JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
..... or resorting to strawman arguments.
Both The Machine and Jackie are making strawman arguments about groupies and the necessity of motive.... as well as a comprehensive timeline for the crime.
For the record - they are correct, motive and timeline are not necessary to procure conviction.
Why then do prosecutors go through them by the sack full, never once making the argument TM and Jackie make?
Why is it that the ISC in part quashed the acquittals, saying that sex-game-gone-wrong went unexamined? Note - ISC did not make the argument those two are making.
Why did Crini, instead of taking legal advice from Jackie, venture into a completely unheard of motive? Crini turned his back on the ISC on this one, and offered up pooh in the toilet!!!!
Can guiters/haters do something other than erect strawmen? I thought not.
Thats one bizarre twist of this case is the prosecution and judges, and most guilters, all having conflicting, contradicting accusations.
There hasnt been any consistency at all in the timeline, or the evidence, and as you stated the motive has been grossly created from fiction.
Ive never seen anything like this with each prosecutor showing up with a different charge almost. How does the defense prepare for anything, when the prosecution changes their case each trial?
Then I wonder about the new Florence jurors, they hear this new possible maybe fictional idea of Crini and have to choose if they like maybe Masseis possible could-have happened theory, or do they reach back to Michelis contradicting theory, or how about the Florence jury decides on Hellman's theory that "only those three know, no one else knows" or maybe Commodes "the motive is there is no motive!" blahblahblah...
Lets convict on some game show like court case called Lets Make Up a Theory!