If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...

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 Wed, 23 May 2007 16:15:30 -0400, Doug Taylor
wrote:

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.

Actually, as someone that despises Pound, I don't think it is quite
framing or even the deliberate ignoring of procedures and evidence
like Nifong. I think it is a case that Pound made it clear what they
wanted found, and everyone in the process bent with the wind.

And I don't see that Landis has been proven guilty yet, although I
doubt he will ever be proven innocent. I think that, unlike some,
Landis is willing to live in the grey area in between, as long as he
is allowed to race. I know that at least two or three people on the
list think that if he doesn't make it all the way to the other side,
with a clear proof of innocence, he shouldn't be allowed to race.

OTOH, every bike racer that hasn't been tested hasn't been proven
completely innocent. Actually, that is an impossible standard with a
loop back to the testing itself. You can't even prove virgins
innocent.

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

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
You can't even prove virgins innocent.

Depends on whether the Clinton theorem on the definition of sexual
intercourse is accepted.

wimpyVO2 wrote:
...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."

"Even though he used soap, doesn't mean he used dope."

On May 23, 4:15 pm, Doug Taylor wrote:

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

dumbass,

how exactly did dick pound frame landis ?

In article ,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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.

I started to follow people versus Orenthal James Simpson, and felt
nauseous watching the prosecution. Then I went from upgrading the
shack's electrical system to gainfully employed and missed the
rest. The prosecution was incompetent, and owe the people of
California an abject apology. And the judge was incompetent too.
A competent prosecution would have put that psychopath away. Turd
fondlers the lot of them: defendant, both counsels, and judge.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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.

Most of the articles on Michael Nifong dance around the story.
Finally, here is a bare knuckle account.
Thank you, Ellis Washington.
URL:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55662

"To this ambitious DA, all the elements for a
conviction were there a house full of rich, horny,
white college boys, a poor, vulnerable black maiden who
was forced to perform demeaning dances for their
lustful entertainment, sex, gang rape, interracial
entanglements, a public mob yelling for blood, a
shyster lawyer out to make a name for himself what
further evidence do we need?"

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

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.

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.

--
Michael Press

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.

--
Bill Asher