Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,157 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Phelan "insufficient evidence" p    |
|    08 Jul 16 06:34:57    |
      From: johnturmel@yahoo.com              JCT: The Comey is a textbook example of the "eyes closed"       technique to not see the truth. Judges use it all the time.       Justice Phelan said he had insufficient evidence that patients       who lost their exemptions had requisite medical need. No       matter the uncontroverted evidence staring him in the face, he       can always say "not enough."              This is exactly what FBI Director Comey did in getting       Hillary off the hook. He pointed out all her crimes and then       simply said he saw insufficient evidence for a "reasonable"       chance at conviction. Maybe other better prosecutors would       have more reasonable chance.              But that's it. He sat through 4 hours of grilling admitting       every lie and crime Hillary had committed but then simply "saw       insufficient evidence." Maybe guys with their eyes open would       differ. He did say his whole team agreed. Wow. Sure did pick       them right.              So the very same judicial trick used by Justice Phelan to       deny the unchallenged obvious was used by the FBI to deny       the obvious. Not that there is no evidence, that there is       insufficient to gamble on showing it to a jury.              Four hours, he played that angle. Sure, she committed every       crime in the book but they had insufficient evidence to       reasonably expect a conviction. Notice he did not know if       his agents had questioned her on her lies! Har har har.              That 4 hours shows how the technique can be used to deny the       whole truth because partial truth still left open a doubt.       She was that stupid that she really didn't know what she was       doing, is not a great defence.              Anyway, a neat parlor game would be for everyone to       play jury by watching Comey's 15-minute indictment and then,       like a good defence attorney Comey says he sees not enough,       have a vote of the jury and see if you do.              But what a wonderful example of the "insufficient evidence       shown" cop-out so many judges use to do their dirty deeds.       Easy way to ignore the truth by always saying there's not       enough even without having your eyes closed.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca