Re: Danni Goldhabers Visit: Danni won't answer this

"Danni" <danni214@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tumdnfCB9LTbDuLZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<salmoneous@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149210947.139867.56190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You do understant there is a difference between "commenting in depth"
and "freeing David from a vow of silence that makes him look kinda
silly" don't you?

Yes. And David is respecting my request to not discuss the case in depth
either.

What's wrong with letting the man say what he saw in a public document?

David hasn't seen the documents yet.

That is correct.

The only document I have personally seen is related to the denial of the
defendant's request for a re-hearing.

No one anywhere will find a post of mine in which I suggested that I have
seen the document personally. Its length and general contents were described
to me by *** and Danni, so I have an idea of its depth and breadth, and
indeed it IS breathtaking from the description. Anyone who suggests that
significant monetary damages have not been assessed also clearly has not
seen the document, nor has it been correctly described to them.

When asked to keep a confidence, I will keep it.

--David/NV



.