Yes. You’ll note that what I listed includes some of the evidence the prosecution intended to use. The DNA evidence, for example. It just happened to turn out to be evidence for the defense. You don’t actually believe that the defense requested the DNA testing of the lacrosse team, do you?
Also, I’ve heard the opinion of the other stripper, which will certainly be used in the prosecution’s case. The fact that it’s a 180 degree turn from her original story makes her testimony worthless in my opinion.
And your question reminded me of another one I forgot to list. The identification will certainly be used by the prosecution. The method used in the identification was ridiculous.
You seem to believe that the prosecutor has some magic evidence squirreled away. But then again, you also seem to believe in a large number of hidden white on black rapes, so I find your position unsurprising. Believing in hidden evidence seems to be a hobby of yours.
What you posted can not be assumed to be an exhausted list of exhibits, Ellis Dee. You are acting as if you are seeing both hands equally in this card game of a trial, but why? Surely the DA is in a better position to say that a crime has taken place than you are. On what are you basing your apparent opinion that you know better than him?
No, but I’m not surprised that you’d leap to that conclusion.
I’m not prepared to say that I’ve seen all the evidence; why is this such an unreasonable position to take? Unlike people who think access to the internet and TV is all it takes to be an expert on a case, I like to wait until all the information comes out in a formalized system before stating a position.
One of the most important pieces of information that the prosecution possibly has is the medical exam. Interestingly enough none of us has seen it. At this point, none of us know how the accuser presented to the hospital following the alleged attack. Photos and the doctors’ testimony should be able to show us the severity of the wounds this woman allegedly sustained. If they were relatively minor scraps and scratches, this evidence will not have much weight. But if the woman showed up in the hospital sporting hemorrhaging contusions and tears from the anus and vagina, fresh strangulation marks, and other wounds…then what then? If she was drugged with something like GHB, then what then? Does that still suggest she’s a lying whore?
My question to you is why not wait until the trial begins and all this stuff is aired in the court of law before you decide who is lying and who is evil and who is guileless as the fallen snow? Contrary to what you and others have said about me in this thread, not once have I said anything in defense of the accuser. I haven’t levied any accusations against the lacrosse players, either. The only thing I’ve done is defended the notion of objectivity and rationality. Concepts that are prerequisites in our justice system.
See, this shit right here bothers me because I know you know that I haven’t said anything like this. Shame on you, Ellis Dee. I really thought you were better than this, but you’ve proven me wrong. And that’s sad because I’ve enjoyed conversing with you in other threads in the past. Never again, though.
Show me where I’ve suggested that hordes of white men are raping black women. Please. Go on and hurry now, or else I’ll continue to think of you as a lying bastard.
Why don’t I think this was simply some random, irrelevant hypothetical? Well, you [post=7299080]said it[/post] best yourself:
And finally, what happened to your attitude that you [post=7296330]summed up[/post] so well:
What happened to that? Why no condemnation for the laughable photo lineup? Why no issue with the other stripper’s changing story? Why no outrage at the DA for his wildly disparate treatment of witnesses for the prosecution and defense? Why is it that all you do in this thread is argue with those of us who doubt the accuser’s story?
you with the face, I recommend you not even bother replying to Ellis Dee. He’s in over his head and doesn’t have the balls to admit he miscontrued your whole argument.
Because it wasn’t a “random, irrelevant” hypothetical. Rather, it was a hypothetical used to illustrate why it is wrong to assume equivalence between reported and occurence rates, a very simple concept which still seems to escape you unfortunately (Lord knows why). So in that context, it was anything but random and irrelevant.
I swear, the more you post, man, the more I lose respect for you. Within the very thing you excerpted I said: “I’m not saying that most white-on-black rape occurs by a serial killer…” and yet this disclaimer didn’t stop you using this obvious hypothetical as evidence that I think hordes of white men are raping black women undetected. Pathetic.
Why should I be outraged about anything? None of these people affect my life, I can’t vouch for anyone’s credibility or inherent goodness, and all I’m seeing is bits and pieces of information here and there. So out of all the things to get outraged about–rising gas prices, genocide in Dafur, an administration that seems to think laws are optional, a persistent war in Iraq, a skyrocketting deficit, rising interest rates–this case is hardly worth a “meh” let alone my outrage. I save such emotion for things more major than this.
you with the face, I recommend you not even bother replying to Ellis Dee. He’s in over his head and doesn’t have the balls to admit he miscontrued your whole argument.
In our legal system, Solomonic abstention from keeping an eye on, and making preliminary assessments as to, the behavior of elected officials and functionaries of the justice system is neither required nor appropriate. The State has enormous coercive power as against individuals. When a number of circumstantial factors (pretty clear prosecutorial misconduct and dubious police work, multiple inconsistencies in the reported fact patterns, factors casting doubt on the accuser’s credibility, and fairly obvious bowing to racial-politics pressure by both Nifong and Duke) suggest that the decision to prosecute (which requires “probable cause”) may not have been correctly or competently taken, or may have inappropriately been influenced by externalities, then it is by no means too early for citizens to say so, because the decision to indict (Hell, even the decision to subject persons to significant police investigation) in itself represents and effects a significant impingement of the coercive power of the State on the liberties of the individual. Two people have already spent time in correctional custody over this allegation. Another may yet. If there are factors to make us suspect that the decision thus to deprive them of their liberty was insufficiently-founded, the proper time for citizens to be concerned with that would be “now.” If they walk free after trial because the prosecution’s case is (hypothetically speaking) pure crap, it will not be a no harm, no foul wash.
This is not a 50:50 confrontation between accusers and accused, and to speak of “defending” the accuser is to miss the point. She does not risk facing the coercive power of the state (except in some hypothetical where Nifong chooses to prosecute her because he determines her report was false, which will as we know never happen). This is a confrontation between the entire police power of the State of North Carolina and two individuals. Because such a contest is so uneven, we expect more of our prosecutors than of our defendants. A tie does not go to the base-runner/prosecutor, and it is not appropriate to take a wait-and-see approach if the prosecution has not come correct with an A game at each stage of the prosecution. If you don’t like this, fine, but that is what is implicit in a system of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a system that is set up on the premise that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be subjected to the police power without clear reasons therefor.
A final note is that the legal profession is set up to be largely self-policing. If Nifong has acted incorrectly, unethically, or otherwise not properly executed his duties, it is incumbent on other lawyers to call attention to this, now. To the extent the defense and others are calling attention to Nifong’s irregularities and poor judgment, they are doing nothing more than what the Rules tell them to do.
You yourself rendered that disclaimer completely meaningless with the part you conveniently elipsis’d out: "…but I’m saying you can’t rule that out either."
Well guess what? Reasonable people can, in fact, rule out that moronic idiocy. But apparently you cannot.
Is poor widdle you with the face really in need of your rescuing?
I am not aware of defending him at all. I am certainly not “trying so hard.” I simply felt that you had misread his comments concerning Tawana and pointed out how I read them. As it turns out, I was right, unles you want to accuse him of lying about his intent, which would make our exchange moot.
I confess to having skimmed over the posts about statistics, which are where you and he seemed to butt heads the most. They seemed a bit off point and were, at any rate, over my head.
You still don’t get it, do you? Even if that does render my disclaimer meaningless (which it doesn’t, you magnificent ass), * my hypothetical still doesn’t support what you’ve accused me of believing.* But please, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in the hallowed tradition of ignoramuses everywhere.
monstro, BTW, speaks wisdom. I have no idea why I keep getting sucked into this intellectual wasteland of a thread. I wish a mod would close it, if anything because of its unfortunate title.
Really, no one’s making you. You can always stalk off in high-minded dudgeon, leaving behind your cite-free, epithet-strewn, “arguments” to speak for themselves. Just stay away from the horsetrack – your refusal to consider any of a multitude of possibly-predictive factors (“Pay no mind to his broken leg! So what if his trainer’s never won a race! How dare you suggest the Derby Winner’s jockey and stable merit more confidence than my Uncle Joe riding Old Paint! The owner told me Paint would win – he clearly must, or could, or must, have some great information up his sleeve!”) indicating which horse is a likely proposition and which is not won’t do your bankbook any favors. Though given your new position that we can’t or needn’t discuss or handicap the race until after it is over, maybe the two forms of illogic would cancel each other out.
By the way, that is what is going on here. Nifong is engaging (on behalf of the State) in a bet as to what probably happened, based on incomplete evidence as to what actually happened. That’s why they call the standard for indictment “probable” cause and the stanard at trial “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The stakes are Nifong’s credibility (with an electorate which at least in part is predisposed to look favorably on any actions against the players) vs. their freedom. That’s kind of an uneven bet. If he ignores any circumstantial and pattern-based factors that would, a priori, make the claim less “probable,” then he disserves his constituency and his oath.
So I am to understand that in addition to fallacy, you also are unable to spot a pejorative when you see one? So when I call you an idiot, you must be thinking to yourself “Why does she call me idiot when my name is Ellis Dee? And she keeps doing it too. And I don’t know why!!!”
You would be funny, Ellis, if you didn’t come off so sincere. Your obtuseness apparently is anything but deliberate, and that’s nothing my mother would like me laughing at. It’s like you actually believe that this stuff you’re writing sounds smart. At least Huerta has the good sense to dress his shit up with strings of prepositional phrases and gratituous Latin. You, on the other hand, just let your stupidity hang loose and free like fatty genitalia on a nude beach. Cover up, man. Cover up!
Looky you, solving the whole case like someone out of Law & Order. Maybe the defense should call you up to be on their team because look at how smart you are! Why do we even need to have courts and whatnot? We have Ellis Dee to tell us what the truth is. Yay for us!
The “gratuitous Latin” came in when some jackanapes faulted me for using a latinate logical phrase in a discussion of, um, logic. Whereupon I decided I might as well throw it in where I could if it bugged the Huerta=Hitler crowd so much. It’s sarcasm, Marge.
Also, though no one in your largely-citation-free camp has mustered much ability to respond to my cites on this or any other point with anything but calling it “shit” (or in your case, you, lying through your teeth by denying that you’d even looked at the DOJ stats that you most certainly did scrutinize till your eyes watered in an effort to impeach the source, and that so dismayed you as to rob you of whatever shred of civility you entered this thread posessing), it did occur to you that a good half of my posts here, or more, by now, have to do with the legally inappropriate (to say the least) conduct of the so-called prosecutor? And that legal concepts are, every now and again, expressed in, well, law talk? I’m sorry I can’t be as terse and Faulknerian as you. Like in your lucid exposition of how thousands of dead black rape victims of white serial killers lay in the sandy loam. There among the tall pines. But I am sure I will get over it.