Obama says child rapists should be executed

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry, but not surprised, to here you are only "scoring" on the internet. Have you thought about getting out of your humble abode? Or from where you are posting, do they only allow for visiting days every other week?

I am not sure where you are getting your ... ah ... "information" from, but as usual, it is inaccurate.

You keep ignoring the fact that if Scheck truly believed DNA was equally reliable as a determiner of guilt, he would not have hitched his wagon to Simpson.

Interesting leap of logic. I don't suppose you'd care to connect your conclusion to the premise. That's not the sort of thing you do, is it?

I notice that you've shifted the goalposts from whether it's he thinks its not reliable to whether he thinks it's equally reliable. As your comprehension skills are somewhat limited, I suggest that you abandon your attempts to resolve this question by hermeneutic analysis of his writings, and just email the guy and ask him.

As to why Scheck "hitched his wagon to Simpson", I believe that the fellow is a lawyer and that occasionally they will defend people for money. A few of them, I'm told, even do so without a wholehearted belief in the innocence of every single one of their clients.

The fact is, Cicero old chum, you were, as usual, completely wrong about the meaning of this sentence:

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

And you don't look at all pretty trying to backpedal out of it.

 

[Piggy]

You mean the words mumbled by Henry Lee? The guy who said he wished he had never been involved in the Simpson trial. The guy that Court Judge Larry Fidler concluded had "hid or accidentally destroyed a piece of evidence" from the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's shooting. That guy?

Exactly. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not making any judgments about the validity of his testimony -- altho it was a brilliant play -- I'm just saying that the issue of evidence tampering was key to the trial.

And it certainly was.

 

[Piggy]

I did.

My apologies, then.

 

[Piggy]

Nobody but the Simpson jurors, and their like-minded fans, such as yourself.

What else you got? The bloody glove found at Rockingham? Sure. Furham planted that glove at Simpson's home, without even knowing if Simpson was in town, much less at his house, when the crime was committed. Explain again why Furham would put his career, and risk a jail sentence, for planting evidence on someone who might have had an air tight alibi, but unbeknownst to Furhman, turned out he didn't?

Fans of what?

The guy was guilty as the day is long. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me.

The reason they entered his property illegally with a bogus story about protecting him, and why they planted evidence -- care to give any reasonable scenario which would place the glove where they said they found it? -- was that they were sure he did it and they didn't want him to get off. Happens all the time.

It was just sloppy and dishonest police work. And it's a shame because they didn't have to do it that way. It would have been fairly easy and quick to get a warrant and do it right.

Instead, they wound up putting the jury in a situation where they had to make the choice they had to make.

I was on a jury once where we were confronted with somewhat similar circumstances. Had the police done their job, we could have convicted. Instead, they made early assumptions of guilt and did everything wrong thereafter, which left room for reasonable doubt and we had to acquit.