IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New do NOT agree
With a decent lawyer, the case would never have gotten to the next step in the US.

I don't claim we are all so wonderful, but the bottom line is that country is setup for abuse of power on every level, and it is publicly acknowledged by the fact the 2nd level judges have no respect for th 1st level, which means they HAVE to do a full do over.

New Concede that likelihood, in this incompetent case
I meant caution, more generally.
And yes, it seems that a decent lawyer was affordable here, though even a hack could hardly miss.

There remain too many DAs going for a 100% conviction record, a similar mindset to that of the of young/arrogant MDs who make racing games of their 'operations', like any callow teen.
A trial is not supposed to be reduced to dueling/inflated egos. But nearly always is. It's an insoluble conundrum, I expect.

Appeals have their own aberrant mythos, though--I remain as skeptical of the pseudo-science of Law as of Econ.
Digital-think can fubar anything, if adults are not mediating. Of course there are +s here too; I just prefer to stay-away, where I have any choice.

(Now you likely need a Perl script, even to parse the automated evidence VS Statutes/cases that made *your* dBase.)
Shall 'justice' finally be doled out on a Turing-complete machine, via Boolean? It'd be efficient as All (of) Hell.
We already have test-trials for jury massaging, for My Case 1.0 (if you have the $$$) What Can you do with 300M occasional-perps to discipline, eh?

New But incompetent edge cases are where we see the horrors
And we see them on both sides of the puddle.

I know $$ == Justice (or at least an attempt) over here. It's a matter of how much you can afford for a decent lawyer. In their case, it was obvious, that prosecutor has WAY too much power.

http://www.google.co...nster+of+florence

In the case of his previous major fuckup, he ignored evidence, blamed an imaginary evil anti-Christian cult, and when a couple of reporters (one local, one US) pointed out the many discrepancies, he ACCUSED them of being the killers!!!!!!

They MUST be part of the cult because they didn't agree with him. The inquisition is still VERY active.

The US one had to leave the country in 1 day. 1 f'ing day, or he KNEW he'd be in an Italian jail for a very long time. The local one was imprisoned for a couple of months, and was LUCKY to get out.

I also know that we have a basis in our laws that gives the defendant a hell of a lot of protections, IF ONLY THEY KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT AND HAVE A LAWYER.

They don't. They don't even have the option most of the time.

In the end Knox WAS convicted of saying bad things about someone else, ie: she agreed with the investigator that someone specific could have been the killer. After days of broken sleep interviews.

When that guy had an alibi, they slammed her with more charges, which ended up with a 3 year sentence, and then they let her go with "time served".

This means anyone in the country who opens up their mouth to the police and gives information about another person stands a possibility of going to jail. For years.

Who the hell would talk to the police in that situation?

I don't claim ours is the BEST POSSIBLE, but I'm pretty sure it's up there as compared to the vast majority of alternatives out there.

And I'm also pretty sure that any laws based on any religion are the starting point for that level of judicial fuck-up.
     This why religous nut jobs shouldn't have power - (crazy) - (6)
         What a nightmare... :-( -NT - (Another Scott)
         Even scarier prospect: an appeal in The USSR-of-A - (Ashton) - (4)
             do NOT agree - (crazy) - (2)
                 Concede that likelihood, in this incompetent case - (Ashton) - (1)
                     But incompetent edge cases are where we see the horrors - (crazy)
             Swings and Roundabouts. - (static)

PDF the sucker to me. Prepaid.
36 ms