If Johnny Cochran Was Still Here...



W

wimpyVO2

Guest
....he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Dr. Simon Davis made LNDD look bad today. Test results with missing or
batch numbers out of sequence. Magnets placed where they aren't
supposed to be, skewing the ion field. A manual which says to operate
at 2 to 4 x 10-6 mbar, Mongongue operates it at 6 x 10-6. Pressures
that vary from sample to sample.

Reminds me of high school chemistry. Just mix stuff until you get the
"right" result.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:


>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

>
>Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
>of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
>cases springing them from jail.
>
>I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
>they just didn't have one.
>
>Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
>people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.


Apples and oranges.

The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.

Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.

The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.

So we have two choices with Floyd:

Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
to "get off"?

Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
to "get him."?

I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.

But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
overwhelmingly toward the second.

I say you all are in la la land.

Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
be convinced.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Doug Taylor
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:51:51 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

>>
>>Were that it were so. The fun part of medical lab testing is the number*
>>of innocent people getting cleared these days by DNA evidence, in some
>>cases springing them from jail.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure all those people NEEDED a lawyer like Johnny Cochran,
>>they just didn't have one.
>>
>>Or the Duke lacrosse players, for a more recent example of a group of
>>people whose lives were nearly ruined by overzealous prosecution.

>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>
> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>
> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.


**** Pound, anyone?

I mean, WADA have been deliberately leaking or announcing information
prejudicial to Landis' case in just the same way that Nifong (prosecutor
in the Duke case) is alleged to have done. In that sense, the two cases
are similar. They're similar in more ways than that. Rich kids reputedly
commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
prosecutor plays to the gallery.

Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
But I am certain that **** Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
disrepute.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally, I believe Landis is guilty; I'm not certain, but I think he is.
>But I am certain that **** Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of the things
>he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug testing into
>disrepute.


So, back to O.J.: **** Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
man?

Either way, Landis is guilty and professional cycling has an out of
control drug problem.
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> **** Pound is a lot guiltier, and one of
> the things he's guilty of is bringing the whole process of drug
> testing into disrepute.


I agree. He should leave testing drugs to willing volunteers.
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Rich kids reputedly
>commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
>rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
>whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
>cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
>public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
>prosecutor plays to the gallery.


The above pretty much sets the table for those that look to the
salacious, using suggestions and personal beliefs in place of facts.
No, 'the public' isn't likely to believe the accusations, and much of
the public didn't. Certain parts of the public that enjoy those other
than themselves or their peers in trouble or the self righteous that
like to cluck were quick to judgement - and 'belief'.

There were enough problems in the very first articles to withhold
judgement in the Duke case (and I am no fan of Duke) and the first
wave of subsequent articles had enough that IMO only those that had
other reasons to believe in guilt believed the accusations. More
accurately IMO they didn't believe the accusations, they just believed
the 'rich' Duke players to be guilty, irrespective of the actual
accusations.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:15:30 -0400, Doug Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So, back to O.J.: **** Pound, like the L.A.P.D., has framed a guilty
>man?
>
>Either way, Landis is guilty and professional cycling has an out of
>control drug problem.


Actually, as someone that despises Pound, I don't think it is quite
framing or even the deliberate ignoring of procedures and evidence
like Nifong. I think it is a case that Pound made it clear what they
wanted found, and everyone in the process bent with the wind.

And I don't see that Landis has been proven guilty yet, although I
doubt he will ever be proven innocent. I think that, unlike some,
Landis is willing to live in the grey area in between, as long as he
is allowed to race. I know that at least two or three people on the
list think that if he doesn't make it all the way to the other side,
with a clear proof of innocence, he shouldn't be allowed to race.

OTOH, every bike racer that hasn't been tested hasn't been proven
completely innocent. Actually, that is an impossible standard with a
loop back to the testing itself. You can't even prove virgins
innocent.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> You can't even prove virgins innocent.


Depends on whether the Clinton theorem on the definition of sexual
intercourse is accepted.
 
S

Stu Fleming

Guest
wimpyVO2 wrote:
> ...he'd say, "If the batch doesn't fit, you must acquit."


"Even though he used soap, doesn't mean he used dope."
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rich kids reputedly
> >commonly do get drunk and misbehave sexually. On the face of it the Duke
> >rape allegation was likely (I haven't read enough to form a view as to
> >whether the accused really were innocent). Similarly, professional
> >cyclists reputedly commonly do take performance enhancing drugs. So the
> >public is likely to believe the accusations, particularly if the
> >prosecutor plays to the gallery.

>
> The above pretty much sets the table for those that look to the
> salacious, using suggestions and personal beliefs in place of facts.
> No, 'the public' isn't likely to believe the accusations, and much of
> the public didn't. Certain parts of the public that enjoy those other
> than themselves or their peers in trouble or the self righteous that
> like to cluck were quick to judgement - and 'belief'.
>
> There were enough problems in the very first articles to withhold
> judgement in the Duke case (and I am no fan of Duke) and the first
> wave of subsequent articles had enough that IMO only those that had
> other reasons to believe in guilt believed the accusations. More
> accurately IMO they didn't believe the accusations, they just believed
> the 'rich' Duke players to be guilty, irrespective of the actual
> accusations.


Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.

--
Michael Press
 
W

William Asher

Guest
Michael Press wrote:

<snip>
> Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
> tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
> found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
> anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
> from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.
>


Clearly she's a **** and nothing bad happened to her at the Duke party.

--
Bill Asher
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On 23 May 2007 23:31:31 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Michael Press wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Two women were at the party. The one who swore out a complaint had
>> tried to get the second to swear out a complaint. The first was
>> found to have semen from five different men in her vagina and
>> anus, one of which fathered her third child, _none_ of which came
>> from any of the forty-five Duke lacrosse players.
>>

>
>Clearly she's a **** and nothing bad happened to her at the Duke party.


The latter part of that is impossible to prove. What is proven is that what was
alleged did not happen to her.

Very important difference.

I'm sure something bad happened, but I'm thinking it's more along the lines of
ridicule and rejection than rape.

Ron
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.


Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>
> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>
> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
>
> So we have two choices with Floyd:
>
> Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
> to "get off"?
>
> Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
> to "get him."?
>
> I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
> overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.
>
> But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
> overwhelmingly toward the second.
>
> I say you all are in la la land.
>
> Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
> be convinced.


Dumbass,

You speak as if there were never any incidents of
(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
In fact, both of these things can and do happen.

In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
to prove it.

Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
will you decide that because you're innocent, you
can skimp on your legal team?

Ben

p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On 24 May 2007 00:42:25 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 23, 7:42 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The truly innocent accused doesn't need a lawyer like Johnny Cochran
>> to "get them off." All they need is a minimally competent one to
>> ascertain the facts, and sadly that is not always the case.
>>
>> Johnny Cochran was an expensive expert trial lawyer, whom the general
>> public, correctly or incorrectly, trust and respect about as much as
>> used car or insurance salesmen - or politicians.
>>
>> The Duke lacrosse players ran into a different problem: the truly
>> rare case of an abuse of power by a despicable rogue prosecutor
>> running for political office. Who, by the way, is the "real killer"
>> and will likely lose his law license and go bankrupt from the civil
>> suits the wrongly accused will bring against him. And rightly so.
>>
>> So we have two choices with Floyd:
>>
>> Is he just another common example of a guilty rich scum lawyering up
>> to "get off"?
>>
>> Is he another rare example of a victim of a nefarious conspiracy out
>> to "get him."?
>>
>> I suggest from a rational, objective point of view that the odds
>> overwhelmingly are in favor of the first.
>>
>> But hope and credulity spring eternal, and the RBR partisans slant
>> overwhelmingly toward the second.
>>
>> I say you all are in la la land.
>>
>> Even if he gets the deserved 2 year suspension, no partisan will ever
>> be convinced.

>
>Dumbass,
>
>You speak as if there were never any incidents of
>(using your terminology) inoocent victims of nefarious
>conspiracies lawyering up to get off, or guilty
>scum who are victimized by nefarious conspiracies.
>In fact, both of these things can and do happen.
>
>In theory, what matters in judicial proceedings
>is not the quest for the truth, but the quest for
>a just outcome. One can believe both that Landis
>probably used testosterone and that WADA, having
>made an accusation, is slanting the evidence
>to prove it.
>
>Trial lawyers are like everybody else; often the
>expensive ones are expensive because they're good.
>Certainly, if you know you're guilty, you might
>want to hire a good lawyer. However, if ever
>accused of a crime and sure of your innocence,
>will you decide that because you're innocent, you
>can skimp on your legal team?
>
>Ben
>
>p.s. It's "If Johnnie Cochran Were Still Here ...", btw.
> Good lawyers are masters of the subjunctive.


Q.E.D.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

>
> Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
>twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
>person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
>lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
>client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
>those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
>> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
>> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

>
> Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of the most
>twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer means the
>person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who doesn't get a
>lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a
>client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off on a technicality," but
>those technicalities are the protections the Constitution and laws offer.


Dumbass.

I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
talented trial specialist - to "get them off."

I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."

At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
intimidate him.

I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
attempt to "get them off."

But nooooo...

As I said, dream on.
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:10:24 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the FACT: Anyone who NEEDS a lawyer like Johnny Cochran to
> >> "get them off" is guilty as sin, and if they get off, they'll be
> >> respected among people with brains just about as much as O.J. is now.

> >
> > Sorry, Doug, that isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And one based on some of
> > the most twisted logic ever. Essentially you're saying that hiring a good lawyer
> > means the person must be guilty. So a person who isn't guilty is the one who
> > doesn't get a lawyer. (Ever hear the phrase "The person who acts as his own
> > lawyer has a fool for a client"?) People toss around the line about "getting off
> > on a technicality," but those technicalities are the protections the Constitution
> > and laws offer.

>
> Dumbass.
>
> I said hiring a lawyer like Cochran - a high priced and uniquely
> talented trial specialist - to "get them off."
>
> I am laughing at all the naive and credulous Landis apologists who
> actually or wishfully thinking believe that Floyd's totally b.s. and
> disingenuous defense is anything but a circus designed to get an
> obviously guilty perp - just like O.J. Simpson - "off."


Well, as Ben pointed out, the reason some lawyers are "high-priced" is due to
their success. Their job is to find the flaws in the case of the prosecution (or
group like WADA) and point them out. Those flaws may be innocent mistakes or actual
flaws that would wrongly convict their client. It's nice to see that you're so
certain about FL's guilt. I'm not. That's why they're having the hearings.

"Perp." Heh...

> At the jerk-offs in this forum who piled on Lemond, although it is
> obvious and a fact that the Landis defense tried amateurishly to
> intimidate him.


His pal Will G. did that, no doubt. But he isn't part of the defense, is he?

> I would think that the recent revelation that Erik Zabel, INFINTELY
> more respected as a class act than Landis ever was and clearly ever
> will be, has CONFESSED to drug use, that it should be friggin' clear
> to even the most dimwitted and pollyannaish among the partisans, that
> Floyd Landis used testosterone to recover after bonking. And got
> busted. And will serve a 2 year suspension, just like rider who gets
> busted. Even the ones who can afford talented trial lawyers to
> attempt to "get them off."


Zabel did it, therefore Floyd *surely* did. Nice logic. I hope that you're one of
the jillions of people who ignore their jury summonses...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?