FINSAC: Crawford? Why would he alk away?

[Karl]

Fuss over Crawford's examination forces early adjournment of Finsac enquiry

JIS
Thursday, July 28, 2011

THE Finsac Commission of Enquiry had a premature adjournment yesterday after the commissioners refused to grant former Century National Bank (CNB) head, Don Crawford, more time for examination by his attorney.

Crawford, who appeared via video-conferencing from Atlanta, Georgia and his attorney Anthony Levy insisted that when he first appeared before the commission on June 7, he made an introductory statement which should have been followed by his examination by Levy yesterday, based on a statement he had submitted to the commission.

Levy was supported by attorney Dave Garcia, who represents National Commercial Bank's Managing Director and a former Finsac boss, Patrick Hylton. Garcia said that, as far as he recalled, Levy had said that he would continue his examination whenever Crawford reappeared.

But, Commission Chairman Worrick Bogle, insisted this was not so. Bogle said that, as far as the Commission was concerned, Crawford's examination had been completed and the enquiry would proceed to his cross-examination by the other attorneys, after which Levy could re-examine.

The chairman took a break to resolve the issue, but that did not help. On the resumption, Bogle insisted that the cross-examination must proceed.
"A lot of what Mr Crawford was saying I was able to pick out in the statement. So, as far as I'm concerned, he was addressing the statement and we can talk and talk, the ruling is what I have given and that is the situation," Bogle stated.

Levy advised Crawford that since he was not being allowed to complete his evidence, he should "walk away from the commission". Bogle said Crawford had a choice of being cross-examined or taking Levy's advice to withdraw.

After a second break, Crawford told the Commission that, "in light of bias, prejudice and discrimination", he would abide by Levy's advice not to proceed. The enquiry was then adjourned.

A spokesman for the commission said that it was unlikely that Crawford would be asked to return, as he had refused to be cross-examined. However, attorneys for persons who were named by Crawford in his opening statement could insist on rebutting his evidence.

The enquiry resumes this morning at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel in New Kingston when the matter is expected to cleared up.



Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz1TPHSZgeG

[Karl]

Gamma: Why would he do this?

[Muadib]

Why did Omar and PJ ignore Seaga strenuous objections to their policy changes ?

Suh it guh.. key ting right now is not to allow a repeat of the past.. gwine mek sure unnuh stuck away in di wildarness while di place fix up.

[Gamma]

obviously he thinks he has more to say before he is cross examined and if he does not get to say it, he will not subject himself to cross examination.

btw, i think it is something you would have done also if you thought you were being prohibited from giving your full testimony. this is based on several conversations that we have had.

[Karl]

obviously he thinks he has more to say before he is cross examined and if he does not get to say it, he will not subject himself to cross examination.

btw, i think it is something you would have done also if you thought you were being prohibited from giving your full testimony. this is based on several conversations that we have had.

...what about re-cross? Would there be the opportunity for him to say more?

[Gamma]

re-cross? i think you mean re-direct. if you knew the nuances of cross examination you will know that on a re-direct it can ONLY deal with matters raised on the cross examination and ONLY for clarification.

[Muadib]

Crawford seh FINSAC lawyers have to be a fishermon or a fisherooman..

[Karl]

re-cross? i think you mean re-direct. if you knew the nuances of cross examination you will know that on a re-direct it can ONLY deal with matters raised on the cross examination and ONLY for clarification.

..but would he not be afforded the chance to defend his earlier statements?

...and is there not always the possibility of the cross examiner opening areas not previous covered?

Just thinking he has turned away from making full use of his opportunity...unless ofcourse he thinks he could call into question the accuracy of his earlier submissions

[Gamma]

1. did you read and UNDERSTAND what i said about his evidence on the direct examination (examination in chief)? apparently not. I cannot make it any simpler, sorry.

2. would YOU want to have your evidence depend upon that? What if they don't? and even if they do, the commissioners could on their own motion prevent those questions from either being asked or answered because it would go beyond the scope of the evidence on the examination in chief.

3. the MORE he says the more chance there is of him making contradictory statements and he WANTS to say more, that would provide more material upon which to cross examine him.