Witness Intimidation “Intent”

[00:00:00]You gave a statement on January 29th to Sergeant Lank.

[00:00:05]Called him over.

[00:00:07]You specifically gave him a statement, correct?

[00:00:09]>> Correct.

[00:00:10]>> You did in fact on January 29th seek to ask an officer to come back to 34 Fairview for the specific purpose of telling that officer something that you thought was important, correct?

[00:00:23]>> Correct.

[00:00:24]>> Which officer was that?

[00:00:25]>> Michael Lank.

[00:00:26]>> Isn't it true that at that time you didn't tell Sergeant Lank I that my client said I hit him. What you said was that you're that my client said I hope I didn't hit him.

[00:00:40]Correct?

[00:00:41]>> No.

[00:00:43]>> What you read just now appears to be a report of the incident in which Sergeant Lank came back to 34 Fairview to give you an opportunity to tell him whatever it was that you thought was important, correct?

[00:00:57]>> Was that a full report or is that just a excerpt from it? That paragraph.

[00:01:02]>> That right there is a full report of that incident of Sergeant Lank going back to 34 Fairview. Would you agree?

[00:01:09]>> That report is his recollection. My recollection is I told him that she said I hit him I hit him I hit him and I told him that he should ask responders if they heard that cuz it was a great possibility that they heard it as well.

[00:01:24]>> None of that you'll agree you just read the report. None of that is in his report.

[00:01:27]>> That's a very brief report.

[00:01:29]>> I didn't ask you if it was brief. I asked you if it was in it, correct?

[00:01:32]>> Correct.

[00:01:33]>> And that's a report of a conversation that he had at 34 Fairview with you for the specific purpose of memorializing what you told him, correct?

[00:01:44]>> Correct.

[00:01:45]>> And what you told him according to Sergeant Lank is she said one phrase I hope I didn't hit him, correct?

[00:01:55]>> That's what's in the report.

[00:01:57]>> Gave a statement the next day, sorry, later that day to Trooper Proctor.

[00:02:02]Correct?

[00:02:03]>> Correct.

[00:02:04]>> You were also met with on that following Tuesday with a trooper named Prince.

[00:02:09]Correct?

[00:02:10]>> Correct.

[00:02:11]>> And then you testified in April of 2022 no fewer than 12 times about statements that you attributed to Ms. Reed. Correct?

[00:02:22]>> Correct.

[00:02:24]>> And in not one of those instances not one is there a report that says you said she said I hit it.

[00:02:36]Correct?

[00:02:38]>> Correct, although I told Mike Lank.

[00:02:40]>> Oh, we we already know that the officers all got it wrong.

[00:02:42]>> I know what I said to drop Proctor Trooper on the 29th. Didn't tell a troop I told drop Trooper Proctor the car was outside the when I looked at the front door and was straight outside.

[00:02:53]>> Proctor was taking notes about what you were saying he just got it wrong.

[00:02:58]>> You'd have to ask Trooper Proctor.

[00:03:00]>> You also told officer I'm sorry, Trooper Proctor about your observations of the tail light on that same day, the 29th, right?

[00:03:08]>> Correct.

[00:03:09]>> That's literally the same day that you saw the tail light. Correct?

[00:03:12]>> Correct.

[00:03:13]>> Trooper Proctor that day was that you quote saw a crack in it.

[00:03:18]End quote.

[00:03:19]>> I told him that the tail light was cracked.

[00:03:22]>> Matter of fact, the words that you used >> [clears throat] >> you saw that it was cracked. You actually said, "I saw a crack in it."

[00:03:28]Correct?

[00:03:29]>> That's what he said I said. I'm telling you I said the tail light was cracked.

[00:03:33]>> This is another example of him screwing up your words.

[00:03:38]Correct?

[00:03:38]>> You'd have to ask Trooper Proctor.

[00:03:41]>> So, I'm asking you. Do you indicate that you were the harassment that you just described this terrible harassment that you just described It in about April 2023, correct?

[00:03:55]>> Correct.

[00:03:56]>> It was around the time that there were public hearings concerning this Google search. Is that right?

[00:04:02]>> Jackson.

[00:04:03]>> I'll allow that.

[00:04:04]>> Is that right?

[00:04:05]>> I'm not sure exactly when the Google search came out.

[00:04:07]>> But you do know that you started suffering this harassment that you'd claimed is is awful and terrible, etc., around April of 2023. Is that right?

[00:04:16]>> I didn't claim it's awful. It is awful.

[00:04:18]>> Okay, I'm I'm sure it is awful, Ms. McCabe. I'm sure it's terrible.

[00:04:22]>> It is.

[00:04:23]>> I'm sure it sucks to be harassed.

[00:04:25]>> It really does.

[00:04:26]>> Yeah. I'm sure it does. You were upset by April of 2023 that there was public outrage about your family being involved in the death of John O'Keefe. That's what you were upset about, correct?

[00:04:39]>> I was upset that we as witnesses were being harassed.

[00:04:42]>> You were upset about public outrage concerning this case. And 2 months later, 2 months later, in June of 2023, for the first time, you testified at another proceeding, and lo and behold, you attributed the words, "I hit him," to my client, right?

[00:05:05]>> Jackson.

[00:05:06]>> So, ask that without the objectionable phrase.

[00:05:08]>> 2 months later, at another proceeding in June of 2023, you attributed the statement, "I hit him," to my client for the first time under oath, correct?

[00:05:20]>> Under oath, correct.