For Miranda: Damien and the Great Dane

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[chitown_alex]

However, the jury was too busy thinking about the inadmissible Misskelley confession and, perhaps, would have found said inadmissible evidence as substantially persuading.

 

So you are saying that every member of the jury was so busy thinking about Misskelley that they couldn’t comprehend any other of the facts brought to trial…

Wow. Incredible on several levels, at the least how you could possibly know what another person is thinking, much less a dozen. You may have some talents Alex, but I think we can all safely presume that mind reading is not one of them.

If you were practicing your courtroom bluster, as a presumed neutral, I’d give that comment 2/10. Are you aware of the perils of oratory over-blow, Alex? It might be worth some study time, if you ever want to make a believable summation.

Kimbo

It's not mind-reading Kimbo.  There is substantial evidence, provided in the 2nd Writ Petition, to create at least an issue of fact as to the juror's use of the inadmissible Misskelley confession.  I'll go on the record and say I could be wrong, but the evidence is compelling.

[chitown_alex]

Where did you get these quotes from?  Any citations?

You're supposed to be the "Law student" you pathetic waste of oxygen?

Try looking up the definition of "cumulative evidence"

Then try looking up Arkansas's 1780 statute.

Use Google if need be.

Then if it's not too much trouble, could you make some sort of effort to defend your moronic existence here?

It sure is easy to type ideas without worrying about authority.  The beauty of the internet, huh Farm?

[Farm]

So in other words - you have no intentions of addressing the many erronious claims you have made here.

And you wonmder why nobody takes you seriously.

[Kimbo]

Alex, you posted:

However, the jury was too busy thinking about the inadmissible Misskelley confession and, perhaps, would have found said inadmissible evidence as substantially persuading.

When questioned, you continued:

I'll go on the record and say I could be wrong, but the evidence is compelling.

Why don't we try a re-write::

I'll go on the record and say I could be wrong, however IMO  the jury was too busy thinking about the inadmissible Misskelley confession and, perhaps, would have found said inadmissible evidence as substantially persuading  the evidence is compelling.

With the third option, the comment is open to debate, whereas in the first it is presented factually (otherwise known as Supporter Speak). It is untrustworthy and arguably immoral to state as fact things you could not possibly know to support your propagandist argument. You do know the difference, unless I've overestimated your intelligence. Please correct me if this is the case.

Opinions are not facts; and muddying them together is not upright behaviour, even for a lawyer.

Kimbo

[Miranda]

Hi Kimbo,

In the current climate of sloppy use of language it is so very easy to not express the very obvious nuances, after all it would be hell if lawyers spoke in 'lawyer speak' all the time!  Forsooth!!

Also I tend to think that the subtleties are either overlooked or missed by those who are trying to shred the debater rather than the content of the post.

Having said all that I am in total agreement with you on your re-edited version but I have to say that is what I understood all along from Alex' post.

There is 'compelling evidence' that the jury, de facto, considered the Misskelly confession in their deliberations but it is neither qualified nor quantified with any exactitude on any official record!

We are so lucky here having the laws of sub judice to the benefit of the charged getting a better chance at a fair trial!  Having worled as a journalist it appalls me that the media have wrested the rights of Judge, Jury (and even executioner in some instances) away from the courts and in to their own hands.

It is interesting that Treason was a dp crime and that helping the enemy with propoganda is treason!  Back then it was  whole countries and political institutions propagating it - now it is more media moguls and media personalities!  We so naively thought that TV was a great home entertainment system when in fact it is so very much more.

Miranda

[chitown_alex]

At least Miranda understood my comments.  Kimbo, on the other hand, used my comments as leverage to give me a lesson in grammar.  Isn't that something?  If everyone would be more comfortable, I could certainly write in legalese all the time.

[Miranda]

At least Miranda understood my comments.  Kimbo, on the other hand, used my comments as leverage to give me a lesson in grammar.  Isn't that something?  If everyone would be more comfortable, I could certainly write in legalese all the time.

Alex that is a bit below the belt!  To be fair you have to accept that Kimbo did it tactfully and gently.  She was pointing out to both sides of the debate how the 'argument' you presented ould be read two ways, depending on the mind set and agility of the reader.  As a pedant you have to imagine you are facing a group with a vast ability range and thus pitch as simply as possible to reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood or the content being misconstrued.  It is abundantly obvious that Kimbo, too, fully grasped the point you were making and was just 'simplifying' for the benefit of both you and others who may well have missed it!  Her 'reduction', in terms of logic, was masterful!  I too would far rather that level of 'criticism' rather than the juvenile flood of invective and name calling that is employed by some on all sides.  Shooting messengers tends to only occur when the message cannot be countered.  Would you prefer she were as rude as others can be sometimes?

Everyone here tends to take things far too personally sometimes and thus more antagonism breeds and bitchiness moves in!  I know I am guilty of that but I try to curb my instinct to lash back as it can only be counter productive.  Just imagine selling ice to Eskimos, a waste of time!

The last thing needed in this forum is more 'legaleeze' ~ it would be tedious in the extreme unless totally necessary.  Anyway there is always, in a democracy, the right to refer to yet another opinion!  Like expert witnesses.  The larger wallet frequently wins the day unfortunately!  Also nothing is more dire than those who parrot in an attempt to shore arguments up.  It can also be highly amusing, but that is not the intention!

Miranda

[chitown_alex]

At least Miranda understood my comments.  Kimbo, on the other hand, used my comments as leverage to give me a lesson in grammar.  Isn't that something?  If everyone would be more comfortable, I could certainly write in legalese all the time.

Alex that is a bit below the belt!  To be fair you have to accept that Kimbo did it tactfully and gently.  She was pointing out to both sides of the debate how the 'argument' you presented ould be read two ways, depending on the mind set and agility of the reader.  As a pedant you have to imagine you are facing a group with a vast ability range and thus pitch as simply as possible to reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood or the content being misconstrued.  It is abundantly obvious that Kimbo, too, fully grasped the point you were making and was just 'simplifying' for the benefit of both you and others who may well have missed it!  Her 'reduction', in terms of logic, was masterful!  I too would far rather that level of 'criticism' rather than the juvenile flood of invective and name calling that is employed by some on all sides.  Shooting messengers tends to only occur when the message cannot be countered.  Would you prefer she were as rude as others can be sometimes?

Everyone here tends to take things far too personally sometimes and thus more antagonism breeds and bitchiness moves in!  I know I am guilty of that but I try to curb my instinct to lash back as it can only be counter productive.  Just imagine selling ice to Eskimos, a waste of time!

The last thing needed in this forum is more 'legaleeze' ~ it would be tedious in the extreme unless totally necessary.  Anyway there is always, in a democracy, the right to refer to yet another opinion!  Like expert witnesses.  The larger wallet frequently wins the day unfortunately!  Also nothing is more dire than those who parrot in an attempt to shore arguments up.  It can also be highly amusing, but that is not the intention!

Miranda

If it was below the belt, I apologize.  However, many comments directed at me on here are often below the belt.  With that being said, what was the point of Kimbo's description of an argument going both ways when it is clear any argument can be read in several ways.  The question raised is what the intentions of the commentator are.  If I were to rewrite fellow board member's arguments, imagine the backlash.  As far as using legalese, I wouldn't use it regardless of the circumstances.  Writing in plain English here is a welcome departure from my legal writing at work and school.

[TJM]

Alex vs. Miranda= 

[Kimbo]

It’s not a lesson in grammar, Alex. You are either being obtuse, or really are not as bright as you present yourself.

Alex, you are a propagandist. You present opinion as fact and that is not a question of grammar, it’s a matter of truth.

I don’t expect you to recognise it, truth that is, but it’s that big pink elephant that you refuse to see. A propagandist will, as unlikely as that pink elephant in the room is, give 50 reasons why it should not be there, and have some people in the room believing it.

This is a psychological trick, not an ethical practice. But put it down to grammar if that’s as far as you want to take it, Alex. Just tell me, is that what you really think?

Kimbo

[Miranda]

If it was below the belt, I apologize.  However, many comments directed at me on here are often below the belt.  With that being said, what was the point of Kimbo's description of an argument going both ways when it is clear any argument can be read in several ways.  The question raised is what the intentions of the commentator are.  If I were to rewrite fellow board member's arguments, imagine the backlash.  As far as using legalese, I wouldn't use it regardless of the circumstances.  Writing in plain English here is a welcome departure from my legal writing at work and school.

One of the main 'problems' on these boards is that good 'plain English' is not used nearly enough!  Anglo Saxon earthiness, incorrect word usage and bitchy invective tend to rule!

'Tis the way of the world - hell they are 'publishing' books written on cel phones in text speak now in Japan.  The only saving grace of this new fad is that maybe the perpetuate'rs (?) will all succumb to RSI and it will die out!

Alex you have surely to agree that Kimbo's gentle rebuttal of your post was far nicer than what might have been expected?  She deflected those and there was only one, I think, 'up yours' type response!

The issue of manners, or lack thereof, in posts is compounded by both sides so the best way forward is to try to not to punch 'below the belt' ever.

We have to remember that not everyone here has the mental agility to immediately distinguish what is 'factual' and what is merely an opinion on the given facts commonly accepted as known.  Hell, if some find it hard to distinguish between truncated 2nd case present of the verb to be and the second person possessive pronoun or even 'to' and 'too' too, you have to pitch your discussion to that or just continue wining and dining on haute cuisine whilst others fall on to junk food or just get tanked up like lager louts.  Think of it is one giant mall with restaurants and fast food joints to cater for every taste imaginable and that , as it is pretty empty here, we have all met up to eat together and talk whilst enjoying the fare of our choice!*

Ignore the silly posts, enjoy the cut and thrust of the others and stay honest to yourself.   I have to admit I enjoyed Kimbo's opening in her last post above - but then it triggered memories of trying to get definitions of acute, right and obtuse angles entrenched in some of the less spatially bright 11 year olds!  The LCD of the norm would have been to say that you were thick and stupid and worse - good on her for not!  Nice one Cobber!

Miranda

* Not intended as a dig at normal typos but more at English usage.

[chitown_alex]

"It’s not a lesson in grammar, Alex. You are either being obtuse, or really are not as bright as you present yourself. "

Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.

[Kimbo]

No, it is not a perfect example, Alex. <sigh>

You were given two options, and it is now obvious you lean toward the latter. That's quite all right Alex, just don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. It's sorta unbecoming.

[Miranda]

"It’s not a lesson in grammar, Alex. You are either being obtuse, or really are not as bright as you present yourself. "

Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.

Dear, dear Alex,

You stated earlier:-

The question raised is what the intentions of the commentator are.

[/i][/size]

You then stated:-

Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.

[/i][/size

Granted, we have already established that we are in a mixed ability group, but we have also established a degree of recognition for the agility of some for more sophisticated debate!   

The expression 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind here!  The second quote of Kimbo's post which you used was so very obviously her opinion! 

Let us enjoy debate in it's full technicolour glory rather than simplifying, ad absurdium, to merely black and white?  Monochorme is both so boring and flat.

As stated before ~ the pavlovian response of jumping at the potential 'insult' perceived all the time is a pain - but I do have affection for pink elephants so will not use that analogy!  You, Alex, did it.  then Kimbo did - too funny for words.

Kimbo - let us not try to walk the path of absolute truths on this case as I fear that will never be known.  All we can do in our clumsy way is to  try to see an overview with all the information we have available to us and thus arrive at the closest facsimile of what we feel to be the truth for each of us.

TJM - this was never, for me, a battle between people so gawd knows what you were thinking in saying that you see "Alex vs. Miranda" as humorous?  I for one am enjoying the debate here.  Let us try not to reduce it to a playground fight.  Life would be very boring indeed if we all agreed with each other ALL the time.  The only agreement needed is that we are all allowed to present our views in a kindly manner.

Miranda

ps I never responded to the original post in this thread as it really was, to my mind, unworthy.  If you wish to believe in the totality of a young lad from a dysfunctional background with only a basic education giving a police statement about an event that allegedly occurred about a year earlier then that is, of course, your prerogative.  As, indeed, it is your right to cut and paste selected bits of 'evidence' together to solidify the case you are making.  That is something both prosecutors and defence attornies do!   I do not remember the kid being called tto testify.  Doubtless someone will 'remind' me gently if necessary - hopefully it will not be done as a point scoring exercise!

[TJM]

ps I never responded to the original post in this thread as it really was, to my mind, unworthy.  If you wish to believe in the totality of a young lad from a dysfunctional background with only a basic education giving a police statement about an event that allegedly occurred about a year earlier then that is, of course, your prerogative.  As, indeed, it is your right to cut and paste selected bits of 'evidence' together to solidify the case you are making.  That is something both prosecutors and defence attornies do!   I do not remember the kid being called tto testify.  Doubtless someone will 'remind' me gently if necessary - hopefully it will not be done as a point scoring exercise!

Yes, and I am so glad that you allowed me to have my PRErogative too......copy and paste this little tidbit for you.  I would have been so suprised by you, had you not tried to reduce it to...........well, nothing in your eyes, I suppose. 
You have a queer habit of turning cheek when any 'young lad from a dysfunctional background with only basic education, blah,blah,blah'.  I guess anytime, well in this specific case anyway, anyone from less background from you has anything to say, or give statement to, they should not be taken seriously eh?  Funny.  Too bad they don't just take lesser people than you and remove their right to even talk.  Would make the world a better place, wouldn't it?  It would definately probably lessen the so called 'playground fights' that you refer to, and are so above participating in.   . 

You may be more educated than most........I will give you that from the appearance that you give on here anyway, IMO.  None the less, you are still an idiot.   Actually an idiot of the worst kind.  "IMO"!!!!!!!

TJM

Also, Miranda.........have you even bothered to visit Callahans at all?  Just once even?  Or did you just watch the PL movies?  Obviously not, and is it because you reasonably deduct that all statements and testimonys are made by people with a  dysfunctional background with only a basic education too? 
Ok, this is my below education level than you opinion here, but still my entitled opinion or observation.  You come here with your long winded, sleepy posts and expect everyone to pay attention and read them..........however, you are not a 'reader' are you?  You should really read Callahans, before you post things on here at all.  Some things were just not put in the movies that you found time to watch.   Really.  I'm not kidding.  You might even enjoy it.  Those trials were actually longer than 45 minutes to an hour.