Gothamist: Mom's Makeover to Woo Juror, Prove Son's Innocence

danisaint

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:21:29 -0500

@ #10 "N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 (Consol. 1999): It is a crime to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation." Ummm your own post proves this woman didn't break the law.....'It is also a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation' 1) The mom was present as was Allo 2) I am sure the mom gladly gave her consent to be taped in order to prove her son's innocence 3) If this was recorded via phone, then guess what the Mom was either the sender or reciever of the calls, so she can record whatever the hell she wants to. If this kid is innocent then it should be tried again. If this Allo guy knew someone in the trial and lied about it to get on the jury, then he needs to face criminal charges....

afridrums

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:00:40 -0500

Everything is not sexy. Larry http://www.Text2store.com

Hawk

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:51:40 -0500

thefacts wrote" As a frustrated spook, it was always my belief that - rule of thumb - as long as one person knew it was being recorded, recording a conversation, even telephonically, is legal, and perhaps even admissible as evidence." In New York it is legal and admissible. So anybody -- except lawyers -- can secretly record telephone conversations, so long as they are part of that telephone conversation. I don't know why lawyers are excluded but they are.

r1b2

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:51:54 -0500

I'd hit that, videotape it, and post it.

PoliteNewYorker

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:55:49 -0500

I tip my hat to the Great MILF Detective.

NannyState

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:55:15 -0500

^I many states, only one party needs to consent to taping. In states like Maryland, you need the consent of the other person on the line as well. And yeah, she "woulda have sex with him" because she subterfuge had a sexual angle that puts all her motives in doubt.

thefacts

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:27:26 -0500

As a frustrated spook, it was always my belief that - rule of thumb - as long as one person knew it was being recorded, recording a conversation, even telephonically, is legal, and perhaps even admissible as evidence.

dooWOP

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:25:16 -0500

That's quite impressive actually - however, I would add some botox and collagen lip injections to her to-do list...

Jen S

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:00:10 -0500

Damn straight her husband waited up after her dates...all that creepy-ass conniving did her body GOOD.

babyhitler

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:50:55 -0500

#8- only in certain states and in certain circumstances - "Most of the state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded" -depending on how this guido bitch got this guy it could be thrown out.

schadenfreudian mensch

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:50:26 -0500

"Couldn't Allo tell the difference between a California accent and that notorious Red Hook accent, and pin her?" @thefacts Allo isn't the sharpest tool in the shed from my sense. Probably why she honed in on him. Most people try to get out of doing jury, even lie, but this numbnut lie to BE on jury duty so asking him to tell the difference between a Red Hook Bklyn accent and a Cali accent is a bit of a stretch especially since he's using his head between his legs to do most of his thinking. Re: Surreptitious recordings "N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 (Consol. 1999): It is a crime to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation."

thefacts

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:33:21 -0500

Couldn't Allo tell the difference between a California accent and that notorious Red Hook accent, and pin her? Also odd is that her husband would rather have his kid spend years in prison than his wife have sex with the mark. Only the Dead Know Brooklyn.

jaycjay

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:22:15 -0500

"last time I checked the evidence would be inadmissable in court as you have to give consent to be recorded on tape." Uh... where did you check that last time? Surreptitious recordings, both audio and video, are used in court all the time. In any case, even if what she says is true and even if the juror knew witnesses or other parties in the case, it may provide reason to appeal but does nothing to "prove her son's innocence." Put simply, a tainted jury doesn't mean he didn't do it.

babyhitler

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:10:11 -0500

last time I checked the evidence would be inadmissable in court as you have to give consent to be recorded on tape. since this sneaky guido bitch did it on the DL they would throw that shit out.

ides_of_march

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:53:54 -0500

I thought that was Ozzy Ozbourne in the first photo.

Kevin Walsh

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:37:10 -0500

I smell a movie www.forgotten-ny.com

Mr Mel

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:19:03 -0500

Only in New York.

JacqueMehoff

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:19:02 -0500

wait one sec, the juror and her went out for like six months and they didn't have sex???? I remember this case, made fairfield U famous.

pete

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:13:08 -0500

L&O episode in 3..2..1..

babyhitler

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:11:41 -0500

holy shit! this is like old lady mission impossible. If she lost another 30 pounds I might hit it.