If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

....he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
that vary from sample to sample.

Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
"right" result.

On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 wrote:

...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
that vary from sample to sample.

Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
"right" result.

There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd

1) Obviously guilty perp.

2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
absurd.

3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
science.

4) Character assassination of witnesses.

5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.

6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.

This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
"get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

But there are tons of morons out there who insist to this day that
O.J. was innocent and the "real killers" never got caught.

Dream on, people.

In article ,
Doug Taylor wrote:

On 22 May 2007 22:05:51 -0700, wimpyVO2 wrote:

...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
that vary from sample to sample.

Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
"right" result.

There you go. Perfect analogy: O.J. and Floyd

1) Obviously guilty perp.

2) Perp's personal explanation of what "really" happened utterly
absurd.

3) Perp lawyers-up with high paid suits to obfuscate the facts and the
science.

4) Character assassination of witnesses.

5) Big time publicity campaign to sway credulous public opinion.

6) Partisan shills jumping on the bandwagon.

This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
"get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
cases springing them from jail.

I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
they just didn't have one.

Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.

I should say that, while it doesn't matter a whit, I'd bet on OJ's
guilt. I didn't follow the trial closely. However, post-trial interviews
with some jurors suggested that they found problems with the timeline
the most compelling evidence in favor of Mr. Simpson.

*small relative to the number of people in prison, sure, but not a
trivial number by any means.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:


This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
"get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
cases springing them from jail.

I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
they just didn't have one.

Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.

Apples and oranges.

The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.

Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.

The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.

So we have two choices with Floyd:

Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
to "get off"?

Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
to "get him."?

I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.

But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
overwhelmingly toward the second.

I say you all are in la la land.

Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
be convinced.

in message , Doug Taylor
') wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:


This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
"get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
cases springing them from jail.

I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
they just didn't have one.

Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.

Apples and oranges.

The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.

Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.

The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.

Dick Pound, anyone?

I mean, WADA have been deliberately leaking or announcing information
prejudicial to Landis' case in just the same way that Nifong (prosecutor
in the Duke case) is alleged to have done. In that sense, the two cases
are similar. They're similar in more ways than that. Rich kids reputedly
commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
prosecutor plays to the gallery.

Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
But I am certain that Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
disrepute.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
But I am certain that Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
disrepute.

So, back to O.J.: Dick Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
man?

Either way, Landis is guilty and professional cycling has an out of
control drug problem.

Dans le message de ,
Simon Brooke a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Dick Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of
the things he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug
testing into disrepute.

I agree. He should leave testing drugs to willing volunteers.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

Rich kids reputedly
commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
prosecutor plays to the gallery.

The above pretty much sets the table for those that look to the
salacious, using suggestions and personal beliefs in place of facts.
No, 'the public' isn't likely to believe the accusations, and much of
the public didn't. Certain parts of the public that enjoy those other
than themselves or their peers in trouble or the self righteous that
like to cluck were quick to judgement - and 'belief'.

There were enough problems in the very first articles to withhold
judgement in the Duke case (and I am no fan of Duke) and the first
wave of subsequent articles had enough that IMO only those that had
other reasons to believe in guilt believed the accusations. More
accurately IMO they didn't believe the accusations, they just believed
the 'rich' Duke players to be guilty, irrespective of the actual
accusations.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor wrote:

The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.

Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.

The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.

So we have two choices with Floyd:

Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
to "get off"?

Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
to "get him."?

I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.

But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
overwhelmingly toward the second.

I say you all are in la la land.

Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
be convinced.

Dumbass,

You speak as if there were never any incidents of
(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
In fact, both of these things can and do happen.

In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
to prove it.

Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
will you decide that because you're innocent, you
can skimp on your legal team?

Ben

p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.

On 24 May 2007 00:42:25 -0700, "
wrote:

On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor wrote:

The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.

Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.

The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.

So we have two choices with Floyd:

Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
to "get off"?

Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
to "get him."?

I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.

But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
overwhelmingly toward the second.

I say you all are in la la land.

Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
be convinced.

Dumbass,

You speak as if there were never any incidents of
(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
In fact, both of these things can and do happen.

In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
to prove it.

Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
will you decide that because you're innocent, you
can skimp on your legal team?

Ben

p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.

Q.E.D.