Need a unique gift idea?
A Pastebin account makes a great Christmas gift
SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Oct 23rd, 2015 162 Never
Upgrade to PRO!
ENDING IN00days00hours00mins00secs
 
  1.  
  2. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
  3.  
  4. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
  5.  
  6. -and-
  7. GREGORY ALAN ELLIOTT
  8.  
  9. EXCERPT OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF MR. ELLIOTT
  10.  
  11.  
  12.  
  13. I have unexpectedly briefly made my account private for short periods to
  14.  
  15. prevent contact from abusive and harassing users (example: Men’s Rights
  16.  
  17. Activists) when simply blocking the accounts has not been successful, and
  18.  
  19. when the blocked accounts have continued to read my tweets.
  20.  
  21. Please let me know if this explanation is sufficient. Thank you. Heather
  22.  
  23. Reilly
  24.  
  25. 24. Yet another evidentiary hurdle for the Crown Attorney is the fact that there is no
  26.  
  27. opinion evidence that the Crown Attorney can rely upon to establish which of the
  28.  
  29. complainants’ tweets – if any – Mr. Elliott likely received. At the conclusion of
  30.  
  31. the voir dire to qualify PC Dayler, the Court very clearly ruled upon which
  32.  
  33. aspects of Twitter PC Dayler was not permitted to opine:
  34.  
  35. It’s obvious that he cannot testify as who received it. That’s a fact, outside
  36.  
  37. this voir dire. And [Mr. Murphy] you’re correct that he can’t testify on the
  38.  
  39. technical aspects of why that would work or if it would work.21
  40.  
  41. 25. As the Crown Attorney called no further expert evidence, there is no admissible
  42.  
  43. opinion evidence for the Court to determine how Twitter technically works. For
  44.  
  45. instance, there is no admissible opinion evidence on the issues of the effect of
  46.  
  47. “blocking” another Twitter user; there is no admissible opinion evidence on the
  48.  
  49. effect of placing a “period” at the beginning of a tweet; and there is no admissible
  50.  
  51. opinion evidence on the effect of mentioning another Twitter user’s handle in the
  52.  
  53. body of a tweet (as opposed to using the handle at the beginning of the tweet).
  54.  
  55. This latter point is especially important in the circumstances of Mr. Elliott’s case
  56.  
  57. because there is no opinion evidence upon which the Court can concluded that
  58.  
  59. Mr. Elliott’s tweets wherein he mentioned @amirightfolks in the body of a tweet
  60.  
  61. resulted in the tweet being transmitted to Ms. Guthrie and Ms. Reilly.
  62.  
  63. 26. Further, as in any criminal harassment prosecution, a relevant fact is whether the
  64.  
  65. accused was subjectively aware that the complainant did not want any further
  66.  
  67. contact with the accused. In the present case, the Crown Attorney has not
  68.  
  69. established that Mr. Elliott ever received Ms. Guthrie’s September 9th tweets
  70.  
  71. asking him to stop contacting her. Indeed, in cross-examination, Ms. Guthrie
  72.  
  73. confirmed that she believed that Mr. Elliott may have had Ms. Guthrie blocked on
  74.  
  75. September 9th, saying:
  76.  
  77. Q:And you don’t know whether or not as of September 9th, 2012, Mr.
  78.  
  79. Elliot was actually blocking you?
  80.  
  81. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21!PC!Dayler:!January!7,!2014,!p.!35,!lines!30732!–!p.!36,!lines!173.
  82.  
  83. A:Well, he...if I recall correctly...hmm. Hang on, give me a moment,
  84.  
  85. please. I do believe that he may have had me blocked at that time. I
  86.  
  87. think I recall him tweeting, though it wouldn’t be in this exhibit because I
  88.  
  89. don’t think he tagged me in it, but I believe I was alerted to a tweet in
  90.  
  91. which he said, “I blocked you, so...so there.” or something to that effect.
  92.  
  93. So it’s possible he had me blocked at that time. However, there are
  94.  
  95. many instances of evidence of him continuing to comment on my tweets.
  96.  
  97. Comment on things that I was stated on Twitter that he would not have
  98.  
  99. known if he was not continuing to monitor my activity on Twitter.22
  100.  
  101. 27. Following Ms. Guthrie’s attempt to backtrack from her above-referenced
  102.  
  103. testimony, Ms. Guthrie ultimately confirmed the following regarding whether she
  104.  
  105. was aware if Mr. Elliott ever received her September 9th tweets:
  106.  
  107. Q: Okay. So I think my question was...you don’t know if he [Mr. Elliott]
  108.  
  109. had blocked you on September 9th?
  110.  
  111. A: I don’t know if he had blocked me, no.
  112.  
  113. Q: So then, obviously you don’t know whether or not he ever received
  114.  
  115. your message of stop?
  116.  
  117. A: No, I don’t.23
  118.  
  119. 28. Ms. Guthrie, herself, cannot therefore confirm that Mr. Elliott ever became aware
  120.  
  121. that she wanted Mr. Elliott to stop contacting her. Indeed, although Ms. Guthrie
  122.  
  123. had communicated with Mr. Elliott by email in the spring of 2012, she chose not
  124.  
  125. to advise Mr. Elliott by email to stop contacting her, and she chose not to Direct
  126.  
  127. Message Mr. Elliott on Twitter. Further to this point, prior to charging Mr.
  128.  
  129. Elliott with criminal harassment, the police did not warn Mr. Elliott to stay away
  130.  
  131. from the complainants. Mr. Elliott did not make any inculpatory statements to the
  132.  
  133. police upon his arrest suggesting he was aware that Ms. Guthrie wanted him to
  134.  
  135. stop contacting her. And the police did not obtain a Production Order in order to
  136.  
  137. determine which tweets – if any – Mr. Elliott received. Certainly, therefore, one
  138.  
  139. available inference on the evidence is that Mr. Elliott did not know that Ms.
  140.  
  141. Guthrie wanted him to stop contacting her.
  142.  
  143. 29. Further, while a small percentage of Mr. Elliott’s tweets in Exhibit 2AJ were
  144.  
  145. directed at either of the complainants, the vast majority of Mr. Elliott’s tweets
  146.  
  147. were not. Indeed, as confirmed by the Crown Attorney’s expert witness, in the
  148.  
  149. world of Twitter, messages are “directed to” the Twitter handles (i.e.:
  150.  
  151. @paisleyrae) only when the handles are found at the front of the tweet.
  152.  
  153. According to PC Dayler, if another user’s Twitter handle is used later in the tweet,
  154.  
  155. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!10,!2014,!p.!69,!line!227p.!70,!line!4.
  156.  
  157. 23!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!10,!2014,!p.!71,!lines!27732,!p.!72,!lines!172,
  158.  
  159. the result is a “mention”, and is not considered to be directed at the user whose
  160.  
  161. handle is mentioned later in the tweet.24
  162.  
  163. 30. Using PC Dayler’s definition of how Twitter users tend to communicate with one
  164.  
  165. another, Mr. Elliott did not direct a single tweet at Ms. Guthrie after September 9,
  166.  
  167. 2012. Regarding Ms. Reilly, Mr. Elliott directed only one tweet to
  168.  
  169. @ladysnarksalot after September 1, 2012, and, on that occasion, only after Ms.
  170.  
  171. Reilly disseminated on Twitter the scandalous tweet suggesting that Mr. Elliott
  172.  
  173. was a pedophile.
  174.  
  175. 31. Before Mr. Elliott can be found guilty of criminal harassment, the Criminal Code
  176.  
  177. requires the Crown Attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, that
  178.  
  179. Mr. Elliott’s conduct caused the complainants “reasonably, in all the
  180.  
  181. circumstances, to fear for their safety”25. It is submitted that, given the negligible
  182.  
  183. weight that must be assigned to the Crown Attorney’s documentary evidence, the
  184.  
  185. Court cannot begin to determine all of the circumstances facing the complainants
  186.  
  187. and Mr. Elliott between August 1, 2012 and November 20, 2012.
  188.  
  189. Mens Rea
  190.  
  191. 32. On November 15, 2012, the Academy of the Impossible (“Academy”) hosted an
  192.  
  193. online discussion that was to take place on Twitter. Prior to the discussion, the
  194.  
  195. Academy had done its own advertising of the event through Twitter and
  196.  
  197. Facebook.26 According to Ms. Reilly, the topic of the discussion was “how
  198.  
  199. women are treated on Twitter; ”
  200.  
  201. identity, anonymity and accountability”28 and the “nature of trolling”29. Prior to
  202.  
  203. November 15th, the event had been widely publicized, and all persons interested
  204.  
  205. in learning more about the topic, or to debate30 the panel, were encouraged to
  206.  
  207. “virtually” attend the Academy’s event by following the hashtag “#AOTID”.
  208.  
  209. Although all of the members of the Academy’s panel held “similar” views
  210.  
  211. regarding how to deal with online “trolls” and misogynists, opposing views were
  212.  
  213. welcome.31
  214.  
  215. 33. One of the panelists for the Academy’s discussion was Stephanie Guthrie, the
  216.  
  217. founder of the political32 organization Women in Toronto Politics (“WiTopoli”).
  218.  
  219. Ms. Guthrie is a prolific Twitter user who uses her personal Twitter account to
  220.  
  221. “tweet about issues relating to feminism, to politics, education”.33 Ms. Guthrie’s
  222.  
  223. views on “calling out trolls” and “calling out misogynists” had been widely
  224.  
  225. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24!Nathan!Dayler:!January!8,!2014,!p.!23,!lines!22734.
  226.  
  227. 25 Criminal.Code,!section!264(1),!emphasis!added.
  228.  
  229. 26!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!61,!line!3.
  230.  
  231. 27!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!60,!line!30.
  232.  
  233. 28!Stephanie!Guthrie:!May!7,!2014,!p.!56,!lines!12713.
  234.  
  235. 29!Stephanie!Guthrie:!July!23,!2014,!p.!42,!line!31. 30!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!61,!line!27!.
  236.  
  237. 31!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!61,!line!25.
  238.  
  239. 32!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!23,!line!24.
  240.  
  241. 33!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!8,!2014,!p.!6,!lines!13714.
  242.  
  243. 27 according to Ms. Guthrie, the topic was “online
  244.  
  245. publicized prior to November 15, 2012. Ms. Guthrie believed that trolls and
  246.  
  247. misogynists should be exposed and that a light should be shone upon them.
  248.  
  249. Indeed, in July of 2012, Ms. Guthrie attempted to sic the Internet on Mr. Bendalin
  250.  
  251. Spurr, a Sault Ste. Marie resident who had created a misogynistic video game.
  252.  
  253. 34. Another one of the participants in the November 2012 AOTID discussion was
  254.  
  255. Heather Reilly. Although Ms. Reilly’s true identity could not have been known to
  256.  
  257. participants of the Academy’s discussion (her Twitter account did not use her real
  258.  
  259. name, and did not contain any photographs of her), Ms. Reilly was a friend and
  260.  
  261. ally of Ms. Guthrie’s and her Twitter handle @ladysnarksalot openly supported
  262.  
  263. WiTopoli’s mandate.
  264.  
  265. 35. Another alleged participant in the Academy’s open, political, discussion was the
  266.  
  267. accused Gregory Alan Elliott, who had been a supporter and political ally of
  268.  
  269. WiTopoli and Ms. Guthrie prior to the latter’s public and systematic attempt to
  270.  
  271. “call out” Mr. Spurr in the summer of 2012.
  272.  
  273. 36. Although by November 15, 2012, Ms. Guthrie’s and Ms. Reilly’s political
  274.  
  275. opinions and world views were in stark contrast to those of Mr. Elliott’s, both of
  276.  
  277. the complainants and the officer-in-charge of R v Elliott readily acknowledged in
  278.  
  279. their testimony that Mr. Elliott had never threatened the complainants on Twitter,
  280.  
  281. and had never used any sexually harassing language directed towards either
  282.  
  283. complainant. Indeed, Mr. Elliott’s explanation for tweeting references to the
  284.  
  285. complainants is succinctly summarized in the Storify Account that Ms. Reilly,
  286.  
  287. herself, created in September 2012, in which Ms. Reilly presented tweets between
  288.  
  289. Mr. Elliott and the seemingly random Twitter user with the handle @jgeady. In
  290.  
  291. her Storify Account, Ms. Reilly cites Mr. Elliott as tweeting:
  292.  
  293. a. “...No. I’ve been in defense mode. Not attacking, nor have I ever
  294.  
  295. considered any of them “sexually/spiritually/romantically attractive””
  296.  
  297. b. “...No. They’ve tried to intimidate, threaten, harass, and are trying to
  298.  
  299. “punish me” for “calling them out” by kicking me off #Twitter”.
  300.  
  301. c. “...FYI – They were bullying others...I called them on it... They attacked
  302.  
  303. me. Your comments make no sense.”34
  304.  
  305. 37. Ms. Reilly’s Storify Account does not include the full dialogue between Mr.
  306.  
  307. Elliott and @jgeady – and therefore all the circumstances of the conversation
  308.  
  309. cannot be assessed – but it is clear that Mr. Elliott was attempting to present his
  310.  
  311. side of the story. And Mr. Elliott’s description of his side of the story aligns
  312.  
  313. perfectly with the evidence in R v Elliott.
  314.  
  315. 38. For instance, regarding the November 15, 2012 @AOTID debate, the Crown
  316.  
  317. alleges that Mr. Elliott contributed eleven tweets to the #AOTID discussion.
  318.  
  319. Although Ms. Reilly told the police on November 27, 2012th that Mr. Elliott was
  320.  
  321. “attacking Steph Guthrie”35 on the #AOTID discussion, a reasonable and
  322.  
  323. tempered reading of the eleven tweets reveals that Mr. Elliott was not criminally
  324.  
  325. harassing the complainants on November 15th, but was rather (initially)
  326.  
  327. contributing to the political discussion and (ultimately) defending himself against
  328.  
  329. personal attacks from fellow #AOTID contributors. Indeed, nearly all of Mr.
  330.  
  331. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 34!Exhibit!58.
  332.  
  333. 35!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!64,!line!21.
  334.  
  335. Elliott’s #AOTID tweets appear to include comments that had been cut-and-
  336. pasted from other #AOTID contributors.36
  337.  
  338. 39. Further, none of Mr. Elliott’s tweets relating to the #AOTID discussion was
  339.  
  340. directed at either Ms. Guthrie or Ms. Reilly, and none of his #AOTID tweets used
  341.  
  342. the name of either complainant. Indeed, Mr. Elliott’s first tweet on the #AOTID
  343.  
  344. discussion was a reference to Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan (and not
  345.  
  346. the complainants), and his second tweet on #AOTID said:
  347.  
  348. "Calling out a troll" is usually just "asking everyone you know to gang up
  349.  
  350. on someone offering an opinion different than yours" #AOTID #dumb37
  351.  
  352. 40. Mr. Elliott’s definition of “calling out a troll” is a fair one, given all the
  353.  
  354. circumstances of the case at bar. As it turns out, however, “calling out a troll”
  355.  
  356. was the online strategy recommended by the panelist Ms. Guthrie on #AOTID’s
  357.  
  358. discussion, as confirmed by Ms. Reilly in her testimony:
  359.  
  360. Q. Oh, you think [the above-referenced tweet is] an attack on Steph
  361.  
  362. Guthrie too?
  363.  
  364. A. That ... the quote of calling out a troll had actually been in reference to
  365.  
  366. Stephanie’s speech during the session.
  367.  
  368. Q. Oh, I see. So Mr. Elliott is taking a quotation from a speech that’s
  369.  
  370. given online for the public to comment on. So he takes a quotation from
  371.  
  372. Ms. Guthrie’s speech, right?
  373.  
  374. A. Correct.
  375.  
  376. Q. Then he calls it dumb, right?
  377.  
  378. A. He’s also provided his own definition for calling out, as opposed to the
  379.  
  380. definition that was stated within the session.
  381.  
  382. Q. Well, obviously you would agree that Mr. Elliott would be entitled to
  383.  
  384. his own opinion on it?
  385.  
  386. A. Absolutely.
  387.  
  388. Q. Right.
  389.  
  390. A. It’s a free country.38
  391.  
  392. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 36!See,!for!example:!Exhibit!2F:!Tweet!at!21:42:34!which!reads:!!Means!counter7
  393.  
  394. challenges!should!be!respected/protected.!“@marcopolis:!Social!media...Means!we!
  395.  
  396. can!challenge!people,!not!personas.!!#AOTID”
  397.  
  398. 37!Exhibit!2F.
  399.  
  400. 41. Mr. Elliott submits that a serious, important, and high-minded subject was being
  401.  
  402. debated at the Academy on November 15, 2012. One of the topics discussed
  403.  
  404. during the #AOTID meeting was Bendalin Spurr.39 Ms. Guthrie’s position on
  405.  
  406. how to deal with “trolls” was the following:
  407.  
  408. Q. Okay. Well, just to be clear that on November 15th, 2012 ...
  409.  
  410. A. Mmhmm.
  411.  
  412. Q. ... your position was that, “Ignoring trolls is not the way to go,”, right?
  413.  
  414. A. Yeah.
  415.  
  416. Q. You are supposed to call out the trolls, agreed?
  417.  
  418. A. If they’re being bigoted or harassing, yes.40
  419.  
  420. 42. While Ms. Guthrie’s stance regarding “calling out trolls” was rigid, the propriety
  421.  
  422. of whether to “call out” people on social media was far from settled. As
  423.  
  424. evidenced from the testimony and exhibits in the case at bar, the “calling out” of
  425.  
  426. individuals on Twitter can have significant repercussions on those who have been
  427.  
  428. “called out”. In the Bendalin Spurr case, for example, his public shaming by Ms.
  429.  
  430. Guthrie resulted in Mr. Spurr’s name being quickly associated around the world
  431.  
  432. with misogyny. Further, and potentially more significant for Mr. Spurr, was the
  433.  
  434. fact that Ms. Guthrie attempted to make Mr. Spurr face “’real-life” consequences
  435.  
  436. for his misogyny”; indeed, Ms. Guthrie intended for such consequences to extend
  437.  
  438. to the Sault Ste. Marie community, his “prospective employers” and “the Sault
  439.  
  440. Ste. Marie press ”
  441.  
  442. succinctly expressed in the following back-and-forth with Mr. Elliott and all of
  443.  
  444. Ms. Guthrie’s followers on July 6, 2012:
  445.  
  446. 41. Ms. Guthrie’s stated goal in dealing with Mr. Spurr was
  447.  
  448. 16:31:27: @amirightfolks He’s got 11 followers. Why bring
  449.  
  450. 16:33:49: .@greg_a_elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie
  451.  
  452. attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more
  453.  
  454. “virtual face punching”
  455.  
  456. community should be aware where is a monster in their
  457.  
  458. midst.42
  459.  
  460. 43. Being defined as a “monster” in one’s community can obviously have dangerous
  461.  
  462. repercussions. Indeed, during her cross-examination, Ms. Guthrie confirmed that
  463.  
  464. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38!Heather!Reilly:!November!12,!2014,!p.!67,!line!8725.
  465.  
  466. 39!Stephanie!Guthrie:!May!7,!2014,!p.!59,!line!20.
  467.  
  468. 40!Stephanie!Guthrie:!July!23,!2014,!p.!43,!lines!11721.
  469.  
  470. 41!Exhibit!11:!Storify!Account!of!Ms.!Guthrie,!p.!2.
  471.  
  472. 42!Exhibit!2A,!p.!3.
  473.  
  474. she is fully in favour of online vigilantism if the circumstances warrant,43 even if
  475.  
  476. this means putting the target of the vigilantism in physical danger.44
  477.  
  478. 44. In the case of Mr. Spurr, Ms. Guthrie was unapologetic in her treatment of him,
  479.  
  480. which is clearly evidenced in the following portion of her cross-examination:
  481.  
  482. Q. You were trying to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life, correct?
  483.  
  484. A. I was trying to let as many people as possible know that this was
  485.  
  486. something Bendilin Spurr had done. And if they believed it was wrong, and
  487.  
  488. if they believed it was disgusting, and if they took action that subsequently
  489.  
  490. ruined Bendilin Spurr’s life, then he was the one who ruined it and not me,
  491.  
  492. Mr. Murphy.
  493.  
  494. Q. Right. So ...
  495.  
  496. A. I was a messenger.
  497.  
  498. Q. So you were the messenger. So a 24 year-old kid in Sault Saint Marie
  499.  
  500. makes a face punch game for whatever reason he has to make it?
  501.  
  502. A. Are you suggesting there’s a valid reason?
  503.  
  504. Q. If a kid makes a face punch game, and his life is ruined, and you’re just the
  505.  
  506. messenger, that’s a-okay with Stephanie Guthrie?
  507.  
  508. A. Well, 24 years old is not a kid. Certainly old enough to appreciate the
  509.  
  510. severity of your actions. And I would not feel sorry about that. If that
  511.  
  512. happened, that would be his actions that got him where he was. His
  513.  
  514. choices.
  515.  
  516. Q. So you being the messenger of a message that ruins Bendilin Spurr’s
  517.  
  518. life is okay with you, yes or no?
  519.  
  520. A. Yes.
  521.  
  522. Q. Thank you.45
  523.  
  524. 45. Regarding Mr. Elliott’s tweet to Ms. Guthrie on July 7, 2012 wherein Mr. Elliott
  525.  
  526. warned of Bendalin Spurr potentially committing suicide, Ms. Guthrie testified:
  527.  
  528. Q. Okay. Sure. But Mr. Elliott is expressing a very important view point
  529.  
  530. here. Would you agree that if people across the world are now aware of
  531.  
  532. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 43!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!10,!2014,!p.!33,!lines!15725.
  533.  
  534. 44!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!10,!2014,!p.!39,!lines!5713.
  535.  
  536. 45!Stephanie!Guthrie:!January!10,!2014,!p.!98,!lines!11732,!p.!99,!lines!178.
  537.  
  538. him, and are now expressing their hatred for him, there’s a good chance
  539.  
  540. that this guy might do something to take his own life.
  541.  
  542. A. That would be very sad if that happened, but if it did it would not be
  543.  
  544. my fault. He made that game. He made it under his own name. He was
  545.  
  546. very proud of it. He can ... whatever comes from that, he created those
  547.  
  548. consequences, not me.46
  549.  
  550. 46. Consistent with the above passage, Ms. Guthrie’s refrain throughout her
  551.  
  552. testimony was that she was just the deliverer of messages. She was just a
  553.  
  554. messenger when she sicced the Internet on Mr. Spurr. And she was just the
  555.  
  556. messenger when, in November 2012, she provided the OIC of Mr. Elliott’s
  557.  
  558. investigation a tweet that suggested that Mr. Elliott was a pedophile:
  559.  
  560. Q. Right. And just to be clear, the date November 12th which is on this
  561.  
  562. exhibit [#40] is the date that you took that screen grab, right?
  563.  
  564. A. I couldn’t possibly say.
  565.  
  566. Q. Okay. But you understood that on or about November 12th, Mr.
  567.  
  568. Elliott was being accused on Twitter of being a pedophile, right?
  569.  
  570. A. Sure.
  571.  
  572. Q. Right. And again, you didn’t feel it was your job to tell Detective
  573.  
  574. Bangild that it was, actually, an adult?
  575.  
  576. A. The young woman said that she was 13, so that was what people
  577.  
  578. believed. She later said that she was not 13.
  579.  
  580. Q. Right.
  581.  
  582. A. But initially she said that she was.
  583.  
  584. Q. But by the time you met Detective Bangild, you already testified to
  585.  
  586. this, you were aware that she was either 18 or 19, agree?
  587.  
  588. A. Yes.
  589.  
  590. Q. Right. Good. So not really trying to help out Mr. Elliott when you’re
  591.  
  592. not mentioning the fact it’s actually an adult, right?
  593.  
  594. A. My position wasn’t really that I wanted ... I was not trying to help Mr.
  595.  
  596. Elliott.
  597.  
  598. Q. Right.
  599.  
  600. A. He was stalking me. So no, I wasn’t trying to help me. I wasn’t trying
  601.  
  602. to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him and I was not trying
  603.  
  604. to ... yeah.
  605.  
  606. Q. Right. In your view handing tweets alleging Mr. Elliott’s a
  607.  
  608. pedophile without correcting the officers receiving them, is not trying
  609.  
  610. to harm Mr. Elliott, right?
  611.  
  612. A. Wasn’t trying to harm him, no.
  613.  
  614. 47
  615.  
  616. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 46!Stephanie!Guthrie:!May!7,!2014,!p.!94,!lines!26729.
  617.  
  618. 47!Stephanie!Guthrie:!July!23,!2014,!p.!59,!line!8!to!p.!60,!line!9,!referencing!Exhibit!
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top