The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
That was my favorite part...b/c I knew it was great flame bait for a partisan hack like you. Sucker. I knew it would piss off the sheep - that's why I posted it. For my entertainment. Thanks for complying.

So you admit you make posts you don't believe in. That does help in our estimation of your IQ level, but ruins any ability to give any future posts credibilty. This is a big boys board. Go play on the FB.

Ty- we need some posts deleted. Coltrane has been posting just to harass people.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, one lead story today is that Mark Warner granted clemency to a convicted murderer on the ground that DNA evidence that might have cleared him was destroyed. Fair enough. But the effect was to commute the death sentence into a sentence of life without parole. Why does that make sense? If the DNA evidence could clear him, why should he still be stuck in prison for life because the prosecutor chucked possibly exculpatory evidence?

Well, here's my initial take. The result is fair because:

The issue is not one of prosecutorial misconduct during trial, etc., but rather a situation in which new technology would enable better testing of the evidence (and thus _possibly_ generate some exculpatory evidence).

This was a felony-murder case (murder during an armed robbery). The Defendant acknowledged snatching the cash-box, but always claimed that someone else had stabbed the clerk. No way he skates for that, plus, it was not shown that the initial trial and conviction were unfair. In any event, the participation of someone else wouldn't necessarily clear the Defendant.

The initial DNA testing on the bloody knife was inconclusive -- neither cleared nor implicated the Defendant. The better DNA testing developed in the interim might well have resolved that issue. By the time it was ordered by a Court, a court employee had improperly had the evidence destroyed rather than storing it for the duration of all appeals.

I suspect that this failure by the court system was what motivated Judge Starr to be part of this guy's appellate defense team. I think this is a fair result, all things considered, and I am glad that Warner had the balls to commute this sentence.

S_A_M

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you admit you make posts you don't believe in. That does help in our estimation of your IQ level, but ruins any ability to give any future posts credibilty. This is a big boys board. Go play on the FB.

Ty- we need some posts deleted. Coltrane has been posting just to harass people.

I will not whiff on this.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
2, except that I'm not a liberal.

Didn't say you were, but thanks for the reminder. One less latte we'll have to order for the weekly meetings.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Didn't say you were, but thanks for the reminder. One less latte we'll have to order for the weekly meetings.

I just meant that I agreed with everything you said, except for the part where you identified yourself as a liberal. It was not meant as an insult.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. Everyone Hillary had killed was premeditated and intentional.


Penske-style post!TM

It's a shame you aren't more premeditated.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Didn't say you were, but thanks for the reminder. One less latte we'll have to order for the weekly meetings.

Do I have to call myself a liberal to get latte or to come to meetings? I like both meetings and latte (with a couple extra shots, please), but am not a liberal.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
Do I have to call myself a liberal to get latte or to come to meetings? I like both meetings and latte (with a couple extra shots, please), but am not a liberal.

I generally find you one of the more reasoned and lucid posters. It's a shame that your admission that you like meetings has called your judgment so seriously into question.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
[the press]

Maybe we could just pay the media to run favorable stories about Iraq. I thought you liked market-based solutions?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you admit you make posts you don't believe in. That does help in our estimation of your IQ level, but ruins any ability to give any future posts credibilty. This is a big boys board. Go play on the FB.

Coltrane is your sock? My world is shattered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's a shame you aren't more premeditated.

It's a shame you aren't more premedicated.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I will not whiff on this.

thanks. leave it. It's a set up for Taxwonk.

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I generally find you one of the more reasoned and lucid posters. It's a shame that your admission that you like meetings has called your judgment so seriously into question.

We are lawyers. We do three things. We go to meetings where we eat food, knock around ideas, occassionally ask a younger person to reflect a thought in the documents, and then sign documents and celebrate. We stare at lengthy documents with small type trying to deal with minute tecnical details and ensure every comma is perfect. And we have phone calls which often involve feigning anger and dismay and instilling anxiety in the other side (or having it instilled in us).

Of the three, I choose meetings.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, one lead story today is that Mark Warner granted clemency to a convicted murderer on the ground that DNA evidence that might have cleared him was destroyed. Fair enough. But the effect was to commute the death sentence into a sentence of life without parole. Why does that make sense? If the DNA evidence could clear him, why should he still be stuck in prison for life because the prosecutor chucked possibly exculpatory evidence?

Spanky, this is your type of question, so I want an answer.

Not enough information. The key phrase there is "might have cleared him". It depends on how much other evidence there was to convict him. If the other evidence is overwhelming why let him go? In other words prosecutorial screw up or even malfeasance does not equal innocense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Not enough information. The key phrase there is "might have cleared him". It depends on how much other evidence there was to convict him. If the other evidence is overwhelming why let him go? In other words prosecutorial screw up or even malfeasance does not equal innocense.

Agreed. And thats why he's doing a life sentence with no parole.