Vanessa Bryant wants the demoted LASD captain to testify at the July trial of the Kobe crash photo.
Her legal team claimed that the captain was transferred because she was worried about concealment.
A Los Angeles County lawyer said he was transferred due to a failed sexual assault investigation a few days after the crash.
Vanessa Bryant’s lawyer in her lawsuit against Los Angeles County said the new filing said that the crash of Janna’s helicopter with the highest-ranking LA Security Officer located near Kobe would participate in the concealment program. Claimed to have been demoted after hesitating.
Brian’s team insisted that Captain Matthew Vander Hawk testify in a series of filings outlining the witness list and evidence prior to the July 26 trial.
Vanderholk was a former officer of the Los Angeles-Malibu LASD Station, and Bryant’s team claimed to have in-depth knowledge of alleged internal concealment plans, including graphic photographs.
“He is expected to testify to the ministry’s first response to civilian complaints, the concerns expressed regarding the sheriff’s order to remove photos,” Brian’s lawyer said.
Her lawyer also said she would seek testimony that “a few weeks after the citizen’s complaint, she was transferred to a lieutenant at the direction of a sheriff and was temporarily demoted.”
Vanessa Bryant, September 2020 Sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s OfficeEight officers following reports from the county fire department, the entire county, and first responders I took a picture of the crash site of Kobe and Gianna Maria-Onore in January 2020 and shared it... Alex Villanueva of the LA County Sheriff admitted that he had instructed the staff To delete photos after a crash..
Brian accused the first responder of “negligence” and “intentional mental distress and infringement of the right to privacy of mental distress.” She is suing for private damages.
Vanderhawk Transferred and demoted A few weeks after the January 2020 crash on February 18, 2020, the Sheriff’s Office said it failed to process a sexual assault investigation at Pepperdyne University.
County lawyers do not believe that evidence or testimony related to Vander Horck should be presented in court.
If their attempt to ban his testimony was rejected by a judge, a county lawyer said, “Vander Hawk said his transfer was related to the January 26, 2020 crash or handling of photographs of the crash site. Instead, he mishandled his alleged sexual assault. “
And with a list of witnesses requiring more than 50 witnesses to testify, the parties sparred on what role Vander Horck could play in the trial.Bryant’s lawyer For the citizen who filed the complaint About being shown a photo of the crash site by LASD officers and LACFD staff to testify during the trial.
“Chart 131 reflects Captain Vander Hawk forwarding a chain letter to his boss in connection with a public complaint about a photo from his work account to his personal Gmail account,” her lawyer said. I am writing in a recent submission. “Vanderholk’s transfer from Lost Hills Station to the Men’s Central Prison occurred three weeks after Sheriff Villanueva’s instructions to remove the photo in exchange for an amnesty.”
Bryant’s lawyer said, “Vander Hawk testified in a testimony record that he had forwarded communication with his boss to his Gmail account. He may need to take legal action related to unwanted transfers. I thought I couldn’t do it, “he added.
They can show that his testimony shows that Villanueva was “elected to refrain from disciplining individuals who took pictures of the victims’ bodies and shared them, and to discipline only those who expressed concern.” He added that he could.
At a pre-hearing hearing in July, county lawyers are expected to claim that Vander Hawk’s testimony is irrelevant.
“The plaintiff’s conspiracy theory is wrong,” the county lawyer wrote. “Even if the plaintiff’s whistleblower / retaliation theory is true (or not), Sheriff Villanueva’s on how the LASD internal investigation or the discipline surrounding the crash site was dealt with. The evidence of opinion has nothing to do with the actual problem in this case. It violates the plaintiff’s rights. “
Lawyers representing both parties did not immediately respond to insider requests for comment.
Read the original article insider