WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2011. By John F. Bailey. December 2, 2010: 

New York Assemblyman Robert Castelli of the 89^th District told WPCNR Thursday afternoon that his latest information was he held a 142 vote lead over White Plains Common Council President Tom Roach for a full term in the assembly.

Castelli said all White Plains absentee ballots had been counted, and White Plains affidavit ballots remained. He expected those ballots would be completed between today and tomorrow (Friday) then his “stronghold” districts of Lewisboro and Bedford would be counted. He expected he would know results by Friday evening.

Castelli did not know how many White Plains affidavit ballots and ballots remained to be counted in Lewisboro and Bedford. WPCNR asked how many votes were challenged. Castelli said there were less than 100 challenged so far, but worried they could become important and result in another court case to decide their validity unless the leader lead by more than the number of challenged ballots after all absentee and affidavit ballots were counted.

A fusillade of WPCNR phone calls to Board of  Elections Co-Commissioner Reginald LaFayette were not returned. Castelli theorized that LaFayette and Co-Commissioner Douglas Colety were “on the floor” in the counting room paying close attention to the counting procedures and could not come to the phone.

There have been no new results posted on the Board of Elections website for 7 days. Whatever information has been released has come from the candidates themselves.

Tom Roach said today he did not know the count in his race with Castelli, saying he was leaving that to party representatives to oversee the counting process going on for the last week at the Board of Elections.

Castelli believed Suzi Oppenheimer lead Robert Cohen by several hundred votes in the Senate District 37 contest, but was not sure.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. December 1, 2010:

Final summations began on the charges  against the Mayor this morning in New York State Family Court, consisting of three charges of Assault in the Third Degree,and three “lesser included charges of Attempted Assault,  Criminal Contempt, Tampering, 3 Harassments, and one Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (in connection with the tea-throwing incident alleged to have occurred on January 11.)

Luis Penichet, Bradley’s defense counsel, lead off the action, thanking the court and noting the judge had to find on all nine counts guilt on 5 levels of credibility “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Referencing specific pages and reading lines from transcripts of  prosecution witnesses’ testimonies Penichet showed how the prosecution witnesses’ direct testimony was contradicted by their answers to questions on cross-examination by Mr.Penichet.

Each set of inconsistencies (that Penichet read verbatim), Penichet said cast “reasonable doubt” on whether the incidents they spoke about actually happened in the manner Mrs. Bradley said they did.

He said Fumiko Bradley’s testimony was “classic reaonable doubt.” He said that his analysis of the transcript of Fumiko Bradley’s testimony said she answered  “I don’t know,” or “I don’t remember” 62 times.

He totaled three such answers on direct testimony when being questioned by the prosecutor but said “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know,” 55 times during Penichet’s questioning.

Penichet took each witness the prosecution presented and deconstructed the elements of testimony he proposed created reasonable doubt. He pointed out it was significant  that 5 of the six witnesses called did not witness the February 28 door incident, nor the January 11 tea throwing incident.

Photo Evidence Not Fair and Accurate

He noted that Detective Robbins could only testify 2 of the 11 evidence photograph printouts of Mrs. Bradley’s injury were “fair and accurate representations” of what he photographed.

Neighbor Testimony Revealed Self-Interest

He delivered line-by-line demonstrations on the testimony of Fumiko Bradley’s  neighbor Alexandra Hofgaertner, noting Ms. Hofgaertner “only knew” of the tea incident and hand incident because Mrs. Bradley told her about them.  He read Hofgaertner’s testimony where she admitted advising Mrs. Bradley “she needed a plan,” that “she needed to get rid of the au pair,”

He demonstrated through actual testimony that Hofgaertner had leaked e-mails Mrs. Bradley had sent to Ms. Hofgaertner to the press because she (Hofgaertner) was worried about her reputation and had accused Mrs. Bradley of  “throwing her and John (her boyfriend) under the bus” by Mrs. Bradley’s attempt at reconciliation from March 5 through March 24. (The Hofgaertner exacerbation was revealed in a letter to the District Attorney’s office entered into evidence).

He pointedly noted Hofgaertner answering his question of why she (Hofgaertner) had not gone to the police over the years learning of Mr. Bradley’s alleged mistreatment of Fumiko Bradley over the years, saying “it wasn’t my place,” when she had heard from Fumiko about these alleged incidents of abuse for years.

Mother Not an Eyewitness

He recounted how Mrs. Bradley’s mother, Kane Machinaga  was not a witness on the January 11 tea throwing incident, nor of the February 28 hand-in-the-door episode.

Penichet said: “Only Fumiko Bradley was the eyewitness (to the February 28 incident). It comes down to a matter of credibility, whether you believe Fumiko Bradley beyond a reasonable doubt. Her motive, her intent, her bias, her hostility. She wants to win (the divorce). She wants custody of her children…wants it (the divorce) to go her way.”

Character Witnesses Discounted

He dismissed the three character witnesses called in rebuttal to vouch for Mrs. Bradley’s character, observing that two of the witnesses had not had opinions of Mrs. Bradley’s credibility before the February 28 incident, and the third, who did, said the subject of Mrs. Bradley’s credibility never came up.

Others who could have been Called Were Not

He chided the prosecution for not calling three witnesses present at the March 5 playdate to verify that Mr. Bradley was alleged, and did,confront Mrs. Bradley saying she should check herself into a mental institution as the prosecution contests.

Penichet highlighted that Fumiko Bradley’s mother did not come in response to Fumiko Bradley’s February 28 incident, but “as part of her regular springtime visit.” Penichet dryly observed, “I’m a parent, I’d be there on a rocket over here (from Japan).”

Moment of Truth

“The moment of truth (in this case)” Penichet observed reading from Ms. Machinaga’s direct testimony about the events of  April 2, that when she found her daughter crying in the bathroom that day, Fumiko Bradley told her mother, “He’s not wrong. I’m the one who’s wrong.” 

Penichet elaborated for the judge, saying this was the day Mr. Bradley came to tell her on advice of his lawyers he could not see her any more, and Penichet said, “She’s (Fumiko) thinking, I’m the one who’s wrong. She’s the one who now thinks it’s (the marriage over.”

Tea Incident

On the Tea incident, Penichet punched away. He noted Mrs. Bradley’s descriptions on direct testimony about how she prepared the tea for Mr. Bradley in his favorite cup, asked by the prosecution why she did not report the alleged tea throw to the police and saying, “I didn’t want to hurt his career, and I think it’s my fault, too.”

Changing Testimony

Penichet accused Mrs. Bradley of changing her account of the February 28 incident after learning of  Mr. Bradley’s defensive strategy in papers furnished her matrimonial lawyer.  

Penichet alleged “somehow” those papers got to the district attorney’s office. “This is the first time in my career my whole defense was revealed to the prosecution before trial,” Penichet said.

Penichet alleged Mrs. Bradley realized that her original report to police of having had her hand slammed in the door once which she gave to the original investigators, was not possible if she was on the inside of the bedroom door because the door opens outward. He alleged she changed her story to say her hand had been slammed twice.

Penichet Wonders Why Tiihonen Testimony Not being Investigated.

Penichet referenced Amy Tiihonen’s testimony that Fumiko Bradley last September well after the February 28 incident said, “I lied to the police…I told them I get nervous and my Japanese kicks in, but I understood every word I read.” 

Penichet said “I don’t know why there wasn’t an investigation (into that).”

Au Pair Lying for her employers a sign of credibility

He defended Yuko Watanabe, the au pair, as a credible witness (in describing the February 28 incident having Mr. Bradley never positioned downstairs, having started over a lemonade dispute, and a series of door slams during the incident) .

Penichet said Watanabe admitted that she was not truthful when Child Protective Services investigator Rodriguez asked her if she had ever seen violence between Mrs. Bradley and Mr. Bradley in the late afternoon of the February 28 alleged incident. Penichet explained this as being because she (Watanabe) said she did not want to get Mrs. Bradley or Mr. Bradley in trouble with the police.

Later in the morning, Prosecutor Amy Stone would dispute that as evidence of credibility, saying it went to the heart of Ms. Watanabe’s credibility as a witness. Penichet alluded to Yuko Watanabe’s state of mind where, in a private talk with Ms. Bradley just prior to the police arriving that Mrs. Bradley had told her “she’d been tricked by the police, and not to trust them.”

Two Epiphanies

Penichet wrapped up (after 1 hour and 15 minutes) with description of “two Epiphanies” in the case, in his opinion, both revolving around his interpretation that Mrs. Bradley got the impression that Bradley was going to divorce her.

The first “epiphany”  occurred, he said,   February 28 when Mrs. Bradley eavesdropped on Adam Bradley’s call to his then friend Peter Bodnar, saying  he was “moving out,” after the confrontation with Mrs. Bradley in the bedroom door area.  Hearing that, Penichet said Mrs. Bradley decided to make the charge she did. “I do not know what she did to her hand,” Penichet said.

The second “epiphany” occurred April 2, Penichet observed when Mr. Bradley said he could no longer see her on advice of his attorney. Penichet said this statement led her to believe Bradley was divorcing her, (resulting in another charge against him).

Penichet concluded saying the case made by the proscution  is “incredible as a measure of law.”

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 30, 2010 UPDATED 5:20 P.M. E.S.T.:

Testimony concluded in Adam Bradley’s trial on charges of domestic abuse today at 3:45 P.M. with Judge Susan Capeci announcing she would hear summations from both sides at 9:30 A.M.

Adam Bradley faced 30 minutes more questioning from prosecutor Audrey Stone, in which Ms. Stone queried him on details of his earlier testimony, without getting Mr. Bradley into any misstatements. When Stone completed her cross-examination, Luis Penichet declined to question Mr. Bradley further “on redirect.”  Three character witnesses were called by the prosecution. Penichet in cross examination of two of the witnesses brought out that prior to February 28, (the date of the incident when the alleged domestic abuse of Fumiko Bradley allegedly took place), they had not had conversations regarding Mrs. Bradley’s honesty.

Earlier today, Adam Bradley, Mayor of White Plains mounted the stand again this morning at 11 A.M. and Luis Penichet, his defense lawyer, finished his questioning of Mr. Bradley, and turned him over to Audrey Stone, the prosecutor for cross examination.

Ms. Stone pursued a series of matters, attempting to paint Mr. Bradley as initiating marriage counseling in 2006 because of Fumiko Bradley’s behavior, but Bradley insisted it was counseling for the both of them. 

She established that he had been involved in getting orders of protection in the past from authorities in disputes with two former girl friends, and stated that Mr. Bradley had never sought orders of protection from Mrs. Bradley.  In each of those cases Bradley pointed out he remained friends with one, and was just trying to get one girl friend out of the house and with the other girl friend, the order of protection was for both him and Mrs. Bradley prohibiting the second girl friend from seeing them 

Stone attempted to establish that Mr. Bradley left the house after the alleged February 28 slaming-the-hand-in-the-bedroom door incident without determining the whereabouts of his children. Bradley pointed out to the prosecutor he kissed and hugged his children goodbye before seeing them later. Bradley testified that during he April 2 incident with Mrs. Bradley’s mother in the bedroom and Fumiko present that he said on advice of his attorneys he could not see Mrs. Bradley any more.

The most significant testimony  from Mr. Bradley occurred just before lunch break. The prosecutor asked Mr. Bradley if he was a “very close friend” of  John DiBlasi, the boyfriend of Alexandra Hofgaertner, who was a friend and a confident of Fumiko Bradley.  Hofgaertner and DiBlasi accompanied Mrs. Bradley to the police station the day of February 28 when she accoused Mr. Bradley of assault (for allegedly slamming her hand in the bedroom door).

Bradley, said answering the question about whether DiBlasi was a “very close friend,” said “not a very close friend,” but acknowledged they were friendly, and had worked on his campaign saying, “he wanted to be my Chief of Staff.” Bradley noted, “he was not happy with the people I was bringing into my administration.”

The statement Bradley made directly contradicted the testimony of Ms. Hofgaertner who had testified that DiBlasi did not have any interest in the chief of staff job in Mayor Bradley’s new administration because he (DiBlasi) was happy in his career as an arbitrator.

Audrey Stone changed the subject ending before the lunch break, turning to questions about Mrs. Bradley’ help during the campaign.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 29, 2010:

Mayor Adam Bradley testified in his own defense this afternoon in his trial on nine charges of domestic abuse, among them: third degree assault and witness tampering and harassment, saying he was pushing the bedroo door shut to keep his wife out of the bedroom and at no time did her hand get caught in the door.

Mr. Bradley’s sister testified that there was no yelling or shouting involving Fumiko Bradley and Mr. Bradley on the day of alleged witness tampering incident April 2 in contrast to what Fumiko Bradley’s mother had testifed previously.

Observers also learned from Mr. Bradley it is possible that Fumiko Bradley overheard him say to Peter Bodnar, (Mr. Bradley’s divorce lawyer), that Mr. Bradley was going to leave Fumiko Bradley, just after the February 28 door-slamming incident unfolded.

In his account of the February 28 incident where his wife Fumiko alleged he slammed her hand in the bedroom door twice, Bradley said that after his wife had come up the stairs, screaming at him for drinking lemonade on the previous day, he tried to calm her down.

He at first was saying “I’m sorry”  “several times,” then said he told her “It’s just lemonade,” at which point, Bradley testified Fumiko Bradley slapped him on the left side of his face.

He then said “I pleaded with her, I’m sorry please leave me alone.” He said she was still very angry and screaming at that point while he was “in a state of shock,”  and she left the bedroom, while he sat on the bed.

“I was still in shock when I heard her coming back to the bedroom, and I went to the door to prevent her from coming in (to the bedroom). I pushed the door shut.”

Bradley then said “Fumiko was on the other side, pushing on the other side.”

Bradley said there were several struggles with the door with his wife trying to get in,  where he tried to keep Mrs. Bradley out and she kept trying to get into the bedroom.

Mr. Penichet, his attorney, asked if  at any time he saw Fumiko Bradley’s hand in the door. Bradley said “No. I did not.”

Penichet asked Bradley what happened next, the Mayor said “I eventually let go (of the bedroom door).”

Bradley said the contest over the door resulted in the door injuring his toe.

Penichet introduced a police photograph showing the injury. Bradley asked if the (police) photo was a fair and accurate representation of his toe injury, said the color was off. Audrey Stone the prosecutor introduced another copy asking if the color was better. Bradley agreed.

Penichet moved Mr. Bradley into what happened next. Bradley said Fumiko Bradley came into the room, and he sat on the bed, saying, “Fumiko, please leave me alone.”

Asked to describe Mrs. Bradley’s appearance, he described her as “her face being very red, eyes large, hysterically angry.”

Bradley then testified he went into the bathroom with the telephone and called Peter Bodnar, his lawyer, with his wife standing outside the bathroom door, still screaming.

Penichet then asked what did Mr. Bradley say to Mr. Bogner.

Prosecutor Leaps to her feet.

Prosecutor Audrey Stone lept out of her chair to her feet and in her loudest “Objection!” of the trial –complained to Judge Capeci, that Penichet, “regularly slips prejudicial statements (into the proceedings) that influences witnesses while they are testifying.”

Penichet told Judge Capeci, Mr. Bradley’s answer would go “to the heart” of the case, speaking to “motive.”

With a heavy sigh, Judge Capeci said, “I’ll allow it.”

Bradley then answered the question saying, he told Mr. Bodnar, his divorce lawyer,  “I’d had enough. I was packing my bags and was moving out.”

Previously Mrs. Bradley when testifying as the plaintiff, admitted that when she saw Mr. Bradley take the phone into the bathroom, she went downstairs to the kitchen to listen in to the telephone conversation between Mr. Bradley and whoever was on the other end of the line. Mrs. Bradley testifying about that phone call did not say she had heard that said.

It was shortly after that phone call (within hours on that Februry 28) that Mrs. Bradley went to the police station accompanied by the Hofgaertners, her neighbors, and filed the original complaint against Mr. Bradley.

Mr. Bradley also testified that Mrs. Bradley punched him on election day as previously testified to by Yuko Watanabe, the au pair, earlier today. Bradley recounted that marital problems began in their marriage after their first child arrived in October, 2003, and they first began seeing a marriage counselor in 2006 once a week.

In testimony involving the alleged tea throwing incident on January 11, Bradley said his wife pushed him, spilling the tea on both of them. He said the incident started because his wife was angry at him because she had to take his parents to the airport that day because he was not home in time to do so.

Testimony will continue with Mr. Bradley on the stand Tuesday morning.

Earlier this afternoon, Joell Bradley, Mr. Bradley’s sister testified that on the day when Mrs. Bradley’s mother, Kane Machinaga testified that she (Mrs. Machinaga) heard yelling and screaming she (Machinaga) considered “dangerous,” and went to find her daughter in the bathroom shivering, with Mr. Bradley outside the bathroom – that there was no yelling and screaming. This was directly opposite of what Mrs. Machinaga had testified.

Prosecutor Stone said testimony was expected to wrap up Tuesday with summations expected Wednesday.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2010. From Bob Cohen, Candidate for the 37th New York State Senate  District. November 28, 2010  4 P.M. E.S.T.:

I wanted to provide you with an update on the progress we’ve made.

I am happy to report that we have been gaining steadily.  We started today down only 297 votes.  We have cut the lead in half since Tuesday! 

There are just under 3000 ballots left to be counted and it will still take several days to complete the process.  

They are opening ballots at the board of elections currently.  I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Board of Elections, both Republicans and Democrats, for all of the hard work and long hours that they have put in.  Many  have been working through the nights and weekends, spending time away from their family.  This is an arduous process and their work is appreciated.  

We are consistently gaining votes and this race is far from over.  While we are working to conclude the counting as swiftly as possible, it’s critical that the process is conducted thoroughly and accurately.  

I am truly grateful for your continued support.  Your hard work and words of encouragement have been invaluable to me throughout this campaign.

I will provide you with another update as soon as new information becomes available.