The delusion never stops. No sane individual thinks you’ve defeated Prosequi in this debate. Not a single one.
Your tracking is akin to that of a confused cocker spaniel being asked to find a body, and instead leading people to a stale hot dog.
Speaking of pure fantasy, who is “we”? So far it’s entirely been you alone with this gobbledygook.
Uh-oh, this spaniel is starting to look dangerous.
No more walkies for you.
My God, this is still going on.
Since there’s no way to dissuade Jetblast from his position (certainly not with logic and facts) there’s no way to end this discussion. It will go on as long as people respond to him.
It’s been over four hours since Jetblast posted that remark about the “padded [del]cell[/del] den of corruption”, and no one’s turned it back against him yet.
That shows remarkable restraint.
I never thought MI5 could have been behind my choking on liver and bacon. That would also explain all the stale beer in my body on a Saturday morning.
My thoughts exactly when I opened the thread.
Dude… it’s been two months.
I spent all day today reading through this cesspool of drivel, and as yet another man with no horse in this race, I can assure you with no doubts whatsoever, as a completely impartial observer: Jetblast- despite your repeated insistence that everyone’s arguments and objections are “weak,” the simple and only relevant fact truly presented by this thread is that in two months you have still completely failed to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING at ALL. Get a clue.
Give it up, man. Seriously.
The only credible input in this thread is that which confronts the undeniable facts.
Unless you can do that your "give it up" input is merely the Freudian attempt to ease your conscience of what it feels guilty over that it is...To be perfectly honest with you, after the 1st couple of posts I actually stopped reading yours and just skipped to everyone else’s, because reading your posts is like listening to this
…and by comparison, he’s making more sense.
I think we’ve gotten Prosequi to expose himself over his comment that “Lies don’t make a case or verdict invalid.” The only way he could justify that is to put the Inquest’s verdict on defense and say that Dannemann’s lies were meant to cover the cleaning of the flat of drugs and therefore did not constitute proof of murder in and of themselves. I’d first say that the Inquest has no right to take any legal defense posture. The government has no right to defend a case or verdict where serious evidence for murder exists since the purpose of the law and courts is to defend the people and their rights. In effect by going on the defense the government is defending its right to prevent proof of murder and is therefore violating that which it stands for in writing.
The reason the 'lies are not invalid' argument doesn't work is because it denies the people the chance to see if there is any further evidence of wrongdoing that those lies are being used to cover. I assure you Prosequi is well aware of this. Sure the lies could have been used to cover the cleaning of the flat but they could also have been used to cover the murder as well. Since law is the process of seeking the truth and exposing wrongdoing the 'lies are not invalid' argument moves in the wrong direction of what law regularly practices. There can be no legal argument for denying evidence of murder unless you are a defense lawyer defending a person accused of murder. But since this is the British Government it has no right to violate its own self-definition of law. The British Government cannot take the position of defense in the case of murder. Lies very much make a case invalid as any study of legal history would show and therein Prosequi destroys his own arguments.
The law should very much err on the safe side. If a witness is removed by death and there are questions about its purpose then the government should not benefit from what could be foul play used to take a position of legal advantage. It should not have to be explained why those who may have committed further treachery in order to conceal their possible crimes should not be an ally of the government. The government cannot be aided and allied by murderers nor can the government seek a position of advantage through murder. So, in this case, the loss of the witness should not compel the court towards non-investigation but should compel the court towards more vigorous scrutiny to deny that which only compounds the original offense. This is a simple matter of forcing the court to obey its own self-definition of law and its purpose.
The reason the 'lies are not invalid' argument should be summarily rejected is because Dannemann's lies themselves show signs of betraying further guilt beyond the cleaning of the flat. When examined Dannemann's story showed she made up a whole body of lies involving the visit to the hospital. If we suggest Dannemann lied in order to cover the cleaning of the flat, then we have to explain why she would lie about something that happened hours afterward that had no connection to the need to lie? Dannemann told of riding in the ambulance, visiting the doctors at the hospital, and having conversations that never happened according to the doctors. If she lied to the Inquest to hide the cleaning of the flat then why would she need to make up this condemning further fantasy when it wasn't needed? The answer very cleanly fits that Dannemann was traumatized by something very serious that needed to have an entire false scenario designed for it. Murder is such a strong influence that would destabilize someone so intensely as to make them defy reality in such an incriminating way. Dannemann lied about the hospital visit because her mind was disrupted not by accidental death but by murder. Accidental death would be traumatic but there would be no reason to lie about things well afterward that would only stand to be incriminating. The reason Dannemann wasn't considering the consequences of her hospital lies was because her mind was disturbed by murder which would drive her to make up a larger story when not needed. It's all pretty obvious.
But the second part of this is how Dannemann's stories were used. The Inquest relied 100% on them. And because of this did not bother to ask further questions that would have been critical to uncovering the actual evidence. So to put forth the theoretical theory that 'lies are not invalid' in this context is a pure violation of fact. The lies are what directly made the verdict invalid. Only a purely mendacious interpretation of what actually happened here in order to force us into yet another willfully dishonest sophist rendering could suggest otherwise. The Inquest didn't bother to offer even the most basic of legal inquiries. No effort was even made to determine the time of death which any competent attorney would use, alone, to disqualify the Inquest. Prosequi is once again leading us down a woefully disingenuous legal garden path the real scent trail veers oppositely from. And there's no prosecutor or attorney past Prosequi's "primary school level" that would ever allow any of this in short order. Dannemann's lies are exactly what lead to suspicions over this and are what directly lead to further investigation that showed the real proof for murder. What Prosequi fails to realize is the British Court already determined this when it demanded Dannemann come in and account for her lies. So when Prosequi suggest "lies do not make a case invalid" he is contradicting that which has already been shown by the very courts he defends. For if the British Court did not think lies made a case invalid it would not have called Dannemann in to account for them legally.
The Inquest is broken, my good fellows, and you have not adequately explained why it should still stand. Then you're not being "pefectly honest" are you?
I assure you posts like yours only make the proof I've shown (that, just like the British Court, you've skipped) stronger...
Are these the posts you refer to over mine???
And I assure YOU that your endless demonstration of every logical fallacy in the book continues with statements like this.
**You ** don’t even know what you’re talking about. How can you expect to explain it to anyone else?!
Yup.
Last night I previewed on Itunes some of the songs from the newly released Hendrix album “The Valleys of Neptune”.
The title track didn’t sound too impressive, but the versions of “Red House” and “Sunshine Of Your Love” seemed pretty good.
The question now is if I’ll ever again be able to listen to Hendrix’s music without having visions of wine spurting out of 18-inch tubes, hysterical groupie girlfriends, dense deposits of vomit, struck-off MDs and MI5 operatives running around like the Keystone Kops.
This thread has a lot to answer for.
[Moderator Warning]
Jetblast, consider yourself warned for being a jerk. SDMB users are not allowed to wish death on each other and I have lost patience with your sneering. This thread is closed.
[/Warning]
I heard part of the album for the first time last night, and I have to say I didn’t think about this thread for more than half a second. Hendrix’s music endures, this exercise in nonsense will be forgotten. Soon.
Submitted as a metaphor for this thread: Hendrix at Monterey Pop, 1967.
And JUST when it was getting warmed up, too. Pity.
A dirty shame, too. I was looking forward to posting here. Now, I can’t.
Forgot to actually lock the thread. Oops.