• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2016 Presidential Debate II

ddt said:
Absolutely right. And not only in the adversarial system, in an inquisitorial system the defence lawyer also has to do their best.

And it wasn't even that she wanted the job. But the defendant insisted on a female attorney, the prosecutor suggested Hillary and the judge asked her to do the job.

But once assigned she did her professional duty.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's debatable. I think it's quite likely that her affidavit (p. 34) is a lie. Also, talking about the case afterwards was clearly a violation of attorney-client privilege, and laughing about the guy being obviously guilty (in describing him passing a lie detector test) was a violation of decent human behavior.

Snopes on the story
Click to expand...

Wow. Snopes is lying in order to call something a lie. You can read the affidavit for yourself. Hillary is not quoting some expert in child psychology who examined the 12 year old victim. She is instead trying to get the court to order a psychological examination in the first place. It's truly amazing how biased Snopes is in this article. I didn't think they were as bad as other liberal fact-checking sites, but in this case, they may even be worse.

Vox on the story
Click to expand...

That Vox article doesn't address the salient criticism, but this line is especially clueless:

But the biggest development in the case was the result of the prosecution’s error. The main piece of DNA evidence, a scrap from pair of underwear with semen on it, was accidentally thrown away by the crime lab.
Click to expand...

The case transpired in 1975. Polymerase chain reaction was developed in 1983. The evidence could not have been useful for DNA testing because such technology wouldn't exist for another 10 or 15 years. It was only useful for proving that sexual intercourse had taken place. And, on that point, there wasn't any doubt anyway.
 
phiwum said:
How is that relevant?

The woman is aggrieved at the treatment she received at trial. I can understand that.

I can also understand that Clinton's role was to do what she could to benefit her client, short of breaking certain rules like perjury, etc. I also understand that Clinton didn't want to defend this man, but when she had no choice, she did so to the best of her abilities.

But I can't fault the victim for not thinking that these esoteric considerations should matter to her. And I'd bet Trump's intended audience does not care for those concerns either.
Click to expand...

There was a really good Radiolab episode about a tragic case in which two lawyers defending a murderer had to hide information about their client's victims' whereabouts. Apparently the case is taught in law school as an example of what a good lawyer ought to do despite the moral conflict involved. As you say, families of the victims are usually less than impressed by the dedication to their duty that these lawyers had.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/the_buried_bodies_case/
 
sunmaster14 said:
After reviewing the case, I think it is more likely than not that they participated in the crime as accessories.
Click to expand...
Based on what? Coerced confessions that were obtained without a lawyer or even their parents present? And more likely than not is hardly the standard anyway.
 
angrysoba said:
There was a really good Radiolab episode about a tragic case in which two lawyers defending a murderer had to hide information about their client's victims' whereabouts. Apparently the case is taught in law school as an example of what a good lawyer ought to do despite the moral conflict involved. As you say, families of the victims are usually less than impressed by the dedication to their duty that these lawyers had.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/the_buried_bodies_case/
Click to expand...

"The Good Wife" played on that theme at least a couple times.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Actually, it's debatable. I think it's quite likely that her affidavit (p. 34) is a lie. Also, talking about the case afterwards was clearly a violation of attorney-client privilege, and laughing about the guy being obviously guilty (in describing him passing a lie detector test) was a violation of decent human behavior.



Wow. Snopes is lying in order to call something a lie. You can read the affidavit for yourself. Hillary is not quoting some expert in child psychology who examined the 12 year old victim. She is instead trying to get the court to order a psychological examination in the first place. It's truly amazing how biased Snopes is in this article. I didn't think they were as bad as other liberal fact-checking sites, but in this case, they may even be worse.



That Vox article doesn't address the salient criticism, but this line is especially clueless:



The case transpired in 1975. Polymerase chain reaction was developed in 1983. The evidence could not have been useful for DNA testing because such technology wouldn't exist for another 10 or 15 years. It was only useful for proving that sexual intercourse had taken place. And, on that point, there wasn't any doubt anyway.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Tony Stark said:
Based on what? Coerced confessions that were obtained without a lawyer or even their parents present? And more likely than not is hardly the standard anyway.
Click to expand...

It's off-topic here, and I've been getting dinged up quite a lot recently for that. I'll just point you to this. The Armstrong report (which admittedly, I haven't read yet) came to the conclusion that they probably were involved, and almost certainly were involved in attacking other people in the park that night (including beating a man to unconsciousness with a metal pipe). Also, technically, the Central Park Five were not exonerated. Their convictions were vacated, but since their sentences had already been served, a new trial would have been moot. If they had been given longer sentences initially, there would have been a new trial, and the new exculpatory evidence could have been subject to cross examination.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's off-topic here, and I've been getting dinged up quite a lot recently for that. I'll just point you to this. The Armstrong report (which admittedly, I haven't read yet) came to the conclusion that they probably were involved, and almost certainly were involved in attacking other people in the park that night (including beating a man to unconsciousness with a metal pipe). Also, technically, the Central Park Five were not exonerated. Their convictions were vacated, but since their sentences had already been served, a new trial would have been moot. If they had been given longer sentences initially, there would have been a new trial, and the new exculpatory evidence could have been subject to cross examination.
Click to expand...

And they deserve the death sentence?
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's off-topic here, and I've been getting dinged up quite a lot recently for that. I'll just point you to this. The Armstrong report (which admittedly, I haven't read yet) came to the conclusion that they probably were involved, and almost certainly were involved in attacking other people in the park that night (including beating a man to unconsciousness with a metal pipe). Also, technically, the Central Park Five were not exonerated. Their convictions were vacated, but since their sentences had already been served, a new trial would have been moot. If they had been given longer sentences initially, there would have been a new trial, and the new exculpatory evidence could have been subject to cross examination.
Click to expand...
If probably is the best the police have, they never should have been in prison in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom