John: Again, just because the new evidence is more damning, so too have the standards of evidence grown stricter. Two Hundred years ago a single citizen of good character could, as an eye witness, make or break a case.  Now it's DNA evidence and photographs.  That is the beauty of the jury, that the evidence has to be compelling based on what is possible.

Of course, photographs could be doctored, faked, or inconclusive (is Mel actually visible in the photographs? As he was the photog, that is hard to believe casually).

More to the point, you utter failed to address my rebuttal of this case you are so attached to. The failure is not the double jeapordy laws, it is in the investigation, in the proscesution for going to trial early. You are casually (for all your protestations that the checks and balances prevent it from being 'casual') discarding it because you are morally outraged that this guy got off scott free (despite spending almost the entirety of the interveneing two decades in prison for related charges...) on the murder rap.

Here is the thing:  The proscecutor failed miserably at ensuring his evidence was damning. He had a single recording of a sketchy conversation. His star witness was not vetted properly by any stretch, and despite having enough cause to get a through search warrent, they failed to adequetly search Mel's house, where the damning evidence was found.

The failure is not the 'double jeapordy' clause at all, yet you want to 'fix' it by going around the back end.

And what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?

When do you stop stripping away protections, John? When do you stop making new exceptions, new clauses? How far do you go? Mr. Kim's father is a powerful illustration of why those protections exist.  What happened to OJ and Micheal Jackson are evidence that sometimes they don't go far enough. When you can't get the conviction you want you hound them until they snap and start ignoring the law or treating it as an enemy (OJ) or flee the country wearing a Hajib (MJ).

We don't have perfect knowledge that they are guilty, only our beliefs.  We will probably NEVER have perfect knowledge of guilt.  Not even for Mel, as damnning as it is (he did incriminate himself willingly. Though of course, maybe he was covering for Ms Stone? Someone else?) Its not at all likely, mind you. But neither you nor I were at Nicole Browns the night of the murder, neither you nor I have spent a night at Neverland. Neither you nor I were on those juries either.

If you want to make sure injustices like this don't happen, get a job as a proscecutor and make sure you never go to trial until you are certain you'll get your conviction, until you are certain you've dug up ever scrap of evidence humanly possible.

Don't tear apart the foundations of our entire judicial system just to suit your moral outrage.

Quote from: SpikeActually, John, if you consider the 'OJ Book' compelling new evidence you either are under-informed about the specifics of the book, or your standards are just as low as the other John and I fear.

I already addressed that.  I know my replies are long but are people actually reading them?  I wrote:

Quote from: John MorrowI agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections. And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial. Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).

Was that in some way unclear?

Quote from: SpikeYour constant, strenuous, cries about 'what about this guy' are not unlike a victim's family, upset with the lack of viciousness in the punishment, crying 'what if it were your child'.  Its a great emotional appeal, but we've already covered, repetetively, that while it's tragic, it is one of those things you have to accept in order to prevent the possibility of worse tragedies.

And I'v already covered repeatedly that I don't think we should ignore the tragedy nor do I think that we have to accept it or face a worse tragedy.  The flip side of the emotional appeals is your frequent assertion that it doesn't matter.  Do you really think that doesn't lead to worse tragedies?

Quote from: SpikeIn other words, we've acknowledged that its wrong, that it is sad, that we don't like it.  But we also point out that it is not worth making the change.

And I haven't agreed with your reasoning why.  I can also point out that despite the Constitutional protections against double jeopardy, not only are civil courts being used for a second round of lawsuits as with OJ Simpson, with a much lower threshold of proof than criminal courts, but there has also been the even more overt case of the police who beat Rodney King, essentially charged again for the same crime and in a different venue in order to get the desired verdict.  And why?  Because enough people were morally outraged by the verdict and injustice they felt was done to a stranger that they rioted.  

If the only argument that you'll accept is one that hinges upon endangering civil rights, then I think you should consider that the protections against double jeopardy are already being undermined.  What you and John fear is already happening and, for those who feel that the police in the Rodney King case should have be acquitted, has already punished the innocent.  That's despite the unqualified protections specified in the US Constitution.  Why?  Because while punishing the innocent is unjust, so is not punishing the guilty, and when people perceive the law as unjust, they stop respecting and obeying it.  In fact, the United States wsa founded on that very principle.

Quote from: SpikeWhile there can certainly be debate, the constant repetition of a singular obvious case... one unlikely to be casually repeated does not make your arguement any stronger, only repetetive.

I'm repeating a single case because it's clear and handly. There are other similar cases in the United States and several others led to the changes in the law in the UK.  How many examples do I need to give you?

Quote from: SpikeIn fact the counter argument is simple enough, though I haven't gone in detail previously I did mention it: Why weren't the pictures found earlier in the investigation?  Why did the proscecutor go to trail with too weak a case? The weakness of the case obviously wasn't due to Mel being innocent, thus the fault lies in the investigation.

Did you bother to read the Wikipedia page about Mel Ignatow?  Go do that and then let me know if it doesn't answer any of your questions.

Quote from: SpikeIn other words, you are trying to break one system to correct the failings of another.

I would be interested to hear how the specific changes that I've suggested would "break the system" , especially any worse than it's already broken.

John, I did read your post, otherwise OJ would not have appeared again in mine. We both agree that it was a perversion of the Double Jeapordy clause, the disagreement appears to be that you would rather they didn't have to pervert it, while I think it shouldn't have happened at all.


Obviously I read the wiki page, John. You would note, if you read my post as you claim all the specific details of the case I mentioned in pointing out the one thing I keep asking you to look at: The failure was not the double jeapordy clause but the failure of the investigators and proscecutors.

Do you need me to repeat, ad nauseaum the various details that support that explicitely?

The Proscecutor failed to vet his witness, who's choice of attire made her less credible to the jury. He went to trial solely on the strength of his witness and the recorded testemony of Mel gain by wire. The wire was sufficently sketchy that it was easily dismissed by the Jury.

The investigators either failed to obtain a warrent to search Mels premises, or simply neglected to do so adequetly, as the photos were found on the premesis by an unrelated individual.

There isn't even much outrage of miscarried justice. Mel hasn't even walked free since his orginal acquittal as he's spent the entire remainder of his time in jail on related Perjury charges.

Failing to see how removing the double jeapordy clause would change sloppy police work and overeager proscecutors or boneheaded juries that don't take their work seriously.

Your example is hideiously flawed, yet you would rather suggest I failed to read it than address it.

Quote from: SpikeJohn: Again, just because the new evidence is more damning, so too have the standards of evidence grown stricter. Two Hundred years ago a single citizen of good character could, as an eye witness, make or break a case.  Now it's DNA evidence and photographs.  That is the beauty of the jury, that the evidence has to be compelling based on what is possible.

Yes, but what you are missing is that it was far easier to convict the innocent on the bases of an eye witness and despite your protests that the law much protect the innocent at all costs, plenty of innocent people have gone to prison and plenty still do.  But the more incontrovertable and objective the evidence is, the less of a chance there is of making a mistake.  And, in fact, many men are being freed because modern examinations of the evidence are proving their innocense.  

Quote from: SpikeOf course, photographs could be doctored, faked, or inconclusive (is Mel actually visible in the photographs? As he was the photog, that is hard to believe casually).

Read the Wikipedia article in full.  He had an accomplice.  His body is visible in the pictures with distinctive marks sufficient to prove his guilt visible in the photos.

Quote from: SpikeMore to the point, you utter failed to address my rebuttal of this case you are so attached to. The failure is not the double jeapordy laws, it is in the investigation, in the proscesution for going to trial early. You are casually (for all your protestations that the checks and balances prevent it from being 'casual') discarding it because you are morally outraged that this guy got off scott free (despite spending almost the entirety of the interveneing two decades in prison for related charges...) on the murder rap.

Yes, I am morally outraged that this guy raped, tortured, and murdered a woman and wasn't convicted for it.  Why aren't you?  Since the though of an innocent person being unjustly persecuted without consequence seems to outrage you, surely you are able to feel outrage at injustices done to others, right?  

Let me put it this way for you.  Brenda Shaefer was an innovent woman.  Her rights were violated by Mel Ignatow.  I'm every bit as outraged by his violation fof her rights as I would be had she been picked up by a police officer, strip searched, beated, and had died in custody.

Quote from: SpikeHere is the thing:  The proscecutor failed miserably at ensuring his evidence was damning. He had a single recording of a sketchy conversation. His star witness was not vetted properly by any stretch, and despite having enough cause to get a through search warrent, they failed to adequetly search Mel's house, where the damning evidence was found.

And with 20/20 hindsight, that's all true.  Similarly, the police in the OJ Simpson case thought that their evidence, which included blood found in his vehicle, a slam dunk. The same thing happened with Billy Dunlop. the case that led the UK to change their law.

Quote from: SpikeThe failure is not the 'double jeapordy' clause at all, yet you want to 'fix' it by going around the back end.

The double jeopardy law prevents the failure from being properly corrected, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

Quote from: SpikeAnd what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?

Do they keep finding new and compelling evidence of his guilt?  Would it help if the retrials were limited?  Do you really have any interest in trying to address your concerns or will you just keep raising new ones?

Quote from: SpikeWhen do you stop stripping away protections, John? When do you stop making new exceptions, new clauses? How far do you go?

How far does it go now?  I've asked you if you are concerned that the Constitution allows for the rights of innocent people to be violated upon probable cause.  Are you?  Because of that bypass, have we slid down into an oblivion of no civil rights?  

Quote from: SpikeMr. Kim's father is a powerful illustration of why those protections exist.  What happened to OJ and Micheal Jackson are evidence that sometimes they don't go far enough. When you can't get the conviction you want you hound them until they snap and start ignoring the law or treating it as an enemy (OJ) or flee the country wearing a Hajib (MJ).

And that is already happening without a single change to the law.

You aren't addressing my proposal but a general fear, a fear that you could just as easily apply to existing laws or any law that might possibly harm an innocent person.  And at every turn where you've tried to poke a hole in my proposal, you've given an example that wouldn't pass the test that I've proposed.  You raise issues of faking evidence and so on, yet that's a danger in our existing legal system.  Sure, people could abuse my proposal by ignoring the letter or spirit of it, but they are already doing that with the existing laws in an attempt to correct the sort of injustice that I'm suggesting that we correct.

Quote from: SpikeWe don't have perfect knowledge that they are guilty, only our beliefs.  We will probably NEVER have perfect knowledge of guilt.  Not even for Mel, as damnning as it is (he did incriminate himself willingly. Though of course, maybe he was covering for Ms Stone? Someone else?) Its not at all likely, mind you. But neither you nor I were at Nicole Browns the night of the murder, neither you nor I have spent a night at Neverland. Neither you nor I were on those juries either.

And you'll notice that I explicitly said that OJ would not be covered by my examples and I agree.  I don't have perfect knowledge of his guilt.  And if you really believe that evidence is so easy to fake and misunderstand and that we can never have perfect knowledge of guilt, are really as indifferent to what happens to the guilty as you claim, and you really believe that it's better to let the guilty go than risk punishing the innocent, then we really should do away with the entire legal system.  An incredible number of innocent people are bankrupted by lawsuits, sent to prison, and even executed and if that's the such a great injustice that we should never risk it happening in order to punish the guilty, then I really don't see how you can support any law enforcement.  If you aren't making claims as extreme as I'm characterizing here, then please explain to me how you square those various concerns and balance them against each other.

Quote from: SpikeIf you want to make sure injustices like this don't happen, get a job as a proscecutor and make sure you never go to trial until you are certain you'll get your conviction, until you are certain you've dug up ever scrap of evidence humanly possible.

Prosecutors will never be perfect.  The justice system will never be perfect.  If that's the measure you require the justice system to operate under, than it should be abolished.

Quote from: SpikeDon't tear apart the foundations of our entire judicial system just to suit your moral outrage.

I keep applying the principles you are espousing to the situation that we have no and I find it difficult to understand how you can find any legitimacy at all in our existing judicial system, nevermind my hypothetical reforms.  All of the abuses that you are complaining are already possible and, in fact, already happen.  And they are allowed precisely so that the law can get he bad guys.

Quote from: SpikeJohn, I did read your post, otherwise OJ would not have appeared again in mine. We both agree that it was a perversion of the Double Jeapordy clause, the disagreement appears to be that you would rather they didn't have to pervert it, while I think it shouldn't have happened at all.

You are still ignoring the fact that I've said that OJ Simpson would likely not have been able to be retried under the proposal I've made unless he was stupid enough to write a book about it anyway.  I doubt he would have if he had not felt he could do so with impunity.

Quote from: SpikeObviously I read the wiki page, John. You would note, if you read my post as you claim all the specific details of the case I mentioned in pointing out the one thing I keep asking you to look at: The failure was not the double jeapordy clause but the failure of the investigators and proscecutors.

The page mentions that the prosecutor thought that they had a solid case and, given the evidence that they had, I don't think they were foolish or incompetent to believe that.  But even if they were utterly incompetent, that does not change the fact that the acquittal was an injustice nor that later evidence would amost certainly get a conviction.

Quote from: SpikeDo you need me to repeat, ad nauseaum the various details that support that explicitely?

The Proscecutor failed to vet his witness, who's choice of attire made her less credible to the jury. He went to trial solely on the strength of his witness and the recorded testemony of Mel gain by wire. The wire was sufficently sketchy that it was easily dismissed by the Jury.

The investigators either failed to obtain a warrent to search Mels premises, or simply neglected to do so adequetly, as the photos were found on the premesis by an unrelated individual.

   In light of these considerations and their own desire to get the trial over with before the coming Christmas holiday, the jury acquitted Ignatow. Before giving their decision to the courtroom, laughter and loud talk was heard coming from the deliberation room.

Maybe the jury was also a little to blame, too?  

   The judge was so embarrassed by this verdict given, that he took the unusual step of writing a letter of apology to the Schaefer family.

Maybe the prosecutor's case wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be?

And, yes, they missed the pictures because they didn't know that they existed and didn't expect to find evidence like that?  Hindsight is conveniently 20/20.

Quote from: SpikeThere isn't even much outrage of miscarried justice. Mel hasn't even walked free since his orginal acquittal as he's spent the entire remainder of his time in jail on related Perjury charges.

He was released in 2006.  I suppose I should also point out that was sentenced to a total of 17 years (not all served) for purjury and have little doubt that was an attempt to correct the earlier injustice.  In fact, they prosecuted him for one purjury count and then, upon his release, another -- exatly the sort of abuse you claim to be concerned about.  Do you approve of that solution?

Quote from: SpikeFailing to see how removing the double jeapordy clause would change sloppy police work and overeager proscecutors or boneheaded juries that don't take their work seriously.

It won't, and I never claimed it would.  What it would do is allow for the law to correct mistakes made by sloppy police work.

That said, I do think that if you wanted to argue that loosening the protections against double jeopardy would encourage sloppy police work and might encourage prosecutors to perform hunting expedition prosecutions against people with sketchy evidence because they assume that they could get a second shot at it, I might be pursuaded that's a legitimate enough concern to keep things the way that they are.

Quote from: SpikeYour example is hideiously flawed, yet you would rather suggest I failed to read it than address it.

I suggested that you failed to read it because your characterization of various aspects of the example seemed to ignore quite a few details in the case.  For example, you'd rather blame a sloppy prosecutor than a lazy jury for the acquittal.  And you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the photos that seemed to ignore details that were available.  If that was an honest mistake, that's fine.  I miss things, too.  But I'd appreciate you cutting me the same sort of slack when I make mistakes.

Quote from: John MorrowYou are still ignoring the fact that I've said that OJ Simpson would likely not have been able to be retried under the proposal I've made unless he was stupid enough to write a book about it anyway.  I doubt he would have if he had not felt he could do so with impunity.

No, you keep bringing up the book as if he has admitted his guilt incontrovertably, which he has not. So its speculation.

Quote from: John MorrowThe page mentions that the prosecutor thought that they had a solid case and, given the evidence that they had, I don't think they were foolish or incompetent to believe that.  But even if they were utterly incompetent, that does not change the fact that the acquittal was an injustice nor that later evidence would amost certainly get a conviction.

And if you asked me if I put in a hard days work today, I'd tell you I did. If you asked my boss, they'd tell you i didn't.  People don't admit to being lazy, sloppy or indifferent, John. Not often, and in something as public as this only if forced.  The simple fact that he let his witness, his STAR WITNESS, the accomplice, come to trial looking like a floosy picked up off the street (from the jury's perspective) is a sloppy.fucking.mistake. One covered in high school law classes, and mentioned in the very Wiki you seem to think I didn't read. What he SAYS about his case is directly controverted by the evidence readily to hand.

Quote from: John MorrowIn light of these considerations and their own desire to get the trial over with before the coming Christmas holiday, the jury acquitted Ignatow. Before giving their decision to the courtroom, laughter and loud talk was heard coming from the deliberation room.

Maybe the jury was also a little to blame, too?  

And I mentioned that. Remember when I asked you if your next step was to toss out jury trials to ensure proper convictions, John? I wasn't doing that because I thought it sounded cute.  

Quote from: John MorrowThe judge was so embarrassed by this verdict given, that he took the unusual step of writing a letter of apology to the Schaefer family.

Maybe the prosecutor's case wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be?

Really now? Part of a prosecutors job, in fact one might argue the most important part of a prosecutors job is to make the jury believe in his case. Building logical rational arguements that sway a judge who, in all likelihood is at least somewhat sympathetic to his message if only because they've seen it a thousand times before, is not the same, nor of the same import of convincing the fucking jury. And if the jury is in a hurry to get home for the holidays, then it is his fucking job to ensure that won't taint their decision. Moving for a mistrial so that another trial can be had, for example. Asking for a holiday break so the Jury comes back less distracted. I don't know the details, but I surely know that he has tools available to him to ensure the Jury doesn't just wiff the case 'because'.

And for the third or fourth fucking time: Yes, the jury is at fault too. Wanna get rid of the 'trial by jury' clause?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, yes, they missed the pictures because they didn't know that they existed and didn't expect to find evidence like that?  Hindsight is conveniently 20/20.

And why not? They had, as his star witness, his accomplice, after all. Why do you think I said they should have known he had evidence at his house, evidence they should have found? Because they fucking had his accomplise on tenterhooks!    And since we know that if the evidence they had was strong enough to get past the grand jury phase, then it was strong enough to get a warrent to tear his house appart looking for evidence.  They DO tear houses appart, you know. Checking under floorboards should have been a common practice even in the good ole days of 1988.

Quote from: John MorrowHe was released in 2006.  I suppose I should also point out that was sentenced to a total of 17 years (not all served) for purjury and have little doubt that was an attempt to correct the earlier injustice.  In fact, they prosecuted him for one purjury count and then, upon his release, another -- exatly the sort of abuse you claim to be concerned about.  Do you approve of that solution?

And how do you know that, had he been convicted of murder instead of Perjury, he wouldn't have been out in 2006 anyway?  No amount of retrials will change the fact that some convicted murderers get stupidly light sentances.  Yet, for some reason, you feel that this particular case is exceptional enough (despite the fact he served a long time) to justify it? Weak sauce.

Quote from: John MorrowIt won't, and I never claimed it would.  What it would do is allow for the law to correct mistakes made by sloppy police work.

Well peachy. Of course, you also seem to ignore that it would also allow harassment of people acquitted when prevaling opinion is that they are guilty. And since sloppy police work will always exist, there will always be more sloppy police and legal work to justify that harrassment.  We could even point out that, in the light of 'easy access' to retrials if 'needed' that they'd be MORE likely to try someone in the face of shoddy evidence on the hopes of a shoddy defense. See again Mr. Kim's father, who (as I recall) avoided actual trial. Presumably because there was not enough evidence for an actual trial (though, obviously enough for a review by his professional peers that was very trial like).  In your proposed change, prosecutors would be more willing to bring cases to trial on the off chance it was winnable, rather than waiting until they had enough facts.  

Quote from: John MorrowThat said, I do think that if you wanted to argue that loosening the protections against double jeopardy would encourage sloppy police work and might encourage prosecutors to perform hunting expedition prosecutions against people with sketchy evidence because they assume that they could get a second shot at it, I might be pursuaded that's a legitimate enough concern to keep things the way that they are.

Yup. And then some. See above.

Quote from: John MorrowI suggested that you failed to read it because your characterization of various aspects of the example seemed to ignore quite a few details in the case.  For example, you'd rather blame a sloppy prosecutor than a lazy jury for the acquittal.  And you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the photos that seemed to ignore details that were available.  If that was an honest mistake, that's fine.  I miss things, too.  But I'd appreciate you cutting me the same sort of slack when I make mistakes.

Yeah, thats it. I just dredged up memories of a trial that happened in 1988 and used those to come up with any old details that filled my brain.   In your prior post you actually cover what is in the photos, which I assure you is not available through wikipedia.  It seems to me that if the conclusions I reached after reading it don't match your own that there are quite a few possible reasons.

The least likely is that I simply failed to read it, yet here we are.

More likely: You read into it what you wanted to support your outraged moral dignity, I read into it what I wanted to support my sense that destroying the foundations of our legal system is unwarrented.  In other words, we read it through our own filters. Mine are no less functional than yours, so stop accusing me of shoddy reading for not.being.you.

Also likely: Given your apparent access to the photographs of the case (not available through the link you provided), you have read far more about it than I have. Doubly so since apparently this one, twenty year old case, is upsetting enough to you that you seem to think it justifies... well, you know.  Thus you seem to have some very strong feelings about this case.  Thus, you have access to other sources than the Wiki and simply assumed that if I didn't see what you saw, the fault was mine, not yours for providing the quick and dirty link rather than the full law library (which, I assure you I would not have read anyway, having better things to think about).

Of course, since I disagree with you, you naturally went for the most insulting, if least likely, possibility.


As far as I am concerned this matter was decided for me eons before I ever heard of Mel. I knew that there would be a day when I was confronted with some morally outrageous circumstances that challenged the conviction that the way we have it is the right way. And I realized that I was fine with that, that it was a price I was willing to bear.  

Amazingly enough, while I can understand your moral outrage, I actually don't sympathize with it nearly as much as you, or I, expect. Really, I don't. I will sleep no worse for Mel walking free. Its not because setting him free is the righteous choice of my viewpoint, but because, quite literally, I don't view the death of one woman, no matter how tragic or horrible, nor the freedom of one monster, even if he had escaped 17 years of prison, worth destroying the foundation of our entire culture.  

And while there is a hint of hyperbole in there, I agree with the guys that came up with all this stuff after years and years of debate over it all. Those protections are there to keep our nation free. And yes, they have weakened over the years, and yes our moral dignity has taken a few hits here and there.  Those, however, are not justification for simply tossing it all away, for opening the door to tyranny wide and saying 'come on by, have some tea and stay awhile'.

I don't TRUST your 'alternative controls', John. I see no reason to trust them. I see in them the potential for just as many, if not MORE miscarrages of justice.  I see them making things worse in the long run.  Without fail.  

I see all the nightmarish visions of our society crumbling coming to pass far faster than they ought, and I will not stand idly by and let that happen.

Quote from: SpikeNo, you keep bringing up the book as if he has admitted his guilt incontrovertably, which he has not. So its speculation.

Then the book is irrelevant.  I really don't care.  i was simply trying to exclude it being raised as "compelling new evidence".

Quote from: SpikeWhat he SAYS about his case is directly controverted by the evidence readily to hand.

As I mentioned, I think the incompetence of the prosecutor is irrelevant to the point I was making.  I'll acknowledge that the prosecutor made mistakes, including some pretty stupid ones.  Even if he was entirely incompetent, who pays for his mistakes?

Quote from: SpikeAnd I mentioned that. Remember when I asked you if your next step was to toss out jury trials to ensure proper convictions, John? I wasn't doing that because I thought it sounded cute.

No, it sounded like some more of the hyperbole you've been slinging throughout this conversation.  Your statement was, "And what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?"  Maybe that tied back to the jury in this case in your mind but that certainly wasn't clear to me.  If you want to make it easier to tell when you are being cute and when you are being serious, spend less time being cute.

Quote from: SpikeReally now? Part of a prosecutors job, in fact one might argue the most important part of a prosecutors job is to make the jury believe in his case. Building logical rational arguements that sway a judge who, in all likelihood is at least somewhat sympathetic to his message if only because they've seen it a thousand times before, is not the same, nor of the same import of convincing the fucking jury. And if the jury is in a hurry to get home for the holidays, then it is his fucking job to ensure that won't taint their decision. Moving for a mistrial so that another trial can be had, for example. Asking for a holiday break so the Jury comes back less distracted. I don't know the details, but I surely know that he has tools available to him to ensure the Jury doesn't just wiff the case 'because'.

As far as I know, a judge can't properly call for a mistrial after the jury has reached a verdict.  If judges could do that, it would gut the double jeopardy protections far more than anything I've been discussing as judges could call mistrials whenever they didn't like the verdict.  Why didn't the judge call for a mistrial before the verdict?  Maybe because he couldn't imagine the jury acquitting him for the reasons that they did.

Quote from: SpikeAnd for the third or fourth fucking time: Yes, the jury is at fault too. Wanna get rid of the 'trial by jury' clause?

Well, gee, why don't you try answering some of the questions I ask three or four times, like why you are fine with all sorts of other legal mechanism such as warrants and grand juries and, yes, juries that do a pretty awful job in practice of keeping innocent people out of courtrooms and out of prisons?  Everyone seems to cherry pick the parts of my posts that they want to reply to and the questions that they want to answer and I don't constantly whine about it.

But to answer your question, I do think jury selection process is awful and, through peremptory challenges, jury doctoring, and the jury duty process, often guarantees that the people least qualified to make a fair judgment are selected.  As one comedian put it, when you sit in front of a jury you'll know that your fate is in the hands of twelve people too stupid to find a way out of jury duty.  Before you accuse me, yet again, of conspiring to undermine the foundations of Western civilization, bear in mind that bad juries are also responsible for putting innocent people behind bars.

Quote from: SpikeAnd why not? They had, as his star witness, his accomplice, after all. Why do you think I said they should have known he had evidence at his house, evidence they should have found? Because they fucking had his accomplise on tenterhooks!    And since we know that if the evidence they had was strong enough to get past the grand jury phase, then it was strong enough to get a warrent to tear his house appart looking for evidence.  They DO tear houses appart, you know. Checking under floorboards should have been a common practice even in the good ole days of 1988.

They searched the house twice and didn't find it.  But I did find comments on a web page suggesting some incompetence here.  Apparently the FBI profilers told them that he would have kept the pictures but they didn't tear the house apart.

But this also brings us back to the points I raised about warrants and how you feel about them.  The protection against search and seizure is that the police need to show probable cause (some evidence that a person might be guilty), explain the search that they want to do, and get a judge to sign off on it.  So here you are advocating literally tearing a person's house apart who may be innocent because the police have reason to believe that they might find evidence of a crime.  So you are all for literally tearing a person's house apart over probable cause and fine with running them through a trial the first time based on the assessment of a grand jury, both of which catch plenty of innocent people to the point of economic ruin and imprisonment, but what I'm proposing will shake the very foundations of our justice system?  Would you care to explain

Quote from: SpikeAnd how do you know that, had he been convicted of murder instead of Perjury, he wouldn't have been out in 2006 anyway?

Rape + Torture + Murder usually don't lead to a stupidly light sentence, though I suppose you could argue that Mary Ann Shore's sentence was stupidly light since she was there, too.

Quote from: SpikeNo amount of retrials will change the fact that some convicted murderers get stupidly light sentances.  Yet, for some reason, you feel that this particular case is exceptional enough (despite the fact he served a long time) to justify it? Weak sauce.

Yes, I do, for two reasons.  First, I don't believe his sentence would have been stupidly light -- certainly not if he were tried now with those pictures of the crime in progress as evidence.  Second, the sentences that he did receive for perjury were clearly an attempt by the prosecutors to do an end-run around the double jeopardy protections that you claim are the foundation of the American justice system.  As several articles about Ignatow point out, people regularly lie in their own defense and prosecutors almost never bring perjury charges against them.  Why in this case and why did he get 17 years for perjury?  Because they were trying to put him into jail for something -- anything.  You say you are concerned about prosecutors abusing their powers to negate jury verdicts and harass acquitted people yet that's exactly what the prosecutors did here.  Isn't using perjury charges to get a sentence comparable to what he would have gotten in a fair trial essentially the same thing as a second round of trials for the original crime?  Why do you apparently approve of this here?

Of course I should give you a pass for this since Ignatow seems to be exactly the kind of person you said you'd have put down.  Apparently he admitted his guilt in the killing as part of a plea bargain for the first perjury conviction and apparently showed little remorse for it.  

Quote from: SpikeWell peachy. Of course, you also seem to ignore that it would also allow harassment of people acquitted when prevaling opinion is that they are guilty.

That's happening already.  In fact, you just approved of the prosecutors in the Ignatow case using perjury charges to harass and jail Ignatow when they didn't like the verdict.  What's the substantive difference between the two?

Quote from: SpikeAnd since sloppy police work will always exist, there will always be more sloppy police and legal work to justify that harrassment.  We could even point out that, in the light of 'easy access' to retrials if 'needed' that they'd be MORE likely to try someone in the face of shoddy evidence on the hopes of a shoddy defense.

And all of that is available to sufficiently corrupt prosecutors now.  Instead of retrying people on the same charges, they creatively find new charges to try them on, like perjury or federal civil rights violations.  Maybe they could try Mel for violating Brenda Shaefer's federal civil rights or for a hate crime or for discrimination.  Would you approve of that like the perjury convictions?  Or maybe they could just retry him for the crime he actually committed because they have evidence that so effectively proves his guilt that they could get perjury convictions from it.  Beyond trials, we have such wonders a no-knock raids (that have been accidentally carried out on the wrong address), property forfeiture and confiscation laws, wage and tax rebate garnishing, children taken away from their parents without a trial because of accusations of abuse, and yet you are fine with all that but my suggestion will be the end of the justice system and invite unrestricted abuse of the innocent? :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeSee again Mr. Kim's father, who (as I recall) avoided actual trial. Presumably because there was not enough evidence for an actual trial (though, obviously enough for a review by his professional peers that was very trial like).  In your proposed change, prosecutors would be more willing to bring cases to trial on the off chance it was winnable, rather than waiting until they had enough facts.

I've acknowledged that's a legitimate concern but understanding the concern can allow it to be addressed.

Quote from: SpikeYeah, thats it. I just dredged up memories of a trial that happened in 1988 and used those to come up with any old details that filled my brain.   In your prior post you actually cover what is in the photos, which I assure you is not available through wikipedia.

Was, "When developed, the film showed Ignatow torturing and raping Schaefer, just as Shore had described. Ignatow's face was not in the pictures, but body hair patterns and moles matched him perfectly." somehow not clear to you?  It looks like a pretty plain English description of what's in the photos and why they implicate Ignatow to me.

Here, let me give you a longer excerpt with the text in question bolded to help you find it:

   New evidence

Six months after Ignatow's acquittal, however, a carpetlayer working in Ignatow's old house,which had been sold to fund his defense, pulled up a length of carpet in a hallway. Under it he found a floor vent had been carpeted over. Inside the vent, the carpet layer found a plastic bag, taped to hold it inside the vent. He handed it over to the new owners who knew who the previous owner was Ignatow. Inside the bag was the jewelry Schaefer had taken with her to return on the night of her disappearance and three rolls of undeveloped film. When developed, the film showed Ignatow torturing and raping Schaefer, just as Shore had described. Ignatow's face was not in the pictures, but body hair patterns and moles matched him perfectly.

Can you find it yet?  Maybe I should ask Wikipedia to put it inside of a set of "blink" tags for you?

Go ahead.  Tell me again how carefully you read the Wikipedia article and assure me again that the what's in the photos is not covered by the Wikipedia article. :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeIt seems to me that if the conclusions I reached after reading it don't match your own that there are quite a few possible reasons.

The least likely is that I simply failed to read it, yet here we are.

It has nothing to do with the fact you are drawing different conclusions.  It has to do with the fact that, for example, you assure me above that the Wikipedia article doesn't contain information about what's in the photos that it clearly does contain.  I sometimes get careless skimming articles, too, but when someone tells me that it looks like I'm missing something important, I make sure I'm actually, you know, not missing something important before I get all indignant about it.

Quote from: SpikeMore likely: You read into it what you wanted to support your outraged moral dignity, I read into it what I wanted to support my sense that destroying the foundations of our legal system is unwarrented.  In other words, we read it through our own filters. Mine are no less functional than yours, so stop accusing me of shoddy reading for not.being.you.

I'm not accusing you of shoddy reading  for not.being.me.  I'm accusing you of shoddy reading for not only knowing the answer to a question you asked that's clearly answered in the Wikipedia article.  And then you compound the problem by assuring me that the information isn't in the article which means that you either missed it a second time or you didn't bother to double-check.  And that's all somehow my fault?

Quote from: SpikeAlso likely: Given your apparent access to the photographs of the case (not available through the link you provided), you have read far more about it than I have.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeDoubly so since apparently this one, twenty year old case, is upsetting enough to you that you seem to think it justifies... well, you know.  Thus you seem to have some very strong feelings about this case.

Yes, I have strong feelings about a woman being raped, tortured, and murdered and the perpetrators going free, whether they are Nazi concentration camp guards, police officers, or a lone psychopath.  Especially when the guilty party is known.

Earlier, you stated that you were concerned about people committing other crimes and even argued that such people should be put down (with seemingly little concern that innocent people might be "removed from society" permanently, too).  You expressed so much concern that John List might kill again even though he hadn't in nearly two decades yet seem quite unconcerned that Mel Ignatow, who apparently exhibits traits ever bit as psychopathic as John List based on the articles I've seen on both of them, walks the streets a free man.  Why no concern over the threat that Mel Ignatow posed to others?

Quote from: SpikeThus, you have access to other sources than the Wiki and simply assumed that if I didn't see what you saw, the fault was mine, not yours for providing the quick and dirty link rather than the full law library (which, I assure you I would not have read anyway, having better things to think about).

:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeOf course, since I disagree with you, you naturally went for the most insulting, if least likely, possibility.

Naturally.  Lead likely?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeAs far as I am concerned this matter was decided for me eons before I ever heard of Mel. I knew that there would be a day when I was confronted with some morally outrageous circumstances that challenged the conviction that the way we have it is the right way. And I realized that I was fine with that, that it was a price I was willing to bear.

Yet you also seem willing to tolerate people being wrongly punished by the law in other ways.  You said that you support the death penalty, apparently unconcerned about the possibility of innocent people being executed, something that has most certainly happened before and will happen again.  You recommend that the police tear the houses of accused murders apart on the basis of probable cause in order the be thorough and not be accused of incompetence, even though the person might turn out to be innocent if the police make a mistake.  Are you really concerned about protecting the innocent from abuse?  Are you really concerned concerned about the authorities abusing their powers?  It seems like that depends on the issue you are discussing.

Quote from: SpikeAmazingly enough, while I can understand your moral outrage, I actually don't sympathize with it nearly as much as you, or I, expect. Really, I don't. I will sleep no worse for Mel walking free. Its not because setting him free is the righteous choice of my viewpoint, but because, quite literally, I don't view the death of one woman, no matter how tragic or horrible, nor the freedom of one monster, even if he had escaped 17 years of prison, worth destroying the foundation of our entire culture.

I don't think it will destroy the foundation of our entire culture.  Do you think that England has destroyed the foundation of their entire culture by weakening double jeopardy protections?

This page says, "Madison's version of the guarantee as introduced in the House of Representatives read: 'No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.' Opposition in the House proceeded on the proposition that the language could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant and would therefore either constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty or, more likely, result in a detriment to defendants because appellate courts would be loath to reverse convictions if no new trial could follow, but a motion to strike "or trial" from the clause failed. As approved by the Senate, however, and accepted by the House for referral to the States, the present language of the clause was inserted."   So at least some of those who ratified the Bill of Rights did have at least some concern over freeing the guilty).  

And while there is a hint of hyperbole in there, I agree with the guys that came up with all this stuff after years and years of debate over it all. Those protections are there to keep our nation free. And yes, they have weakened over the years, and yes our moral dignity has taken a few hits here and there.  Those, however, are not justification for simply tossing it all away, for opening the door to tyranny wide and saying 'come on by, have some tea and stay awhile'.

Quote from: SpikeI don't TRUST your 'alternative controls', John. I see no reason to trust them. I see in them the potential for just as many, if not MORE miscarrages of justice.  I see them making things worse in the long run.  Without fail.

Yet you apparently trust much weaker controls to warrant searches and seizures and endorse their use to tear a persons house apart, apparently to the studs.  You trust the grand jury system to act as a gatekeeper to indictments for serious federal crimes.  You trust the courts to determine guilt accurately enough that you endorse the death penalty.  And you apparently approve of the use of rarely used perjury prosecutions of a man after he's been acquitted of the charges against him when new evidence is found yet argue that allowing an actual criminal trial for the same crime that would almost certainly convict him would destroy the foundations of our entire culture.  I'm looking for some consistent philosophy or value here and I'm honestly having trouble finding one.

Quote from: SpikeI see all the nightmarish visions of our society crumbling coming to pass far faster than they ought, and I will not stand idly by and let that happen.

Unless you are actively doing something to fight what's already happening, which includes nearly everything that you say you fear about my proposal,
you (like me and most others) actually are standing idly by while it happens.

John, I am going to go out on a limb and assume you are utterly unaware that it takes a good fifeteen minutes to fully read, in detail, every line of one of your posts, particularly if I plan to respond in kind.   On top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

Again. You are upset because the parts of the article that I paid the most attention to are not the parts of the article you paid attention to.

I'm going to go further out on the limb and suggest you have a lot more time and energy to put into your posts, including all the research and linking and quote chopping.

I already waste enough time on the internet as it is without attempting to match your herculean efforts. Given that I am not paid to surf the web reading up on 20 year old murders, nor is my future career in academia linked to the throughness of my research.  At best this is a diversion for me.

In other words: Stop being a dick.  Its one line out of a good couple dozen... no its two phrases in one sentence out of a good couple dozen pages (that's 8.5x11 inch pages, not internet pages) worth of posts/links from you.  On a forum I read for my own amusement. Get off the hobby horse and realize that your word, especially your borrowed word, is not the fucking gospel I need to hang off of or burn forever.

That said: On warrents, you originally adressed that to Mr. Kim as I recall. As such it has been of a vastly lower priority for me to address it, as the interloper in the entire 'civil liberties' discussion to begin with. However, since you apparently won't feel properly validated until I do address it:


Obviously warrents for searches were held by the framers as a valid exemption to the 'Search and Seizure' clause to begin with.  Double Jeapardy did not justify, or rather was probably deemed to dangerous to allow for that sort of exemption, thus it was left out.

Moving beyond that incredibly self evident distinction, which boils down to trusting that the foundation of our system is sound (my perspective) it really doesn't address why and how that decision might have come to be, and thus can continue to stand.

There is the entire aspect of 'unreasonable' searches. You know, since Searches alone are not forbidden.   the process of determining which searches are reasonable or not is up to the judges, not the people who want to do the searching (checks and balances, seperation of powers, whatever you want to call it) which limits the abuses.

That isn't even beginning to address the differences between searching for evidence of the crime (necessary to even consider having trials), which have to be regulated, and protecting the citizenry from a potentially overzealous prosecution, which is a defense, which can only be weakened by reduction of scope.  The language I'm using there is awkward, for which I can only apologize: But I know you, you're going to tear apart the language and pretend you missed the intent.

Its late, and as I said, this is a hobby for me, so I'm going to call this post off rather than continue to constantly recheck volume eight of John Morrow's posts on this subject to make sure I'm addressing ever niggling point you made.

In fact, I'll conceed the field. Not because you 'won the debate'. Its just that I don't have any desire to continue wading through your long, and ultimately repetitive posts.  I find that your moral outrage, particularly over this one case is such that you will not stop until you feel your sense of justice has been slaked. 17 years in prison isn't enough, doubly jeapardy protections being trashed isn't enough.  When you can't get juries to play ball you'll start moving against them.  Its blind, John, mindless.  You either fail to notice that, or you're single minded determination to write an entire encyclopedia in this thread about it has made you present your case as such against your intent.

Either way, my ability to amuse myself by poking a fanatic with sticks is long since satiated.  You've grown tedious, again.  You smother active debate under the weight of your vomitous posts and your insistent focus on the minutae of whatever tangent catches your fancy.  

If you had some other argument other than your singular appeal to emotion, to exception, there might have been some actual dialog here.

Quote from: SpikeOn top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

No.  I'm actually not offended at all.  You're the one who spent a substantial part of your last reply taking me to task and accusing me of purposely insulting you... for nothing because the information I was talking about was actually in the Wikipedia after all.  If you want me to be more forgiving of honest mistakes, you might want to try it yourself, too, and stop jumping to the conclusion that I'm purposely trying to misrepresent you or insult you.

Quote from: SpikeObviously warrents for searches were held by the framers as a valid exemption to the 'Search and Seizure' clause to begin with.  Double Jeapardy did not justify, or rather was probably deemed to dangerous to allow for that sort of exemption, thus it was left out.

Moving beyond that incredibly self evident distinction, which boils down to trusting that the foundation of our system is sound (my perspective) it really doesn't address why and how that decision might have come to be, and thus can continue to stand.

While I think the foundation of our system is generally sound, I don't think it's necessarily perfect and changes have been made since the founded (e.g., the 14th Amendment which extended Constitutional protections to the states).  There is an interesting quote on this page concerning the details of the double jeopardy clause:

   In this country, the common-law rule was in some cases limited to this rule and in other cases extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction. The rule's elevation to fundamental status by its inclusion in several state bills of rights following the Revolution continued the differing approaches. Madison's version of the guarantee as introduced in the House of Representatives read: "No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense." Opposition in the House proceeded on the proposition that the language could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant and would therefore either constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty or, more likely, result in a detriment to defendants because appellate courts would be loath to reverse convictions if no new trial could follow, but a motion to strike "or trial" from the clause failed. As approved by the Senate, however, and accepted by the House for referral to the States, the present language of the clause was inserted.

That suggests that the details of the provision in the Bill of Rights were just one possible way of dealing with the issue out of several and that even as the Bill of Rights was being ratified that at least some of the Founding Fathers shared my concern that it might free the guilty.

Quote from: SpikeOn top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

No.  I'm actually not offended at all.  You are the one who spent a substantial part of your last reply taking me to task and accusing me of purposely insulting you... for nothing because the information I was talking about was in the Wikipedia after all.  And if you want me to be more forgiving of honest mistakes, you might want to try it yourself, too, and stop jumping to the conclusion that I'm purposely trying to misrepresent you or insult you.

Quote from: SpikeThere is the entire aspect of 'unreasonable' searches. You know, since Searches alone are not forbidden.   the process of determining which searches are reasonable or not is up to the judges, not the people who want to do the searching (checks and balances, seperation of powers, whatever you want to call it) which limits the abuses.

Correct.  And my claim is that there are times when suspending the the protections against double jeopardy would make sense when it's very likely that the acquittal was in error.  I never suggested that the prosecutor who wants to retry a case have unilateral authority to do so.  I suggested a mechanism not unlike that used by warrants (a judge or panel of judges) or grand juries, with a particular set of criteria.  My question is that if you are willing to trust a judge to determine which searches and seizures are reasonable, why aren't you willing to trust a judge (or panel of judges) to determine if new evidence warrants another trial even if a person has already been acquitted.  And, yes, I know you start addressing that later in this reply.

Quote from: SpikeThat isn't even beginning to address the differences between searching for evidence of the crime (necessary to even consider having trials), which have to be regulated, and protecting the citizenry from a potentially overzealous prosecution, which is a defense, which can only be weakened by reduction of scope.  The language I'm using there is awkward, for which I can only apologize: But I know you, you're going to tear apart the language and pretend you missed the intent.

Searching for evidence can be quite abusive, especially when property is confiscated.  The US Secret Service nearly ran Steve Jackson Games out of business when they confiscated their office computers because they confused a game book with real hacking.  You mentioned tearing a person's house apart to look for evidence.  Imagine coming home to that, especially if you were innocent.  Several innocent people have had no-knock raids performed on their homes by mistake (the police had the wrong house) and pets have been shot and killed by the police, too, in the process of serving warrants.  My point here is that we tolerate that searches and seizures might sometimes be abused in order to get the bad guys.  

Now, to your point, yes it weakens the protections that are there.  But I don't think that weakening that protection is going to make much of a difference to innocent people in practice.  There are already so many ways that an overzealous prosecutor can abuse someone and even ways in which prosecutors and essentially retry acquitted people when they get creative (e.g., the Rodney King police tried a second time for Federal charges, OJ being tried in civil court, Mel Ignatow being tossed in prison for lying about his guilt, etc.).  And I have little doubt that if OJ Simpson is convicted of his escapades in Las Vegas that his sentence will be be about as harsh as allowed in order to compensate for his earlier acquittal.  So I don't find the argument that it will encourage rogue prosecutions or in some generally way undermine justice very compelling.  Clearly you do.

Now I have acknowledged that allowing do overs could encourage prosecutors to be lazy and to charge people with crimes before they have a solid case.  I do find that argument much more compelling and would want any reform of the double standard protections to address that concern.

Quote from: SpikeIn fact, I'll conceed the field. Not because you 'won the debate'. Its just that I don't have any desire to continue wading through your long, and ultimately repetitive posts.

That's fine.  We're also blowing the memory limit of the server when this thread is looked at with the 100 messages per page limit.  I've had to dial down the limit to 40 to even read this anymore.  I've been spending a lot of time on this because I found it interesting, and I use it to test my own ideas to see if I think they stand up or not.

Quote from: SpikeI find that your moral outrage, particularly over this one case is such that you will not stop until you feel your sense of justice has been slaked. 17 years in prison isn't enough, doubly jeapardy protections being trashed isn't enough.  When you can't get juries to play ball you'll start moving against them.  Its blind, John, mindless.  You either fail to notice that, or you're single minded determination to write an entire encyclopedia in this thread about it has made you present your case as such against your intent.

The beginning of this tangent was my claim that the purpose of the justice system is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.  As part of that, I claimed that the purpose of civil rights protections are not to help criminals evade justice.  They do that as an unfortunate side effect of protecting the innocent.  Given all of that, I do not think it's reasonable to consider changes to those parts of any justice system where it makes mistakes, whether it's letting the guilty go free or punishing the innocent.  

Quote from: SpikeEither way, my ability to amuse myself by poking a fanatic with sticks is long since satiated.  You've grown tedious, again.  You smother active debate under the weight of your vomitous posts and your insistent focus on the minutae of whatever tangent catches your fancy.

If I had to spend less time responding to accusations about my motives, my replies would be shorter.  

Quote from: SpikeIf you had some other argument other than your singular appeal to emotion, to exception, there might have been some actual dialog here.

I've made several other arguments.  I tried to discuss the specific risks inherent in the sort of reform I was talking about and I largely was giving a heaping serving of generic FUD -- if you change anything, it will all come crashing down.  Instead, I wound up figuring out some of the risks myself (they may have seemed self-evidently part of your position but they were not clear to me).  

I tried to engage in a discussion of costs and benefits and risks and despite your protests that I'm merely appealing to emotion, I was given a heaping serving of hyperbole about undermining Western civilization, told that my views are blind rage, and given personal examples such as John Kim's father.  And let's not forget all of the whining that impugned my motives ever few response cycles.  

Heck, you're not even big enough to acknowledge that you were wrong when you not only assured me that information about the photos was not in the Wikipedia article but used your certainty to accuse me of purposely and unjustly insulting you.  Instead, you not only make excuses but blame me for your mistake.  

Still I'm not offended.  Simply amazed.

Quote from: John MorrowStill I'm not offended.  Simply amazed.

Well, this is therpgsite. Which is basically the same political enviroment (mostly left, with some crazy left) that rpgnet is- but without the moderation to silence you. I wouldn't have expected more that what you just encountered, but you're ever the optimist John. I hope someday you're more correct in your rose-shaded outlook than I am in mine.


I've browsed through some of the thread, and noted that they've started attacking you over your posting style, as if that alone proves you wrong.

Maybe your optimism has a point. If that's what they've been reduced to, you've hit something soft and they are flailing in pain to make whatever response they can. It's possible that someone on the fence will see this for what it is, or maybe someday recall it as one of a series of planted doubts.

It's happened before: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full

Good luck John.

Mmhmm. Those crazy lefties. Ayup.

As if it hasn't just been the same two people for the last couple of pages, at length, anyhow. Just blame it on the left-wing.

Quote from: Thanatos02Mmhmm. Those crazy lefties. Ayup.

As if it hasn't just been the same two people for the last couple of pages, at length, anyhow. Just blame it on the left-wing.

But, but, the communists!  Won't somebody please think of the COMMUNISTS!

Postmodernism

Nothing would solve the issue of child porn like self-referential humor and socialized medicine!

Quote from: Thanatos02Nothing would solve the issue of child porn like self-referential humor and socialized medicine!

And Internet forum sarcasm!  That's the greatest force for good in the world!