"I testified to the fact that there was never immunity for me or my family and
friends," welder David Anderson said in a November letter to a federal judge
placed in court files by Stevens' lawyers. "That is simply not true."
ugh. But he's not going back on what he said regarding the work he did. He's going back on saying that he didn't have immunity for himself and his friends and family when he said it:
Anderson supervised the start of the 2000 renovation of Stevens' Girdwood,
Alaska, home and later responded to maintenance requests by Stevens and his
wife. He testified at the trial that a March 2008 affidavit he signed that
would give immunity to his family and friends in exchange for his testimony
"That was never said," Anderson testified on Oct. 9. "It was kind
of a gentleman's agreement, you know." In his letter, Anderson said: "The
agreement was that if I cooperated my entire family would be safe from the
investigation(s) of the Department of Justice and also the Treasury Department.
The Department of Justice has never ever denied that they shook my hand on this
agreement but instructed me on how to sugar coat it and get it swept under
the rug during the trial as they have told the court just the opposite."
The DOJ was quick with a rebuttal:
But the Justice Department said Anderson told two FBI agents in an August 13
meeting that he knew there was no immunity agreement and that the March
affidavit was false.The government agreed not to make him testify against family
members, but "Anderson knew that there had been no agreement relative to
immunity or promises of immunity by the government as
to anyone," the Justice Department said.
So, he may or may not have had immunity when he testified. Does it really matter? Well, hypothetically, if he felt he had immunity if he gave the DOJ what they wanted he might have lied on the witness stand in order to get that immunity. If he didn't have immunity would he have even testified?
Then he comes out with this doozy:
Anderson also said he was given extensive help by the prosecutors in remembering
events surrounding the renovation of Stevens' house."Without the preparation
from the prosecution and reminders from them about my activities and the
agreement I had with them about my family and myself I would not have given the
same testimony," Anderson said. "Without a shadow of a doubt I believe this
trial would have gone much differently."
But he doesn't say HOW his testimony would be different. Of course the DOJ had an answer for that too:
Federal prosecutors say this is also untrue and they will submit documents and
video evidence Monday "that prove the falsity of Mr. Anderson's allegations."
Now, what did he actually testify that could be affected by this and therefore call for a mistrial? He testified about the work he did personally and the time he spent at the chalet doing that work. Well, the time sheets were already thrown out as evidence so the only thing that is left is the work he did personally. This would be most of the metal work done. The Steel steps, the steel railing, the steel deck, the steel balcony, and the steel safety ladder that he attached to the house. And there is hard evidence that this work was done. Photographic evidence even. And there were some emails back and forth about the steel deck and such. So, in my humble opinion, I don't think his testimony really matters. The facts are still there: the work was done (whether by Dave Anderson or by someone else), Salmmy knew that the work was done, the work wasn't paid for, Salmmy knew it wasn't paid for, and Salmmy didn't put it on his forms. Ergo, Salmmy is still guilty.
Sorry, Mr. Burns and Rob Riggle. Salmmy's still guilty in my book.
Here is the whole link of the article from AP's Jesse Holland: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_on_go_co/stevens_trial;_ylt=AgZrPiHRvPtOTZ7YO6B7nPas0NUE