Some random legal thoughts on the JJ trial

[argh!]

oh gawd, um75 is working hard (again) to try to show us all how very "smart" he is. i think i'm getting the formula down, though:

confabulate, blather, obfuscate, blather, insert single factual statement, italicize conjecture to make it appear factual, blather, obfuscate, then end the entire diatribe by claiming, as if stating the truth, that 'jane doe lied' (albeit indirectly, in this case). then i think he probably feels good about himself for some bizarre reason.

anyway, sorry to interrupt. i think you are doing a great job.

 

[UMGriz75]

oh gawd, um75 is working hard (again) to try to show us all how very "smart" he is. i think i'm getting the formula down, though:

confabulate, blather, obfuscate, blather, insert single factual statement, italicize conjecture to make it appear factual, blather, obfuscate, then end the entire diatribe by claiming, as if stating the truth, that 'jane doe lied' (albeit indirectly, in this case). then i think he probably feels good about himself for some bizarre reason.

anyway, sorry to interrupt. i think you are doing a great job.

I've always appreciated "Aargh!'s" clear, concise approach: when always being wrong on facts, attack the posters. Then, attack the posters. And, to make sure that no one misunderstand him, attack the posters.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[argh!]

oh gawd, um75 is working hard (again) to try to show us all how very "smart" he is. i think i'm getting the formula down, though:

confabulate, blather, obfuscate, blather, insert single factual statement, italicize conjecture to make it appear factual, blather, obfuscate, then end the entire diatribe by claiming, as if stating the truth, that 'jane doe lied' (albeit indirectly, in this case). then i think he probably feels good about himself for some bizarre reason.

anyway, sorry to interrupt. i think you are doing a great job.

I've always appreciated "Aargh!'s" clear, concise approach: when always being wrong on facts, attack the posters. Then, attack the posters. And, to make sure that no one misunderstand him, attack the posters.

Thank you for your participation.

my clear and concise approach is to not not play your egoistic game, as like many i long ago realized that you are a semi-clever individual who is about as intellectually flexible as a steel post. as such, any use of reasoned argument with you is useless, as it will elicit a very long and partially rational, but ultimately flawed attempt at 'proving' you are correct about any and all of your assertions regarding 'jane doe', the law, or whatever else you see fit to ramble on about.

i am glad you approve of my participation

 

[grizfromhel]

argh why not attack the ideas of the poster, that would take some integrity, instead of your particularly snide and smug ad hominem attacks. they indeed get tiresome.

 

[Sportin' Life]

Of course you fail to point out that the study you are quoting is of rape cases in Virginia between 1974 and 1987, and Virginia passed their 'rape shield' law in 1981, so your inference is complete bunk. I say that you failed to point that out, because you seem to be fairly clever and that fact surely crossed your mind but you decided to make your point anyways. But you know what people want to hear, and so you'll get some

Of course, in your typical clever style you neglected to point out:

1) I posted the link.

Pretty "clever" of me to hide the study like that, no?

2) I also specifically said "And since that study the rules "protecting" accusers have increased immeasurably ..." Gee ya think that "fails" to note that the "rape shield law" was passed? Really, do you think people are that dumb? By pointing out specifically that the law changed since the study? Are you that dense? Or did you just decide "to make your point anyway?" But what the heck, let's examine your logic: do you think the rate of false convictions fell after the rape shield laws gave more protections to those making false claims? Really? That is a marvelous piece of logic there!

3) Then, after that, I also specifically stated "A more recent study, by the Department of Justice, shows that "every year since 1989 ..." which brings the studies up to a more modern time frame.

Don't you suspect that objective readers will see you as trying to read too much into something thereby, in fact, intentionally misreading it or intentionally misrepresenting it yourself?

It's pretty clear on the face of the post.

You fabricated an argument that is facially false. It reinforces the findings of these studies that people feel a need to lie about rape; both in fabricated claims of rape, the high gender specificity of the people willing to lie under oath about rape, and fabricated arguments about the statistics that, if they can lie about those too, the unpleasant facts will somehow, "go away."

So what was the point of posting the study, and quoting the meaningless statistic as if it were meaningful to your argument?

Here's what the study says about people falsely convicted of rape.

In Virginia in the 70s and 80s a lot of black men were falsely accused of rape, and juries would convict them. It says nothing about whether any woman made any knowingly false claims. It surely must have happened, but how often is really unknowable.

It really doesn't say in either of the reports - though I will take your word on the second one since your were unable to find this information in a readable form (A highly distinguished study indeed) that any person ever made a false allegation of rape. It says in the second source that the primary suspect is often exonerated by evidence, but how often that relates to what you call a "false report" is questionable. Certainly there could be cases where the person is misidentified.

Anyways, since I have a life if you are willing to write an 1800 word essay in response I will indulge you in allowing you to declare that yourself the victor in this matter. Even argh will be impressed with your voluminous response.

Eagerly awaiting the next tome.

 

[UMGriz75]

In Virginia in the 70s and 80s a lot of black men were falsely accused of rape, and juries would convict them. It says nothing about whether any woman made any knowingly false claims.

Given that you no longer can even make sense, if you ever did, why do you bother?

 

[Sportin' Life]

In Virginia in the 70s and 80s a lot of black men were falsely accused of rape, and juries would convict them. It says nothing about whether any woman made any knowingly false claims.

Given that you no longer can even make sense, if you ever did, why do you bother?

You think that in all of those cases, none of them were cases of mistaken identity? Or do you really think that in all of these cases the woman submits to a rape test, and obviously must have some evidence of someone's sperm in her, but she willfully reports the wrong person raped her? Tell me when you start making sense.

 

[UMGriz75]

In Virginia in the 70s and 80s a lot of black men were falsely accused of rape, and juries would convict them. It says nothing about whether any woman made any knowingly false claims.

Given that you no longer can even make sense, if you ever did, why do you bother?

You think that in all of those cases, none of them were cases of mistaken identity? Or do you really think that in all of these cases the woman submits to a rape test, and obviously must have some evidence of someone's sperm in her, but she willfully reports the wrong person raped her? Tell me when you start making sense.

They "all look the same," right?

Nice one.

 

[argh!]

argh why not attack the ideas of the poster, that would take some integrity, instead of your particularly snide and smug ad hominem attacks. they indeed get tiresome.

my snide and smug attacks on you and your friend are made in response to the two of you doing the same to 'jane doe', the county attorneys, and whoever else you choose to denigrate because of a football player is involved in a case, instead of joe nobody. you guys fall all over yourselves trying to "prove" that 'jane doe' and the cops, prosecutors, etc are out to do evil, which would be fine if you didn't use the same tactics you accuse them of employing while doing so. you know, like emphasizing a point that isn't relevant but works for your case.

 

[UMGriz75]

argh why not attack the ideas of the poster, that would take some integrity, instead of your particularly snide and smug ad hominem attacks. they indeed get tiresome.

my snide and smug attacks on you and your friend are made in response to the two of you doing the same to 'jane doe', the county attorneys, and whoever else you choose to denigrate because of a football player is involved in a case, instead of joe nobody. you guys fall all over yourselves trying to "prove" that 'jane doe' and the cops, prosecutors, etc are out to do evil, which would be fine if you didn't use the same tactics you accuse them of employing while doing so. you know, like emphasizing a point that isn't relevant but works for your case.

As though you have the faintest idea.

The point, of course, was that men who could not have possibly committed the crime were adjudged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in higher percentages than for any other crime, before it became easier to convict them because of changes in rules designed to protect accusers.

And of course, in all such cases, the accuser's testimony must have been false.

You think that's irrelevant, now claiming that it isn't, or doesn't ... or something because the changes in the laws didn't offer more protections for the accused, but rather less. So, you figger you must be right about something, even after citations to you about the average "Joe Nobody" who served an average of seven years in prison because of false allegations. And if anyone can follow your snide, smug ad hominem attacks to any logical conclusion, the conclusion would be that, having been wrong on the case in question, you can't let go and admit you were, in fact, wrong, and have found other, innovative ways to distort even a factual record, to vindicate your deep-seated prejudices which were not vindicated in this case, and for which you remain pathetically bitter.

 

[PlayerRep]

argh, please stop. Your comments are now going too far.

 

[fencer24]

Here's what the study says about people falsely convicted of rape.

In Virginia in the 70s and 80s a lot of black men were falsely accused of rape, and juries would convict them. It says nothing about whether any woman made any knowingly false claims. It surely must have happened, but how often is really unknowable.

It really doesn't say in either of the reports - though I will take your word on the second one since your were unable to find this information in a readable form (A highly distinguished study indeed) that any person ever made a false allegation of rape. It says in the second source that the primary suspect is often exonerated by evidence, but how often that relates to what you call a "false report" is questionable. Certainly there could be cases where the person is misidentified.

Anyways, since I have a life if you are willing to write an 1800 word essay in response I will indulge you in allowing you to declare that yourself the victor in this matter. Even argh will be impressed with your voluminous response.

Eagerly awaiting the next tome.

Here is a very good short read which shows that false accusations that could be proven (polygraphs given to both accuser and accused followed by recantation of the accuser only) http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They did not count those who flunked the poly, nor those where the defendant was acquitted.

Still had a 41% false accusation rate even with those high standards.