Monday, April 26, 2010

Trowbridge Admits Changing Testimony

No court Tuesday as attys meet with judge regarding procedural issues;
It's unclear whether the defense will call any witnesses including Merritt Rahn

Under intense cross-examination by John Parrinello, former Sgt. Trowbridge admits his testimony to the grand jury was much different on various aspects than the testimony he's given at Rahn's trial .

“According to Sergeant Trowbridge, he did give a compelled statement to the Director of Public Safety On July 1. Thought he had to protect Merritt Rahn, thought better of himself and came back the next day without an attorney, without an appointment and told the truth. And what he told Joe Lysinski on the second is what he has told the jury during the course of this trial.” ~~ Sandra Doorley, ADA


Follow it on Twitter


Anonymous said...

Though contradictions like this are common I think this one is especially bad. The jury ought to wonder who is telling the truth

SCATS said...

To 7:22PM ~~ I bet the jury is wondering why they've spent as much time out of the courtroom as they've had in it ;)

Anonymous said...

So as a cop, it's OK to lie and then have a change of heart as long as it favors the DA and the Supervisor?

Game over.

Anonymous said...

Summing up for the prosecution witnesses - several are getting promoted; several are getting plea deals; Auberger is getting Alzheimer's; Dorley is hoping to get Rahn convicted; Green is hoping to get re-elected........

Anonymous said...

If a person says a statement in one venue and the opposite or a variant of that statement in another venue, both of the statements cannot be true. If a person says something that is not true under oath , that is perjury.
Why did that officer admit to what could be perjury in either testimony? He can't have it both ways. Why are these people frequently incriminating themselves? Is there immunity for perjury ahead of the fact? Contemplating perjury? Would the DA have been encouraging perjury? Suborning perjury is a crime for the person who knows a person is lying or helps them plan to lie under oath.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone with any integrity or morals at all cover up for ANYBODY including the Chief of Police when it involves criminal activity is beyond me. It is disgusting to know so many GPD officers lied and falsified a host of documents and criminal activity for years. Even though Rahn is going through a trial, Piggy and Joseph are in jail, the GPD will have a black cloud hanging over it for years to come. They can do all the PR they want but the damage has been done.

Anonymous said...

There is no bigger liar than a cop.....If their mouth is moving they are probably lying. It's in their job description under heading 1A.
I thought that was common knowledge at this point.
Never believe a thing a cop tells you.