If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

On 23 May 2007 23:31:31 GMT, William Asher wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

snip
Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.


Clearly she's a slut and nothing bad happened to her at the Duke party.

The latter part of that is impossible to prove. What is proven is that what was
alleged did not happen to her.

Very important difference.

I'm sure something bad happened, but I'm thinking it's more along the lines of
ridicule and rejection than rape.

Ron

In article ,
Doug Taylor 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.

Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

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.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
Doug Taylor 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.

Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
Doug Taylor 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.

Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.

Dumbass.

I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
talented trial specialist - to "get them off."

I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."

At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.

I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
attempt to "get them off."

But nooooo...

As I said, dream on.

In article ,
Doug Taylor wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
Doug Taylor 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.

Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of
the most twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer
means the person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who
doesn't get a lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own
lawyer has a fool for a client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off
on a technicality," but those technicalities are the protections the Constitution
and laws offer.

Dumbass.

I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
talented trial specialist - to "get them off."

I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."

Well, as Ben pointed out, the reason some lawyers are "high-priced" is due to
their success. Their job is to find the flaws in the case of the prosecution (or
group like WADA) and point them out. Those flaws may be innocent mistakes or actual
flaws that would wrongly convict their client. It's nice to see that you're so
certain about FL's guilt. I'm not. That's why they're having the hearings.

"Perp." Heh...

At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.

His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the defense, is he?

I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
attempt to "get them off."

Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article ,
Doug Taylor wrote:

At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.

His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the
defense, is he?

That's true, but it was Landis who wrote the first threat to disclose the
same in Daily Peloton. Landis said so.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:33:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

Dumbass. I'm not on any jury, don't have any requirement to be
impartial, and don't even have to pretend I don't have a brain and
can't think critically.

Let's talk logic and statistics:

O.J. Simpson case: Married woman is murdered.
Statistical likelihood it was the husband: close to 100%

Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.

Doug Taylor wrote:
Floyd Landis case: Professional cyclist TESTS POSTIVE for dope.
Statistical likelihood the test was correct?

You tell me, retard.

Dumbass,

If you have bad baseline resolution and peak shouldering, what is
the statistical probability that there were problems with the test
run?

You tell me, dumbass. That is an upstream issue. You have to
correctly resolve it before you can move on to your assertion that
Floyd tested positive for dope.

Thanks,

Bob Schwartz