Libby wants memory expert at trial

The Boston Globe ^ | 07/31/06 | Toni Locy

[Starman417]

WASHINGTON --Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby wants a memory expert to explain how he -- and prosecution witnesses -- may have different recollections of their conversations about a CIA officer's identity.

[Starman417]

In a court filing Monday, defense lawyers said Libby has a right to present testimony from Robert A. Bjork, chairman of the psychology department at the University of California at Los Angeles, to correct misperceptions that jurors may have about the reliability of memory.

Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, faces trial in January for lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned and what he subsequently told reporters about then-CIA officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

The crux of Libby's defense will be that he was too preoccupied with national security "matters of life and death" and that he could have easily confused "snippets of conversations" he had with reporters from Time magazine, NBC and the New York Times.

The court filing confirms that Libby's lawyers want to try to force a jury into deciding whose memories of those conversations are accurate -- Libby's or the three reporters.

But the defense team will have to convince U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who in a hearing earlier this year voiced skepticism about the relevance of testimony about memories.

Plame's identity as a CIA officer was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. At the time, Plame's job as an operations officer for the spy agency was classified information.

Novak's column appeared eight days after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

In their court filing, Libby's lawyers cited studies -- including a recent survey of District of Columbia jurors -- that they said show the misconceptions jurors have about the reliability of witnesses' recollections.

They said Bjork can explain that contrary to what most jurors think, "memory does not function like a tape recorder, with memories recorded, stored and played back verbatim."

[Howlin]

Scooter ping!!!

[jennyjenny]

Just a prediction on my part, but I'm thinking this case is going to go away. At least I hope, and think it should. It's ridiculous. Now, where does Libby do to get his reputation (and money) back?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Sounds like a job for Hillary "I Do Not Recall" Clinton.

[Peach]

I never heard of a memory witness. That's novel.

[marron]

Plame's identity as a CIA officer was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. At the time, Plame's job as an operations officer for the spy agency was classified information.

Is this still going on?

This supposed investigation is a multimillion dollar hoax. Plame was outed by the CIA itself. A reporter calls in, asks if she's CIA, they say "yes". If you are undercover, they don't give you up to anyone calling in who might like to know.

If they give you up to anyone calling in to ask, you aren't undercover.

So, what is Fitz doing, investigating something he already knows the answer to?

[Bob]

I never heard of a memory witness. That's novel.

I hadn't either but expert witnesses are used all the time. Since the whole case revolves around different people's recollections of their conversations, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[nopardons]

And who's to say that the reports didn't have a memory problem, or are just lying?

Did you notice that bit about old Val being in the CIA, as "classified info"? That sure was NOT a well kept secret and does NOT mean that she was COVERT!

[A CA Guy]

Wonder if he will be Bjorked?

[AmeriBrit]

Thankyou for the ping Howlin.

Amazing how they've slammed the door shut on the truth and ignore the fact there is so much more to this story before Robert Novak wrote his article.

I wish someone would put Fitz under oath and make him repeat a conversation,exactly word for word, he had with someone just last week. I doubt he or anyone else could do it and that shows how stupid and trivial this charge is against Libby.

[norton]

"....repeat a conversation,exactly word for word, he had with someone just last week."

Precisely!
When the negotiation falls apart or the sale does not happen, when your spouse isn't thrilled with the surprise or your kids have already learned how to beat the nifty new toy you got them for their birthday:
Do you remember the exact time you might have mentioned something that someone else might build a conclusion around?
When something happens that supports what you knew already, could you prove, beyond a shadow (etc), that you had NOT helped make it happen?
When a commonly known story suddenly became widely popular, could you prove, etc., you were not part of the chain of evidence?

[prairiebreeze]

So, what is Fitz doing, investigating something he already knows the answer to?

Getting rich, I'd say.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Sweet Land of Goshen? Aren't we paying Fitzgerald to exercise a modicum of common sense? Do special prosecutors take an oath to leave their common sense in the parking lot? Of course different people will remember the same event differently. Ever discuss your sister's sixteenth birthday party with her? I remember discussing high school graduation with someone else who graduated on the same day. You'd think we were talking about entirely different schools and years.