That's exactly what's happened. Even with a very low end editing program you can dub in content and do voiceover to any digital based video. Oops his tech people were probably hoping no one new that.
Saw that. If he gets told to STFU, is that an infringement on his First Amendment rights?
That's pretty close to what they did, but they didn't even use the landowners voice. They just recorded their in-house tech saying "Yeah" untill it sounded close and then dubbed it in when ever Erik asked a question he fabricated to save his ass.Totally reminds me of the phone scams you get warned of where they say that the perp will just try to get you to say “yes” to anything, then dub your response to any questions after the fact.
Wow. The plot thickens. If this is true, I hope Erik the freak is done hunting forever. That’s some shady unethical crap. Fraudulent comes to mind
The landowners nephew wasn't even involved. The landowners nephews boy is Erik's camera guy, who was previously told that he was no longer welcome on the property. So that has definitely been fabricated by Erik. When the landowner caught Erik coming off the mountain with the deer and confronted him about trespassing Erik said but I have your nephew with me and the landowner said which one? Eric said Payton, and the landowner said I don't have a nephew named Payton. Erik then offered the landowner $5,000 if he would let him go. So it sounds like he wanted to pay the landowner $5,000 to get permission after he trespassed and poached the deer. Okay, I think I got it, that's why they keep saying he had permission.
Who are you that you come out of nowhere as an expert on this subject?
Expert.....no everything I comment on is straight from people that were actually on the mountain that day. Would not of needed to say anything but the Freaks and their posted video's for some reason are leaving out some of the best parts. I'm sure they just forgot, common oversite, you can't expect them to remember everything. Just trying to help them out in their diligent quest for the truth.
Might be trying to weasel into a change of venue.
“Mountain”? Don’t you mean ag field?
Or maybe “something is afoot in the wind” to influence potential jury members. During jury selection if people admit to having read a bunch of stuff online about this, and have to disclose what they read and whether it has given them an opinion on the issue one way or another, then I think that coukd DQ them from being on jury.Gag order? Whose motion? Can't be the prosecutor. Vanderdouche is only shooting himself in the foot. Why shut him up? Maybe the defense lawyer is trying to shut him up. Man, this just keeps getting more bizarre.
If there aren’t enough potential jurors in Oneida who’ve not been influenced then maybe procedure to transfer somewhere else you’re right
