If you are arguing that the state of the law of evidence today encourages sexism, then I retort that sexism is a thing of the past. You may not infer from that statement that I meant sexism everywhere is a thing of the past – only that in the context of the discussion, sexism is a thing of the past.
Calling you a psycho nutjob was wholly in keeping with your unbalanced accusations, but I realize that it did little to illuminate the issues, and was itself a gratuitous assertion. I retract the remark; it adds nothing to the discussions except a (admittedly welcome) spleen venting for me.
The liar remark, unfortunately, you’re stuck with. You made a claim in a debate that was intended to buttress your position. When called on it, you waffled, then vanished. Now you reappear and say that, notwithstanding the fact that months have gone by, you’re not a liar - just a poor researcher. This is an example of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam - just because you can’t offer proof doesn’t mean it isn’t true; just because I can’t offer proof means it isn’t false.
In debate, you cannot offer unsupported assertions. You did so, and then rather than take the heat, you vanished. Even after your return, you left unaddressed your claim.
More likely than you claim of being a poor researcher, I’d say it’s just as likely you offered up something in haste, poorly remembered, and got called on it. You don’t like “liar”? I suppose “intellectually dishonest” would stick in your craw as well? How about “utterly reckless regard for the truth?” Any way you look at it, you were the one that tossed out a specious claim. How would YOU prefer that be characterized?
Uh, Rick, you’re still stuck with the fact that you didn’t answer my question about Lea Haller’s response to those comments. I named three published accounts, authors, titles and everything. Your remarks about my veracity reveal the same intellectual dishonesty you are so quick to see in others and ignore in yourself. “Uh, gee, I didn’t mean it that way.”? “I found that remark to be wholly inappropriate and without merit.” Uh, yeah. That’s such a ringing condemnation.
You know, where's Waverly? It seems that if anyone needs that tinfoil, it's you. You proclaim that you know my mind and motives so well, yet you reject out of hand disagreement with you. Can you tell, please, what I'll be cooking for supper this evening? I just can't make up my mind.
To lie is to tell a deliberate untruth, or to so shave away at the substance of it until so little remains that it is altered to the point of distortion. I guess I’m not really surprised that you have difficulty with the concept. You selectively condemn some things, and not others, or do so in such a lukewarm fashion that it’s possible to question the sincerity of the sentiment. Actually, I take that back. You exhibit exactly the degree of sincerity in your, ahem, condemnation of thinksnow’s post that you seem to feel.
Getting called a liar by a defense lawyer. That’s like getting promiscuous by a prostitute.
I’m sorry I missed your question. Would you mind terribly asking me again in a reply to this?
Now you’re saying I didn’t condemn the remark ENOUGH?
I am perfectly willing to let my words speak for themselves. I said what I meant. Wholly inappropriate and without merit.
No - you missed a definition. Lying is also offering an untrue statement with reckless disregard for the truth. I’ll grant you the courtesy of assuming you did not deliberately fabricate the claim that a juror led the jury in discussions of inadmissible evidence. But you offered it without the slightest regard for verifying it.
You are not the first person to express that sentiment about lawyers in general or defense lawyers in particular.
Fascinating how that tune changes from anyone who finds themselves in need of a criminal defense lawyer, though.
Yes, Bricker, that's exactly what I AM saying. Thinksnow's remark was revolting, sexist, and crude. You summoned up a lukewarm condemnation of it after you'd ignored it to criticize my character. Now you're saying that, oops, you'll do me the courtesy of granting that I didn't deliberately intend to decieve. Too little, too late. You used the word deliberately. There's no shades of gray there.
I also have to say, too, that it’s just as important what somebody doesn’t say as what they do say. Faced with something revolting, a lukewarm—and considerably tardy----expression of ‘condemnation’ comes across as face-saving.
Yeah, you're real upset about it, I can just tell.
And I finally did verify the quotes I was talking about. Some of them were from a different case, some of them were from the Kennedy case. Two female jurors led debates in two different juries, and one case went into great detail. I got them mixed up. They're twelve years old. In my efforts to verify where I got them, I went through four books and two articles. I contacted poor Ms. Schafran and her assistant Hannah Taylor no less than three times. If you're going to condemn me as a liar, then it seems that you also owe me some recognition for owning up to it and for continueing to search until I found what I was looking for. If that is not forthcoming, or it is expressed in that uniquely condescending way of yours, you can bite me.
Uh, sweetie, when Bricker ignores thinksnow’s remark to bash me then it indicates where his priorities are. And if you think I’m an idiot, and equal in offense to thinksnow’s sexist remark, then you’ve just confirmed my opinion of you.
Criminal defense attorneys handle crimes. I will never commit a crime. And yes, I know that no doubt this is going to provoke comment. But I don’t drive, so the lowest level----tickets—isn’t even open to me. I just don’t want to hurt anybody. I know what it feels like.
Being falsely accused? Already happened right here. I actually had someone once try and pass off her office pilfering on me, but the boss at the time flat-out rejected that accusation. That’s pretty much it.
So far as I know, this statement, above, is the first acknowledgement that you made an error. If you acknowledged it before and I missed it, you have my sincere apologies. If the above is the first mention of your error, then yes, you do get the acknowledgement from me that you worked hard. There are a lot of people that would simply dodge or ignore, and I salute you for (a) continuing to research, and (b) owning up to the error now. And I withdraw my characterization of you as a liar; it seems to me now that you made an honest mistake, you worked to find and fix that mistake, and you’ve corrected it. It didn’t seem that way before precisely because the issue remained unaddressed and I pigeon-holed you as being supremely uninterested in correcting the record. I was too hasty in that judgement, and I apologize.
It’s yours to decide if the above sentiments are acceptable, or constitute biting range.
And as to your hope that you never need a defense lawyer… I share it. Especially since you’re a law-abiding person, because if you DO need a defense lawyer someday it’ll be because you’re falsely accused… which means you’ll REALLY need a defense lawyer.
I accept your statements, and withdraw my ‘bite me’ remark as well.
I simply did not want to say what kept me from finishing my research. Had I had the time, I would have accomplished it that much sooner. I try to do my research but when confronted with:
A. My mother suddenly collapsing;
B. The abrupt revelation that my city intended to raze my neighborhood and pay a pittance to the homeowners they were dispossessing;
C. A car thief crashing his stolen vehicle into the side of my garage;
and D. the fact that my insurance company had cancelled my insurance while still billing me for it, I simply did not have the time to research. And I figured, quite accurately, I suspect, that if I were to have stated any of the above, I would have been accused of lying or exaggerating. This was the past month of my life.
I’ll never need a defense lawyer. I’m too busy fending off idiots, twits, and people who just don’t do their damned jobs. But my mom is getting better at least.
I’m glad we resolved this. I really don’t like thinking ill of people. But I have had the pleasure of ‘meeting’—so to speak—Ms. Shafran, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Reeves-Sanday, which I doubt would have happened otherwise. By the way…if you want to read about the cases in greater detail, they’re in the original thread. I’m afraid I was rather snarky there, but frankly I expected to be called other names as well. I did not expect you to apologize. I respect you tremendously for doing so.
Last time I checked, I was not Bricker. I asked you to clarify an unfair statement all by my own self. I had not seen thinksnow’s post at the time, but it is not a prerequisite for addressing you.
If you had not seen thinksnow’s post, why didn’t you bother to check it out then, because that was part of the problem? Bricker and I squabbled in another thread, which he referred to when he criticized me for criticizing thinksnow’s post. He then made his “I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is,” post, which he subsequently expanded upon. He also withdrew his criticism of me and apologized. Calling a woman a liar does have a certain loaded significance,* especially* when there’s no evidence of lying. His post is above mine.
The only person remaining in this thread will be you. I’m impressed that Bricker has seen fit to clarify and retract various statements, and I’ve done so as well. It’s over. If you intend to continue beating this deceased equine, by all means, keep yourself entertained.