September 7, 2011

David Blaska asks the incendiary question: "Is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley a liar or just very troubled?"

He marshals evidence from the investigative file. His conclusions are harsh, but I don't think he misrepresents what is in the file.

He makes inferences from Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's hypothetical question to her law clerk — right after the incident — "Hypothetically, what you would do if someone got in your space?"

Why would she ask that unless it was her perception that Justice Bradley had just gotten into Justice Prosser's personal space? Blaska's point is to bolster the credibility of the other 3 Justices who said that Bradley rushed at Prosser. The other 3, unlike the Chief, are seen as allied with Prosser, so adding her perceptions to theirs is significant.

By the way, I think a reason for posing the hypothetical is to test a theory that reasonable people retreat. But the law clerk "responded to the Chief Justice something to the effect that he was 6'4" and young, so he wouldn't have to do much to a person." The law clerk, presumably a reasonable man, assumed that one would do something physical — "an arm block... or something" — to resist or deflect.

Also at Blaska's: the investigator's diagram showing the placement of the furniture and various Justices, showing Prosser had no room to retreat.

Lots of comments over there... including Meade's.

58 comments:

Mark O said...

She's just bovine.

Dad29 said...

"Is she...troubled or a liar..."?

Why not both?

Fred4Pres said...

Both.

garage mahal said...

I wonder if the Isthmus just gives Blaska that space out of pity.

GulfofMexico said...

Both.

edutcher said...

From what I've read here, I'd say, "Door Number Two, Meadey".

Tom Spaulding said...

"I wonder if the Isthmus just gives Blaska that space out of pity."


You = Blaska
Isthmus = Althouse

Francisco D said...

I wonder if the Althouse crowd just gives Garage that space out of pity.

His sophmoric trolling may be a break from his usual diversion of choking the chicken. Yeah. I pity da Fool, but I do not suffer fools gladly.

It will be interesting to see how this thread develops

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Bradley is a fighter who believes, as she's been taught, the end justifies the means.

Wikipedia:


Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

wf: latiler (french) floorer

Carol_Herman said...

From the beginning, Ann Walsh-bradley has presented Abrhamson with a problem. (Nothing before quite ripped off grandma's mask! Nothing before quite exposed Crooks as a guy you couldn't depend on. Who went home early. And, who reads the horoscopes.)

Meanwhile,Ann Walsh-Bradley was first elected in 1995. And, again in 2005. IF you want to take her off the bench for incompetence, she is not alone!

And, it's not a reason to take off someone whose been elected.

Even if Ann Walsh-Bradley has a temper ... and displays it in rude ways ... there's been a lot of energy that was used to go after Gableman's recollation.

And, that made it appear that Abrahamson was "hiding out" ... rather than publishing an opinon (where she was on the losing side). That was enormously important to people who live in Wisconsin.

Obviously, Ann Walsh-Bradley has decided she's not quitting.

And, CBolt said the Judiciary Committee will punt.

Paint her criminal charge as something she did only because she blew her top? Excuse isn't relevant. "Going outside the Supreme Court" to get Prosser didn't work.

She also doesn't want to say she's sorry.

She should have gotten in trouble for lying about being choked.

Lincolntf said...

"David Blaska asks the incendiary question: "Is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley a screeching liar or just very troubled?"

"Is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley a gibbering imbecile or just very troubled?"

"Is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley suffering from early onset dementia or just very troubled?"

JAL said...

Yes.

An adult woman holding a position of great responsibility and value who runs over to her computer to write up how she felt for her fellow justices after what she did needs to spend more time with her family.

wv comend
Then everyone could comend her and give a big sigh of relief.

JorgXMcKie said...

"Is Justice Ann Walsh Bradley Garbage's true identity, or is she merely insane?"

WV: obbit -- a Cockney hobbit

Cedarford said...

One thing of interest to me was Bradley insisted - other witnesses disagreed and said she was waiving her right fist within an inch of Prosser's face - that she was just pointing Prosser to exit.

With her right hand.

Everyone agrees her right hand was raised.

But Blaska's drawing shows Prosser was blocked from moving away, as he was pinned between two other Justices and a bookcase behind him. But in addition, Bradley had rushed out of the office on the right she was in with Abrahamson - and the exit Bradley supposedly wanted him to take, was on the left.

What person, giving directions facing a person with both hands free - gestures "Go Right" with their left hand?? Or vice versa?

I was giving directions for him to leave the office out the door on the left, with my bunched up right hand!"

Whooops, looks like another Bradley fib!!

SteveR said...

As far as I can tell, people's perception of what happened in this situation, correlates with their opinion about Scott Walker. Its pretty simple. Garage, for instance, hasn't put forth a coherent comment since the Super Bowl, everything is evaluated from the answer backwards.

All this was funny for awhile.

Ann, are you going to go see Gordon Lightfoot? I know you are a real big fan of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" all sing songy.

Carol_Herman said...

So, the media is still wringing story out of this, huh?

What happens if what Cbolt said is true, and the Judiciary Committee "punts." Does the heading of their report read: A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES?

Shanna said...

She sounds like a hot head, a drama queen, and a vindictive person to have spread this to the press. None of those things are really pleasant to work with.

I don't fault Prosser at all from this account. She got in his face and he pushed her back. That is pretty normal behavior.

garage mahal said...

I wonder if the Althouse crowd just gives Garage that space out of pity.

Not sure if you're aware how blogs actually work, but generally speaking it's not up to the commenters who gets to comment. I bet you're a real star at Blaska's Blog with that sort of awareness.

Trooper York said...

Everybody knows garage has his spot because he cleans the roadkill out from the front of the blogger lady's house.

mesquito said...

A person must be destroyed. So a politician (Howard Metzenbaum) leaks incindiary material to a tame journalist (Nina Totenberg) with the aim af taking out that person (Clarence Thomas) in an explosion of terrible publicity.

How is this different?

wv: pyrockef

Francisco D said...

"Not sure if you're aware how blogs actually work."

Little boy, I have forgotten more than you have ever learned. You are obviously a punk that amuses people with your stupidity. I am less tolerant in that regard.

Bob Ellison said...

Let's replay the scenario. At time zero, there is an argument going on in the hallway. At 0:30 or so, Prosser is either shouting or arguing strenuously enough to perturb Bradley. At 0:35 or so, Bradley gets up and moves rapidly toward Prosser, but must negotiate a few obstacles, including furniture and other justices, to reach him. SteeplechaseData.com suggests that a 5'4" woman of her age would require about 2.5 seconds to place her face within twelve inches of Prosser's. This is quite close, given the height difference. Assuming roughly a 5:4:3 right-triangle face confrontation (note that the hypotenuse is actually perpendicular to the floor here, and the "3" leg is on an incline, between the two faces), their torsos are approximately 9" apart. She raises her hand in some manner, and during such raising, it makes a right-angle turn, in the air, and simultaneously points and gestures dramatically at Prosser's face. Prosser, meanwhile, reacts in a defensive manner, but as the NFL shows us, the best defense is a good offense, so he grabs Bradley by the throat. A law clerk behind a file cabinet shouts "he's got an argument!", and everyone scatters.

Canuck said...

"As far as I can tell, people's perception of what happened in this situation, correlates with their opinion about Scott Walker."

yes. From my point of view they all seem slightly unhinged. Except for the one justice who took off early. Clearly the most mentally healthy justice of the bunch.

Morbid curiosity: I can't tell from the sketch, but where was the entrance that she wanted him to "get out"? (In other words, was the entrance behind him between the bookshelf or the wall, or to the left of him past Gableman?

Irene said...

Sadly, people in Madison are more concerned with "being right" than with "getting it right."

David Blaska said...

The entrance to the outer office is directly left of Roggensack. Unfortunately cut off by my host, Isthmus.

ndspinelli said...

I was going to read this but my neighbor is painting his house and I decided to watch the paint dry.

DADvocate said...

I've never seen anyone, male or female, retreat when rushed by a female midget. It's not "someone," it's a female midget getting in the space of a male. If the 6' 4" law clerk got in your space, you might retreat.

garage mahal said...

Little boy, I have forgotten more than you have ever learned. You are obviously a punk that amuses people with your stupidity. I am less tolerant in that regard.

This douchebag calls himself a "psychologist".

My guess is you come from a long line of internet tough guys that in reality got the shit kicked out of them in high school, therefore never got laid, and you live your life vicariously through various authority figures like Prosser.

How did I do, Francisco Douchecanoe?

DADvocate said...

I wonder if the Althouse crowd just gives Garage that space out of pity.

I find a perverse pleasure in watching him struggle, pitifully, to deny reality in order to confirm his pre-conceived notions.

Bob Ellison said...

I just realized that my geometry is wrong. The torsos would be 9.6 inches apart. Barry Scheck's gonna eat me alive in cross!

Big Mike said...

Why ask the question as an either-or?

Real Debate said...

Can you imagine the collective outrage if Justice Prosser filed an illegitimate police report against Walsh Bradley?

The collective howls would be deafening.

She is a lair and troubled and should be removed from the bench.

As should her pal Shirley.

M. Simon said...

Bork was no Constitutionalist (Hi Ann). He believed the 9th Amendment was an ink blot.

Milwaukee said...

Ann Walsh Bradley needs some severe consequences for her unprofessional behavior, undermining the public confidence in the judiciary, claiming to be the victim of a violent crime that didn't exist. She is the one who has made that workplace unsafe. But she is an unprincipled leftist-socialist-progressive and has no morals. For the good of the state, she needs to be removed from office.

Francisco D said...

"How did I do, Francisco Douchecanoe?"

Rather poorly by most objective standards. But then, you likely have different standards, with ATTENTION being #1. In that case, you did well, but don't forget the law of diminishing returns.

BTW, I earned my first doctorate when you were giving your 7th grade teacher blow jobs in the "Boy's Room".

garage mahal said...

BTW, I earned my first doctorate when you were giving your 7th grade teacher blow jobs in the "Boy's Room".

Your patients are sure lucky to have you.

Conserve Liberty said...

Huh. In Missouri out Court is appointed. I believe we rotate the Chief Justice according to some time cycle. At one time the Chief was as liberal as they come and did his level best to upset the will of a conservative legislature.

But at no time did we read of such incivility. It may have been there but it was never public.

What on earth makes ANY of these people feel fit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice? ANYWHERE?

Francisco D said...

I hope Althousians appreciate that I am engaging Garbage on his terms so that you don't have to.

Carry on.

george said...

This part is just too precious for words;

"Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive."

Academics gone wild.

ic said...

Retreat? Retreat from aggression? Any reasonable American man would not retreat. Why's her invasion of Prosser's space acceptable, Prosser's stand on his own space not? Because she's a woman? Any self-respecting woman should condemn Bradley's
'little woman' bitchiness.

caplight said...

Was the window open so that actually there were two "rushers", one being from the grassy knoll? Was this a case of a "Magic Fist Theory," where-in Walsh's hand changed directions in mid air even though it was still attached to her arm?

Writ Small said...

His sophmoric trolling may be a break from his usual diversion of choking the chicken.

First, he merely checked the chicken's temperature. Second, the chicken rushed him.

DADvocate said...

Why's her invasion of Prosser's space acceptable, Prosser's stand on his own space not? Because she's a woman?

Many women think they should have what they want (from a man), including his space, just because they demand it. This attitude is more common amongst "liberated" women.

Alex said...

Bovine, def not woman.

Francisco D said...

"First, he merely checked the chicken's temperature. Second, the chicken rushed him".

Interesting take, Writ Small. Maybe Garbage grabbed his 7th grade teacher's scrawny chicken, and with unbearable lust, the teacher thrust himself on the young pile of garbage and ...

SukieTawdry said...

I'm sorry, but Ann Walsh Bradley's trolley has jumped the tracks. She doesn't seem out of place in Madison, though.

Carol_Herman said...

Did you look at the stick figures?

Something's inaccurate. Because the 3 figures are looking at the open door. And, Abrahamson is NOT sitting near Bradley's desk. But in the back of the room (per the diagram) ... And, actually out of view.

How were the 3 standing members of the court, Rossensack, Gabelman, And, David Prosser in the middle ... able to engage Abrahamson in conversation?

Also left out are the BLUE GLASSES. Supposedly, Bradley had her glasses in her hand.

And, the exit for Prosser was in the wrong direction from the stick drawing.

Maybe, this whole thing will be solved if they call in a decorator, and redesign Bradley's rooms? Maybe, instead of an internal doorway, they can hang beads?

Maybe, Abrahamson LIED when she told the sheriff where she had been sitting?

Since Ann Walsh Bradley is a woman. And, she didn't land a punch. This episode will remain on stain on Prosser ... whom she's accusing of being a hot headed "choker."

None of them get their reputations back. All because this whole thing was orchestrated to go public.

One way out of this mess is to recommend retirement by age 68. And, qualifying medical check ups, annually?

andinista said...

Cedarford says everybody agrees it was the right hand.

I don't think so, I scanned the report, it was not unanimous. But I don't have the time to find who differed.

If the diagram is correct, and the outer office exit is to the left then somebody has seriously mis-remembered the scene.

All these conflicting statements show what a mess trials and juries have to deal with sometimes. It's an interesting example of how police procedure can sometimes clarify, and sometimes muddle. A teachable example for law professors, perhaps?

Partially because the order of interviews performed by the detectives results in imperfect descriptions of what happened. In the first interview, the detectives are trying to find out what happened. By the third interview, their questions start trying to find commonalities and contradictions. And at a follow-up interview, everybody starts parsing their words very carefully.

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

Here's the thing.

Bradley could've punched Prosser in the face and not only would the Left not have a problem with it, they'd be crowing that he deserved it.

You simply cannot reason with these people. I've stopped trying.

mariner said...

I don't fault Prosser at all from this account. She got in his face and he pushed her back. That is pretty normal behavior.

But jumping up and rushing someone and waving a fist in his face is not.

This is why I don't like the copout of "they should both resign".

No, they shouldn't. As far as I can tell the only thing Prosser did wrong was be a conservative.

Beevalo Bill said...

"A law clerk behind a file cabinet shouts 'he's got an argument!', and everyone scatters.

Now dats some funny stuff right dere.

David Blaska said...

Abrahamson was sitting in one of the chairs across the desk from Bradley but got up and walked to the threshold of the outer office but did not cross it.

Carol_Herman said...

She's not portrayed as sitting in a chair where she'd see anything.

And, when she "left" she went for dinner.

The newspaper can't even do stick drawings correctly.

Maybe, they should'a used "outline" tape? (But Tubbs didn't bring any.)

Carol_Herman said...

The only thing that remains true, is that Crooks wasn't there.

I wonder what his horosccope told him to do?

When will the Jucdiciary Committee finally punt this thing?

Kathy said...

I know late to the game here but SI interested in this case - has anyone ever considered that Walsh and Abrahamson (their titles omitted on purpose) conjured up this PR stunt on their own?

It would not surprise me at all...............provocateurs as they have both now been exposed to be.