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 WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November  15, 2010 Updated November 16, 2010 :

Kane Machinaga, Fumiko Bradley’s mother, under prosecutor questioning through a court interpreter,  told family court this morning that Adam Bradley was not inside the bathroom but just outside the bathroom entrance during the shower incident April 2  that Fumiko Bradley described  last Wednesday.

 That alleged confrontation lead to Mr. Bradley being charged with violation of a restraining order, witness tampering and harrassment in connection with his trial on domestic violence charges which continued this morning. 

Mrs. Bradley’s mother’s testimony appeared inconsistent with Fumiko Bradley’s testimony in which Mrs. Bradley described Adam Bradley as being inside the bathroom, holding a cap and slapping the walls of the bathroom with the cap, and eventually yelling at  her “You have to hang yourself up.” Mrs. Bradley testified last week her mother came between them shouting “No.No. No,” hugging her daughter. 

Ms Machinaga testified after she heard Adam Bradley’s voice shouting from upstairs that day, she went up two flights of stairs into the Bradley bedroom and found Mr. Bradley outside the bathroom door. She then went past Mr. Bradley to go into the bathroom to see what was the matter.

Ms. Machinaga said the morning of April 2 that Mr. Bradley and his older sister came to visit and that she, Ms. Machinaga “I stayed downstairs because I didn’t want to meet them. I  could see people upstairs from the basement. I heard Adam’s (Bradley) voice (from upstairs).” 

Asked if she saw Mr. Bradley,(from her position in the downstairs), she said “No, I only heard him.”

Asked by prosecutor Audrey Stone what she did, she said “When I heard (the shouting), I think to myself this (the shouting) is dangerous and I went upstairs to see.”

Ms. Machinaga said she went up two flights of stairs (13 steps)from the basement and entered the Bradley bedroom.

She said, “I saw Adam in front of the bathroom (entrance), and I went past Mr. Adam (Bradley) to Fumiko.” Ms.Machinaga said after passing Mr. Bradley, she saw Fumiko Bradley, who had been in the shower,  shivering with arms crossed in front of her chest. The Prosecutor Ms. Stone asked how Mrs. Bradley looked.   “Fright. Frightened,” the interpreter translated.

Ms. Machinaga said she had told Adam Bradley “No,” as she moved past him.

Ms. Machinaga testified to the prosecutor’s question of what Mr. Bradley had shouted, that she did not understand what Mr. Bradley had been shouting to her daughter. Ms.Stone asked if Mrs. Machinaga understood English. Machinaga through the interpretor said “No,” confirming to the prosecutor on the prosecutor’s clarification quesion, she didn’t understand English.

Asked what she did next, Ms. Machinaga said she asked her daughter, “What’s happening? What’s going on?”

Ms. Machinaga said her daughter told her, they were having a fight.  “I’m the one who’s wrong.” Ms. Machinaga reported Fumiko Bradley as saying.  Asked what she did next, Machinaga said she hugged her daughter.

She said “Adam (Bradley) left,” But it is unclear if Mr. Bradley had departed the bedroom from where Mrs. Machinaga said she had gone past him, or had stayed to see the mother-daughter hug.

Last week in describing the same incident, Fumiko Bradley said Mr. Bradley was in the bathroom shouting at her and her mother had intervened, appearing to stop the argument the couple was having, saying “No.No.No,” and hugging her daughter.

Mr. Penichet, Mr. Bradley’s attorney declined to cross-examine Ms. Machinaga, saying “No further questons, Your Honor.”

At the start of Ms. Machinaga’s testimony, Ms. Machinaga said she had come to America last spring because it was the time she always has come to see her daughter.

The Prosecutor Audrey Stone rested her case, after Mr. Penichet declined to cross-examine Ms. Machinaga.

At that point the matter of whether Mr. Penichet would be allowed to call a person familiar with Mrs. Bradley’ history at a Japanese school where she worked, was discussed by the Judge with the attorneys. 

Mr. Penichet narrowed his focus to concentrate on Mrs. Bradley’s reputation of conduct at the school in the period 1999-2000 to show what Penichet described as Mrs. Bradley being known among parents, teachers and administrators as being prone to “lying and telling stories.”

Hauling out his trusty Richardson On Evidence reference, Penichet cited Section 494 dealing with hearsay definitions and when hearsay could be allowed on the record.  The prosecutor, Audrey Stone, protested that the character witness testimony was “too remote,” and cited a passage in Richardson’s sayin hearsay should not be allowed if “too remote,” but the definition of “too remote,” was not defined by Ms. Stone.

The Judge said with Mr. Penichet’s new “narrower focus,” that she would allow the school witness.

The detective expected to testify this morning, Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police is expected to lead off Mr. Penichet’s defense argument Tuesday mornning at 9:30 A.M., Penichet told a news conference in the lobby of the Richard A. Dorango Courthouse. He told WPCNR “the Judge (Capeci) has two subpoenas (for the Bradley families two mariage counselors), and the judge indicated she would allow me to call them and I intend to do so.”

Penichet said he expected to call every police officer who interviewed Fumiko Bradley, but declined to say if he would put Assemblywoman Amy Paulin on the stand.

Mayor Bradley’s case resumes 9:30 Tuesday morning with the defense presenting.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WILD BLUE YONDER. November 13, 2010: 

A phantom plane brought its sinister aura to Westchester County Airport today when a modern Czechoslovakian MIG L29 — reminiscent of the MIG-15s and MIG-21s (though the L29 is larger)that were the rivals of the American Sabre Jets in “Mig Alley” in the Korean War

The Korean War began sixty years ago this week. The L29 which I have seen before flew in with its distinctive roar to County Airport. Privately owned, this modern MIG retains the notorious reputation of its ancesters, inpiring awe, fear, menace and a memory of the violence of the air war and high speed dogfights over in the early 1950s.

The Mig was considered superior to the American Sabre Jet but US Pilots’ skills in the F-86 Sabrejet are thought to have carried the day in that conflict with a kill ratio of 10 to 1.(827 confirmed victories over Mig-15s to 78 Sabrejet losses. The modern Mig is a sobering reminder always of the sacrifice U.S. Pilots endured.

MIG L29 Hisses to a refueling stop at Million Air FBO at Westchester County Airport this morning.

Hits: 0

WPCNR ICE NEWS. November 13, 2010:

Tonight will be Family Skate Night at the new, improved, family-friendly Ebersole Ice Rink in White Plains. Residents of the city showing City Recreation ID can bring a family of four to skate for just $20 from 7:30 to 9:30 P.M. 

Hits: 0

WPCNR PRESS HANGOUT. By John F. Bailey. November 12, 2010:

White Plains Cable was blacked out in White Plains this evening for reasons unknown at this time.

The blackout resulted in viewers being unable to see the White Plains Week program analyzing the state of Mayor Adam Bradley’s trial on domestic abuse and a military affairs program before the show. Viewers report seeing no community bulletin board notices from 7:28 P.M. on, hearing the audio of the trademark WHITE PLAINS WEEK “roaring presses” theme with no video, and then audio dropped out and nothing but black screen was to be scene. Cable channels 75 (the government access channel) and channel 77 (the White Plains Schools station) were operating normally.

However, viewers with internet access can see this significant program on their computer at www.whiteplainsweek.com beginning approximately 9 P.M. WPCNR will advise when the program is ready and up on its world wide network.

It is unknown whether Verizon FIOS which carries the show across Westchester County also had their Channel 45 programming (duplicating all Channel 76 programming) was black as well.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 10, 2010 UPDATED 9:14 A.M. E.S.T. UPDATED NOVEMBER 12, 8:51 A.M. See “For the Record” Section: 

Taking advantage of Prosecutor Audrey Stone’s calling White Plains  Police Detective Robbins to the stand late in the day this afternoon, Mayor Adam Bradley’s defense attorney, Luis Penichet received a go-ahead from Judge Susan Capeci to question the detective about what Ms. Bradley said to him and another detective during their initial investigation of the incident.

This action by Judge Capeci allows Penichet to probe inconsistencies in Mrs. Bradley’s testimony in this trial and what she did or did not tell the two investigation detectives February 28.

Detective Robbins with Detective Rodriguez, took Mrs. Bradley’s first complaints on February 28 when she arrived at Police Headquarters that day complaining her husband had slammed the fingers of her  left hand in the door of their bedroom.

The trial will resume Monday, the 15th at 9:30 A.M. with Detective Robbins back on the stand.

Earlier in the afternoon court action in the Bradley domestic abuse case, Adam Bradley’s attorney  Penichet questioned the accuracy of the color reproduction on photographs entered in evidence by the District Attorney.

Mr. Penichet showed Fumiko Bradley the photographs. Penichet asked Mrs. Bradley if pictures of her bruised fingers, her house, and the clothing looked the way the looked to her after the alleged door-slam incident.

She testified the photographs of her fingers on her left hand did not look the way her hand looked February 28. 

Detective Robbins was called to the stand by Prosecutor Audrey Stone to explain the initial investigation of the incident and how he and detective Rodriguez had conducted their interview with Ms. Bradley on February 28. 

After Ms. Stone completed her presentation, Mr. Penichet showed Detective Robbins the same photographs (printouts of digital photographs taken by Robbins of Ms. Bradley’s injury).

Detective Robbins testified “No” when asked if the photographs of Ms. Bradley’s injured fingers, hand, her house among others did not look like they looked when he photographed them.

 Subsequent questioning by Penichet produced the information that Robbins did not see the printouts of the photographs after he took them. He said he gave the datacard from the police digital camera to Detective Connelley and he, (Robbins), never saw a printout, but did see the finished photograph in the display screen of his camera.

Meeting the press outside the courthouse after court, Mr. Penichet emphasized he was not alleging the photographs had been altered in any way. He instead said what was needed was the actual datacard to reproduce the photographs.

After Penichet finished his questioning on the alleged photograph color inaccuracy with Detective Robbins, he asked Detective Robbins if during his investigative session with Mrs. Bradley, if Mrs. Bradley had told him Mr. Bradley had kicked her.

Prosecutor Stone objected sharply. Again Stone and Penichet made their individual cases to Judge Capeci on whether or not Penichet could proceed with this line of questioning: what Ms. Bradley told the original investigating detectives and what appears in her sworn police statement and her testimony so far about the incident in the trial.

Judge Capeci ruled Detective Robbins could answer the question. The hour being late, the case was adjourned at 4:30 to Monday at 9:30 A.M.

FOR THE RECORD…

At the beginning of Wednesday morning’s session, Judge Capeci heard the issue of whether or not Mr. Penichet would be allowed to bring a witness who could testify to the reasons Mrs. Bradley left a school where she had worked thirteen years ago. The prosecutor  Ms. Stone again protested “it had no relevance” to the charge. Again relying on Richardson on Evidence legal reference, Penichet argued that the testimony would establish motive which is allowed according to Richardson’s. The Judge said she would reserve decision.

————

Mr. Penichet  began his morning’s questioning attempting to establish why  Fumiko Bradley had begun seeing marriage counselors in mid-2006, the February 2010 door slam incident. Mr. Penichet began questioning based on Fumiko Bradley’s list of notes and possible witnesses Mrs. Bradley provided to the District Attorney. 

He observed  reading with those notes in his hand,  that in 2006, Fumiko Bradley had “in your notes written a “series of reasons (why you began to see marriage counselors, one of those was  Amy Paulin, she’s the reason you took therapy in July.” Fumiko Bradley said “Yes.”

Penichet then  asked “ And was she (Amy Paulin) part of the reason you were planning a divorce?” Mrs. Bradley said: “I can’t answer Yes or No.”

According to the notes, Penichet indicated, Mrs. Bradley first went to see a marriage counselor in 2006  (Amy Paulin was and still is an Assemblywoman in the New York State Legislature, and worked with Mr. Bradley at that time on Westchester issues.)

Penichet, observing from Mrs. Bradley’s divorce papers (filed in September, 2010),asked “in this divorce complaint, you alleged problems beginning with Paulin(in 2006) and before February 28 (2010) with Yuko (the au pair in the Bradley household)?”

Mrs. Bradley said “Yes, inappropriate (pause) with Yuko. Not sexual. Just lying to see her (Paulin). He didn’t tell me he was going to see Amy. He was going out late with her.”

Penichet then proceeded to introduce Mrs. Bradley’s letter to Adam Bradley of  May 14, 2009 to establish with more authority that marital problems had been existing before the February 28 alleged door-slam incident. (See earlier story.)

——————-

In later testimony on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Bradley said responded to questions involving a live Madagascar cockroach which can grow up to 4 inches long.. She testified how Mr. Bradley held the cockroach (caged) to her face, a piece of testimony that has been picked up by the Associated Press. Mrs. Bradley said, “I did not want it (the cockroach) in my home. On the day we had a fight he put the cage (containing the cockroach) against my face. So upsetting to me. I told him to get out of the home.”

Penichet on cross-examination asked Mrs. Bradley if the cockroach was not purchased by Mr. Bradley as a pet for his daughters at the Bronx Zoo. The Judge did not allow Mrs. Bradley to answer the question.

————–

Mrs. Bradley, in mid afternoon, explaining her marriage, said, “I didn’t like what he did. But I liked him.”