Hah I was just making a joke, but ya wouldn't surprise me.

I submit reality as my rebuttal. You lose.

Good point.

One obstacle to that is politics. The state has greater interest in showing results against crime, etc. so more money is going to be allocated to that side of things.

When I say state, I mean those elected officials that know they score points with voters by "taking a tough stance on crime." That this stance appeals to voters seems to be ingrained, thus tough to overcome.

I have never heard of or seen a public figure run on the platform of "taking a tough stance for criminal defendant's rights."

In france it s a little bit more balanced since we dont really have public defender and it s more a matter of getting some help from 20% to 100% of the bill depending on what you can afford.
I guess some lawyers are more expensives than others and not all are available with that help, but that seems still way better than overworked public defender in usa.

Have you ever made any funny ones?

I get the impression this is the first criminal trial poorskillz has been exposed to in any way, shape or form.

I'll also submit this - a previous post of mine addressing the issue of an "unfair trial":

Nah. Not for lack of effort though.

You still seem upset.

I like systems where the Judge (or body of Judges) get involved with the substance of the case (like in Germany). They also become fact-finders and will examine witnesses. I think it takes some of the sting out of having a purely adversarial trial.

I get the impression you get involved in a lot of forum discussions on these topics and spout trite platitudes about how corrupt the system is and what reasonable doubt means (and how only you truly understand what it means), all in a condescending tone of intellectual superiority.

Well that's the thing I've also asked the Mantiwoco 3 to show proof that these photo's were took & looked everywhere for them myself(yup even reddit does not have them)
BTW if you do come across them I'd also like to see them.

Y'd think the Crime Lab would have also took Prints/Photo's of tire Marks IN/or around the salvage yard but maybe they have not been released to the public & is K.K's secret.
It the Bones I tell YA Its in the Bones...

If the prosecution cannot even provide PHOTO'S of where the Bones were found in the burn pit, how was the jury meant to believe they were there.
IS THAT NOT SPECULATION?



#GoFightaGorilla

You act like every photo taken of the crime scene is available to the public. That's not even close to the case.

Just look in the documentary and you'll see instances of this:

Bravo:

So, you augment the message of the documentary by raising an additional possibility that there was an unfair trial.

The other stuff was in the Doc.: excusing the juror and the blood test. As presented at least in the show, the circumstances of that test was unfair - it was dropped in during the trial. I understand you have a different opinion on the defense having an opportunity to perform the test, but I think it is weak. You overlook that the prosecution had just as much time, and the best they could do was to get the test very late in the game - and it took a lot of juice with and within the FBI to get the test done.

So, at the end of the day, you have done nothing with "outside evidence" but make the documentary's point STRONGER. I guess you are not sure how arguing a position works.

Not in the least. I love this stuff. I AM a name caller and I am rude and nasty. I have no problem taking shots at morons like you all day.

So, keep it coming. This could get interesting (which would be the first time for anything you've been involved in).

I hate to break it to you. Marksmann (among most other posters in this thread) is a lot smarter than you. That such is obvious should not be a badge of shame for Marksmann. It is merely a fact and it is okay to point it out; it is quite okay to demonstrate intellect, even if it exposes the sheer idiocy of people like you.

Why would you try to shame someone for being smarter than you? That makes no sense (yet, from you, I guess that should be expected).

Do you go around confronting people taller than you for showing you up in public?

You are an absolute fool.

Yes, I try to consider the possibilities of what might make the trial "unfair". If some of that is proven, then that is the best piece of evidence. It is not proven.

Again, read the transcripts.

The passenger seat seems to be level with the driver's seat. I would be curious to see the measurements. B.D. would be a tight fit there. I know SA is short, but that also seems like a tight fit.

At the same time, its not like they would be driving to Florida - so moving the seats may not have even been an issue (for me personally, I automatically move the seat back when I hop in my wife's car - even if it is to move parking spots).

As for the cabinet: I recall that someone said "all the stuff" in or on the cabinet was replaced after it was shaken (and thus exposing the key). I don't see that there is much stuff in or on the cabinet.

Well, an unrelenting nitty argument is called a Custerfluck.

Why? The transcripts do not seem to have been helpful to you. You have not pulled anything from them that adds to your argument.

Yet, you want me to read them too? I already asked you to back up your claim about all the "factually inaccurate statements" and you could not.

It seems to me, my knowledge of this case is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through transcripts. I suppose the art is knowing what matters and what doesn't. I appreciate your dedication to a lost cause (indeed, you are the self-described Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill every day), but it really serves no purpose. Unshackle yourself from the chains of your unfruitful pursuit. Focus your attention and efforts on improving your knowledge with things that matter. You don't have to clutter your mind with such needless information.

You are welcome.

Oh Come on its 2016 & they don't even facebook

Absolute Gold!!!

Lol every time I have cleared your false statements up for you by going into the transcripts and quoting the relevant excerpts, you've disregarded them as too "biased", preferring to get all your facts from the independent sources of the show, Strang, and lostinsauce. That's why I don't even bother anymore, besides telling you to read the transcripts yourself.


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OMG THE HUBRIS

Thank you for confirming everything I've been saying about you!


I don't think your previous quote can be topped - it basically sums you up perfectly, and it's only fun to mock someone like you for so long, so I will be taking your advice and ignoring you from now on.

p.s. enjoy investigating the passenger seat, I have a feeling you and lostinsauce are going to crack the case open

Yup Got me.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...the-crime.html

http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/f...scene_pro.html

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...000/twgcsi.pdf

Fair enough it does say due to circumstances that a piece of evidence can be moved.
But if you are treating it as a crime scene then why did the RAV4 get damaged?

So, you can't back up your lie about me making "factually inaccurate statements about the case."

You aren't fooling anyone.

I challenge you to take a lie detector test.