dagblog - Comments for "The Rights Of The Accused"

"evidence making the maid's

smithers_T — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:56:34 +0000

In reply to I will limit my analysis to

"evidence making the maid's allegation of sexual contact entirely credible..."

The maid didn't allege sexual contact... in fact, consensual sexual contact was the position of the defense!

It's quite pointless discussing this. Do you read anything that doesn't bolster your certainty of guilt? I'm thankful no case rests on your opinion. But it mystifies me why you would continue to comment on "The Rights of The Accused" when you obviously don't care a whit about it. The term "troll" comes to mind.

This is a family friendly

jollyroger — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 02:01:56 +0000

In reply to Oh ho ho. And a bottle of,

This is a family friendly site....

Oh ho ho. And a bottle of,

bwakfat — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:11:29 +0000

In reply to the one who just as fairly

Oh ho ho.

And a bottle of, er, cum

I will limit my analysis to

jollyroger — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:16:47 +0000

In reply to It lacks credulity for one to

I will limit my analysis to the events in the suite, as the rest is somewhat global.

We know that someone came in the woman's mouth because she was able to direct investigators to a sample on the wall of the suite.

This somewhat narrows the net of the potential falsely-accused.

This is called "physical evidence". Sometimes there is an accusation of sexual assault where no p'hysical evidence is available or even possible. (The groper, the peeper...) But this is not such case.

Your peroration might be more apposite were there no physical evidence making the maid's allegation of sexual contact entirely credible, and reducing the ambiguity to the issue of consent.

It lacks credulity for one to

smithers_T — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:50:36 +0000

In reply to the one who just as fairly

It lacks credulity for one to speak of other's intellectaul honesty or of what's statistically relevant while introducing rhetoric and characterizations designed for an emotional repsonse.

Little of what you've said has anything to do with the topic. You don't have a clue what happened in the hotel suite becauyse you weren't there. You've failed to refute even one study... though you alluded to there being just one... in fact, multiple corroborative studies that apply valid scientific methods exist, The one you chose to address (probably because you would not do the work of vlidating any others) returned one subjective conclusion of an individual who most likely is bent on the sexual aggression of his father. It takes gall for you to question someone's intellectual honesty when you apparently have not one iota of it.

the one who just as fairly

jollyroger — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:20:52 +0000

In reply to Is this the best argument...?

the one who just as fairly may be assumed FALSELY accused as rightly accused)

Not exactly. Only those whose come was spit on the wall of the suite qualify in this instance to be falsely accused--a somewhat smaller sample than women capable of making the accusation. Thus the statistical equivalency is inappositely suggested..

Is this the best argument...?

smithers_T — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:55:25 +0000

In reply to You aren't terribly well

Is this the best argument...? Ditto-ing someone who claims to read minds...? The other statements falls flat DSK also_swore. He swore the rape didn't happen. Yet who was confined? Not the one with the burden of proof rather an arbitrary statement. But the one accused, despite swearing also (the one who just as fairly may be assumed FALSELY accused as rightly accused) loses freedom.

You made a good point (whether intending to or not, People who falsely accuse others, by sworn statements, which may be just as easily disproved as proved, should pay the penalty of perjury (and also restitution!) if /when their information is falsified. In reality, such crimes are far more serious than actually comitting the act that one is accused of. Because you're not just wronging someone for gain, you're taking away innocence. It's equal to child abuse to knowingly punish inncent people.

You give smithers too much

jollyroger — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:50:25 +0000

In reply to Yep, Old W's Frat, even.It

You give smithers too much credit--as if were he but informed, he would be enlightened.

"as if..."

Sadly I must report a less charitable estimate of his intellectual honesty, and admit that I rather conceive of him successfully framing this odious story within his carefully (indeed, studiously by his search of the literature) crafted armor against cognitive dissidence.

But if you wish to cut him slack, so be it. Better a putz than monster.

Yep, Old W's Frat, even.It

bwakfat — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:40:29 +0000

In reply to Well stab me and sink me if

Yep, Old W's Frat, even.

It was National News when the whole frat got suspended. Certainly, it's not exactly an obscure story.

Well stab me and sink me if

jollyroger — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:30:23 +0000

In reply to Was that the DEKES? I can't

Well stab me and sink me if it isn't right there in the first paragraph:

The potential pledges of Delta Kappa Epsilon's Phi chapter are heard shouting rape-trivializing phrases such as "no means yes" and "yes means anal."