yes especially when both sides are the devil.

have a good weekend. keep your puppies safe! in a few months it will be fur coat weather.

CD,

You do like playing devil's advocate (sic).

She wrote her eyewitness account and she didn't write that she saw a push. Why would she leave that out? The rest is quite detailed. But you are correct that we cannot tell from the story whther she saw it or not. She might have good reasons for leaving it out although I am not sure what they were.

She interviewed Brice at some point after the meeting, for her story, right? Ask Brice (I'm sure you two are pals) if he asked her what she saw and then do let us know. Im sure Brice knows what she said to him so maybe he could post on his blog.

At the risk of repeating myself one last time you stated that the reporter did not see the assault despite being a witness to the events. That statement is false - the article says no such thing.

Now you say that "you've heard" that reporter didn't think what she saw was worthy of a story or constituted an "assault." That's quite a different assertion and pretty irelevent.

The reporter's opinion (or yours or mine) as to whether pushing someone and grabbing their camera is worthy of all this attention or ought to be considered an "assault" is not particularly important except to the extent that it may cause her to prefer not to have to testify as to what she saw.

If she were to testify that Mr. Bejardi did not push Mr. Brice or grab his camera then her testimony would exonerate him.

If she were to testify that she saw Mr. Bejardi push Mr. Brice and grab his camera then her testimony, if believed, will convict him. Even if your speculation about her personal views is correct, it simply doesn't matter.

She would not be testifying as to her opinion - only as to the facts of what she saw.

Given that, I'm confident Mr. Brice would love to have her testify, since pushing someone and grabbing their camera does in fact constitute misdemeanor assault in the State of New Jersey

For what its worth, I agree that our courts have better things to do than to waste time on this kind of matter.

That is why it is so unfortunate that instead of just ending this by apologizing for his boorish behavior and moving on, Mr. Bejardi chose to prolong the agony and perjure himself by filing a false police report.

Have a nice weekend.

a repoter reporting on someone's allegation certainly doesn't mean she agrees with it. please!

apparently she was alarmed enough by an assertion of someone falling down, that she had to correct that part, however. a rare thing for a reporter to do, but she was there.

in the article linked by WESTY, which you can read yourself, she gives an account of everything she saw, separate from the report. as WESTY says go to the link and read it yourself. nowhere is there a push in her own account. sure i wouldn't mind if she testifies, but since she doesnt seems to have seen an assault on either side, i doubt either side wants that.

why dont you just ask her if she saw an assault? i have heard from 2 people (whether true or not) that she didnt even want to write the the story, because she did not see a crime. as proof, look at the dates when she ran the story. it was not even mentioned in her original account was it. have a good weekend.

CDeVille - you state that the reporter says she didn't see the assault:

"I am not saying there wasnt an assault because i wouldnt know, just saying that a NEUTRAL witness didnt see it."

THAT IS A LIE! You see - I can use all caps too.

She says no such thing. She mixes the police report account with her own observations correcting the report where she believes it was incorrect. She corrects the statement that Brice was knocked down but does not correct that he was pushed and his camera was grabbed.

She corrects one detail but lets the others stand. Your interpretation - that since she didn't explicitly say she saw it she must not have - is completely inconsistent with the reporter's account and thus IS A LIE (do you like the caps - if you do I can use them more.

I already stated that I hope she testifies if there's a trial. Do you?

With all this editorializing it would be good to read the actual story on Hoboken Patch.

http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/after-arrest-hoboken-resident-files-countercharges-against-local-blogger

THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT SIR. Nowhere does she say she saw a push and certainly not an assault as you tried to say below!! So why did you have to lie ?

The fact is that she details her own witnessing of the incident step by step and mentions several actions and words exchanged but does not say there was an assault that she saw.

It was only after someone filed a report that she had to document it. She didnt even mention it in her account of the event.

I am not saying there wasnt an assault because i wouldnt know, just saying that a NEUTRAL witness didnt see it.

She is quoting Brice's ALLEGATION TO POLICE that he was pushed, as every other news story also did becasue it is news that he made an ALLEGATION in the report. She then makes it clear that no one fell to the ground, because she knows that for sure. She may have missed the alleged push if she turned around but she cetainly did not see it as you tried to say.

"Bajardi then allegedly pushed Brice (although the police report on this case indicates otherwise, Brice did not fall to the ground), and grabbed his camera."

It is the push and grab that constitutes an assault - not Bejardi falling or not falling to the ground. The Patch reporter witnessed the entire incident and the only item she disputes is whether Bejardi fell to the ground.

I know she includes the word "allegedly" but IMHO it is clear that she is correcting the portion of the police report she disagrees with and reporting the portion consistent with what she saw.

It his my hope that if there is a trial she agrees to testify since I agree that her account is likely to be objective and not colored by politics.

If I'm wrong then that thats fair but my reading did not see any assault. Please quote the sentence that confirms an assault.

CDeVille - your description of the Patch account is incorrect. I'm sure Mr. Brice would love to have the reporter testify at the trial and perhaps she will do so.

If the Patch account were to be accepted at the trial as the accurate description of events, then Mr. Bejardi is guilty of not only assault but perjury and filing a false police report.

The Patch story disputes a single detail which is not a necessary element of the offense - whether or not Mr. Brice was actually knocked down as a result of being shoved by Mr. Bejardi - but confirms the assault. It also exposes Mr. Bejardi's sworn account as a complete work of fiction.

If the patch reporter's account exonerates Bejardi why is she not on Bejardi's (apparently blank) witness list?

Mr. Brice has said that all Mr. Bejardi needs to do to end this silliness is to apologize and move on. Smart people know when its time to cut their losses. As much as I think the trial would be great theater, I hope Mr. Bejardi comes to his senses and does the right thing for himself, his family and the City of Hoboken.

I think it's funny that the article keeps referring to the patch stories, when the patch reporter is the one who denied the contention that there was any assault!! At least she reported that she didn't see one, and she was right there and didnt even cover the incident until much later. a patch reporter is as neutral as you can get.

the other 'witnesses' are not exactly neutral are they.

Better yet, haven't the Mason/Kiem/Marketevitch brain trust been writing "editorial pieces" demanding a more civil level of political discourse? Great timing when Lame is in the stockade.

Roman has 6 witnesses, Lane has none. I wonder who's lying?