

Gingerbread:

I appreciate your thoughtful question.

And to everyone else, I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond any earlier ot various questions and requests (all asked/submitted kindly, thanks), I've been wrapped up with other work and haven't had the chance to get on SJ at all. In hindsight, I realize that most of the first post is superfluous, and there are a number of stylistic and formatting techniques I used in my posts which could be improved. Which I will do, as time allows. My immediate concern was getting this information down, and time/date 'stamped,' before someone else does publish this and tries to usurp the proper credit due to myself and my brother. That was my first priority, getting it entered here. Grammatical, stylistic and 'summary version' considerations were secondary, but I realize that they are just as important, and I will get to them ASAP. I know and respect that people can't discuss or use things they can't understand and/or don't feel like navigating through, stylistically.

This has not been reported, in any publication of note. The subject matter is not what I deal with in my other work, and to be honest with you, I don't really feel the desire to hand it over to some of those with whom I associate. That's why I put it on here, instead. Had I handed it over to those parties, I would have gotten no credit whatsoever. Some credit - even that of an anonymous SJ poster, or credit given to my brother - is better than none. Angola asked me a similar question with respect to my brother's information concerning Mark McGwire (i.e., why didn't I just publish it myself?), and I gave the same answer.

As 21 correctly noted, this is not 'new' information (and 21, I apologize for being snide in my post following that, I was very harried that night) - the dates, that is. That is, the 'rediscovered' dates (12.1.04 and 12.28.04) are not new. As my link in the second post of this thread demonstrates, that information was published in 2004, by the Chron (and likely other sources covering the BALCO trial, as well). And the dates which the link to Ellerman's plea agreement details (i.e.: 6.04 (approx.), 6.24.04, 10.8.04, 11.04 (approx.), and 12.3.04) have, obviously, already been published, by the Daily News, as well as countless other sources.

No, what's 'new' about what JDV and I did was putting those two 'lost' dates into proper perspective with the other 5 more recently reported dates. Every article that I've seen (or, at least the better ones) since Ellerman's plea has mentioned the 5 dates from Ellerman's plea. Of course they have, they're all in the plea, which was just made, so they better have been mentioned in any decent article which reported on the plea.

All of said plea articles correctly pointed out that MFW went and got the Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, etc. grand jury testimony after the motion to dismiss was filed by Ellerman.

None of said plea articles, however, mentioned that MFW did so before the motion to dismiss hearing was held, or that MFW did so before the judge made her ruling on the motion to dismiss (which, of course, would follow, as the judge can't make a ruling on a motion to dismiss she hasn't had a hearing for).

This is where my legal background (I have experience in front of judges and with courts [before anyone makes the joke - no, not as a defendant]) - as well as having a brother who is a California (where the trial was held, the location of which was essentially in JDV's backyard) lawyer - kicked in. After Dave Kindred offered his theory (about a timeline and when MFW's got the Bonds testimony) in the other thread (linked in my first post on this thread), and I posted my initial response, a day later an ominous thunderbolt of an idea hit me, something I didn't want to imagine at first, but had to realistically consider:

"What if MFW went back and got the Bonds+ testimony (and the Chron published the Bonds+ testimony) before the motion to dismiss had been ruled on?"

(continued in following post)​