Cosby thought unconscious woman....

[Scot Dutchy]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable. Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter. There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time. We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public. There are no Perry Masons. One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

[Strontium Dog]

Hopefully he eventually goes down, because it's inconceivable that dozens of women independently invented claims of impropriety that are almost identical, but even if he does get off with it, his career is over, and he will be remembered as a scumbag when he's dead and gone, which is its own punishment.

[Forty Two]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable.

You should believe it, because the Netherlands is largely irrelevant as compared to the United States. You should be expected to know more than you do about the US. There are 100 other countries as important as the Netherlands on the planet. Nobody has intimate knowledge of them all. What's unbelievable is the broad conceit you have that people should have deep knowledge of the goings on in a sunken, tiny, backwater of Europe, which is really just a state in the EU, and hardly worthy of the status of "nation." It's about as relevant as Rhode Island, or Louisiana.

Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter.

Fantastic system, where your lawyer "doesn't really matter." If I'm a defendant, I would like if my lawyer mattered. I really don't want a lawyer to be irrelevant to the proceeding. Why have him if he "doesn't really matter?"

There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time.

Indeed, well, again, that sounds like a system where the defendant is not heard very much. Doesn't sound like an advantage to me. Even in appeals courts where there are panels of appellate judges hearing appeals from trial court cases, oral argument to the court is very valuable. Judges can ask the advocates for clarification on points of fact, law or evidence. They can inquire as to theories of recovery, liability or guilt, depending on the type of case. It's really not particularly advantageous to a litigant or criminal defendant to not have a reasonable opportunity to be taken seriously, and to expound their case.

We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public.

You watch too much t.v., if you think that lawyers day-to-day play "actor" for the public. I think you're confusing an anomaly like, say, the OJ Simpson trial with the system in general. Here, despite your odd belief to the contrary, lawyers are not actors playing to the public. Trials are open to the public, yes, but they aren't televised. It's not entertainment. Being open to the public means that the press and interested persons can sit in the audience, space permitting, and view the goings on. That's a good thing, for many reasons.

There are no Perry Masons.

Not even on TV? We had a Perry Mason on TV. He wasn't really a lawyer, though. One of my favorite lawyers is Atticus Finch. Pssst.... he wasn't a lawyer either. He was Gregory Peck, and he never tried a case in his life.

One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

LOL - you are out of your gourd. You think the courts in the US run on "tricks" and "secret witnesses?" The prosecution has to disclose all of its witnesses ahead of time, and the defense has to disclose alibi and other witnesses. There is nuance state-to-state, since criminal law is mostly a state level issue. California requires defendants to disclose the names and addresses of everybody they plan to call as witnesses, any relevant statements by any of these witnesses, any experts’ reports, and any “real” evidence (tangible objects) that the defense intends to offer into evidence.

Now, I don't know what you mean, exactly, by "demolishing" of witnesses. A witness takes the stand, and if they testify to something that can be contradicted, then that demolishing that witness would be to confront the witness with their prior contrary statement, a written item that contradicts them, or some reason to believe they aren't being truthful. That's generally what demolishing a witness is. Showing that they aren't telling the truth.

You have sort of the Wild West image of the US. It's like how some people used to, or still do, have the image of the US as an actual Spaghetti Western, with regular gunfights at high-noon and whatnot, when in reality such events were always very rare. You have the idea, from watching t.v., that the US legal system is Perry Mason, with high drama in the courtroom where the guilty party is really watching from the audience seats, and Perry Mason is able to say "...the REAL guilty party is here in the courtroom today! There she is! Martha Paddington! She did it all along!"

Yes, Dutchy....[sigh] that's how it works in the US. You got us. Lawyers really go to acting school, spending their education days on stages, learning to hoodwink juries, lie to judges and trick their way to stunning legal victories, knowing all along the guilt of their clients. They don't spend years toiling over law books, learning codes, statutes and case precedents, etc. Criminal lawyers don't work late into the night, preparing legal arguments, direct and cross examination, and evidentiary motions, etc., fighting to keep their clients out of the Nick. No. They're like Ally McBeal, out drinking and dancing the night before the big trial, which lasts 30 minutes at most, and is won by the lawyers sly introduction of a key point which destroys the prosecution's case in one go....

...come on now, Dutchy... come on...

[Forty Two]

Hopefully he eventually goes down, because it's inconceivable that dozens of women independently invented claims of impropriety that are almost identical, but even if he does get off with it, his career is over, and he will be remembered as a scumbag when he's dead and gone, which is its own punishment.

Well, in this case, I tend to agree with you, because there are many women, over many, many years. However, the number of accusers doesn't always indicate guilt, as there have been cases - just recently in Canada, for example, the high profile Ghomeshi case, where a number of women conspired, overtly, to make up allegations of sexual assault.

With Cosby, however, we have his own admissions, though, where we know he gave drugs to women for the purpose of rendering them susceptible to his advances. This is something he did not think was rape, apparently. His testimony from an old deposition in a civil case was very weird and very damning.

I wish I could have seen the trial. I'd like to know what the jury heard that is making this so tough.

[rainbow]

Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

No true Scotsman would say that.


See?

State your thought explicitly and directly, not obliquely. Are you suggesting that "If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" is answered "no, it does not suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" Or, perhaps "may be" reasonable doubt? What, exactly, are you arguing?

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm pointing out that you used circular reasoning, based on the fallacy of ambiguity.

Google is right at your fingertips if you want to understand where you went wrong.

You're not arguing anything, and you want me to google a fallacy I did not commit.

Of course you did. The meaning of the adjective "reasonable" is not the same when it precedes doubt, and when it precedes mind.

A simple mistake, to make but I'm amazed you were not able to work it out yourself.
It is reasonable to doubt whether you were aware of your blunder, as any reasonable mind would be able to perceive.

[pErvinalia]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable. Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter. There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time. We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public. There are no Perry Masons. One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

How does your system work when the state is the accuser and also the ones doing the judging?

[Forty Two]

Of course you did. The meaning of the adjective "reasonable" is not the same when it precedes doubt, and when it precedes mind.

That's not what a fallacy of ambiguity is. As long as there is no conclusion drawn from a misunderstanding of the meaning of either of the terms "reasonable mind" or "reasonable doubt" then it's not an argument from ambiguity.

The point I was making was that if you have 12 jurors, and 2 of them think there is reasonable doubt and 10 don't, does it not at least "suggest" that reasonable minds can differ? Obviously, it depends on if the those 2 people are reasonable. But, overall, systemically, we're not talking about just 10 and 2. We're talking about millions of people, and there is no reason to think that the 2 are more or less reasonable than the 10, viewed systemically.

A simple mistake, to make but I'm amazed you were not able to work it out yourself.

Some of you are such tools. I mean, this is just a fucking discussion, for christ's sake. Does everything with some of you people have to be this kind of personal jab?

Oh, yes, rainbow, you're right. I'm just so unable to work things out for myself. You're soooo much more intelligent. Thank you thank you thank you for your guidance in this, as in everything. Happy now?

It is reasonable to doubt whether you were aware of your blunder, as any reasonable mind would be able to perceive.

Incisive.

[Forty Two]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable. Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter. There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time. We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public. There are no Perry Masons. One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

How does your system work when the state is the accuser and also the ones doing the judging?

pErvin, please. In the Netherregions, the Dutch are well-educated, trained, and morally superior, so there is never, ever an issue of someone wanting to win a case, rather than just "get to the facts." The State's only interest, in the Netherlands, as opposed to certain other nations who shall be nameless, is to get to the truth. They don't assume the police are telling the truth, even though their police would never lie or even be mistaken.

According to Dutchy, there are no speeches in Dutch courtrooms. However, upon use of teh googles, there are closing arguments made by prosecutors and defense attorneys. In Dutchland, the judge asks witnesses questions - that's not generally the case, although it is sometimes the case, in American courtrooms. But, the prosecutor and the defense attorney do get to ask witnesses questions. I am not clear what Dutchy means when he says they can't "demolish" a witness. If the witness takes the stand and their testimony can be refuted by documentary or other evidence, why would the system not allow that witness to be demolished? Justice would seem to require such demolition.

Dutchy says it's "well known" that the US is the hotbed of wrongful convictions. How he can know this must be a function of Dutch superiority. By definition we do not generally know when false convictions occur. If we did, innocent defendants would not be convicted in the first place.

While there is no way of knowing how often wrongful convictions
occur in the Netherlands, during the past twenty years it has become
clear that the criminal justice system is by no means as accurate as the
Dutch have always thought. What is surprising is not that there have
been miscarriages of justice that must be regarded as consequences of
the system. Rather, what is astonishing is that the criminal justice
authorities and most legal scholars believed, until very recently, that any
wrongful conviction would be an extremely rare and isolated incident.
Theoretical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of
inquisitorial process reveals that Dutch criminal justice has systemic
features that make it vulnerable to miscarriages.

The fundamental assumption that state officials can be trusted to
conduct an independent and non-partisan investigation to find the truth
that will allow the court to arrive at a reliable and therefore legitimate verdict forms the major legal-cultural reason why so many in the legal
world have been unable even to conceive of the system being flawed in
any way. Under these conditions, the guarantees of due process that
American legal scholars take as given are seen as unnecessary. The
Dutch defendant has no right to have a lawyer present during police
investigations. It is essentially the prosecution that decides the content
of the dossier and, therefore, the case that is heard by the court. The
court also has the final word on when it considers it has sufficient
information to come to a verdict. The court may also refuse a
defendant’s request to hear more evidence. And finally, debate at trial
based on autonomous defense rights is not regarded as essential for truth
finding.

Indeed, it has been said that truth finding in Dutch courts is not
geared towards discovering whether the evidence points beyond
reasonable doubt to the guilt of the defendant. Rather, truth finding in
Dutch courts focuses on whether the available evidence does not
contradict the prosecutor’s assertion that the defendant is indeed
guilty.81

This reality of judicial process is all the more problematic because,
ultimately, the Dutch place the greatest faith in the career judiciary with
its “impartial and open-minded” judges. The rationality of the legally
trained mind and the experience of highly qualified practitioners is
presumed to guide judicial decision making, not the irrational prejudice
that may color the verdict of the inexperienced layman, who is probably
also ignorant of the finer points of law. One of the more troubling
aspects of a career judiciary, however, is that experience can degenerate
into routine, so that panels of judges feel no need to explain to each
other what the strength or weakness of the case are as all will understand
them, and that in general a process of group-think governs deliberations.
This is especially true of younger judges, who are quickly socialized
into such a process and may well find out that too independent a frame
of mind is not appreciated.82

http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewc ... ntext=uclr

[pErvinalia]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable. Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter. There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time. We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public. There are no Perry Masons. One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

How does your system work when the state is the accuser and also the ones doing the judging?

pErvin, please. In the Netherregions, the Dutch are well-educated, trained, and morally superior, so there is never, ever an issue of someone wanting to win a case, rather than just "get to the facts." The State's only interest, in the Netherlands, as opposed to certain other nations who shall be nameless, is to get to the truth. They don't assume the police are telling the truth, even though their police would never lie or even be mistaken.

[Scot Dutchy]

I will answer one bit of that garbage of an answer:

Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

Once again your lack of knowledge regarding my country is just unbelievable. Your lawyer or advocaat as we call them does not really matter. There are no speeches to juries and given a speech to three judges is a waste of time. We dont have top advocaats but we have good ones not actors playing to the public. There are no Perry Masons. One advocaat did try but never got him anywhere except being kicked out of the order. Our system looks for the truth. There are no tricks in our courts. No secret witnesses or demolishing of witnesses. Just look at the miscarriages of justice and how many poor souls have been executed wrongly.

How does your system work when the state is the accuser and also the ones doing the judging?

Our system as like many in the civilised world is based on the Napoleon code along with Roman code. It is all written law using case law. We dont have juries. The lower courts there is one judge and in the upper courts three. The judges are not there to listen but also to inquire. There is a prosecutor who along with the police in criminal cases investigates the crimes. In the criminal court there is a defence advocaat but the big difference in criminal cases is not for the defence to get his man off the hook he is there to protect his rights. All evidence and witnesses must be declared before the sitting and open to everyone to examine. It is not a trial but an exercise in searching for the truth. There are no courtroom speeches as in Anglo-Saxon systems with juries to impress. You cant have secret witnesses or try and trick witnesses or make a fool of them. The fundamental is looking for the truth.

There is always the right to appeal. Sittings are not televised but these days verdicts are often seen but the suspect is never seen and heard if he wills it.

[pErvinalia]

Are defence advocaats private, or appointed by the state?

[Scot Dutchy]

Are defence advocaats private, or appointed by the state?

You can a private one or have one appointed by the state. The costs are not for you and as I tried to explain there are experienced advocaats but no Perry Masons.

[Forty Two]

You can't have secret witnesses in the uncivilized world here either.

What do you mean "trick" - we can't trick them here either. They can be confronted with evidence which suggests that what they've testified to is wrong, or that they are untrustworthy. That's legitimate. If they look foolish, it's because they aren't telling the truth or aren't trustworthy. Part of the defense's job is to make sure that evidence is vetted.

The police and the prosecutor investigate and prosecute crimes in the US too.

Of course a defense attorney is there to protect the defendant's rights, and to represent him. Here in the US, though, the defendant can rest assured that his advocate does not have to spill the beans on him, and is tasked with acting on behalf of the defendant, not throwing him under the bus if the supposed "truth" seems to be against the defendant.

The acknowledgement, and the reason to have a dedicated defense attorney who will argue your case no matter what, is that generally speaking nobody else was there, not even the defense attorney, at the time the crime was committed, and only the defendant knows for sure. And, the defendant may well look very guilty, but be very innocent. Having a defense attorney who isn't just there helping the factfinding process, but rather, looking for exculpatory evidence and arguments, is so that the attorney is focused on protecting the defendant's rights. It's not the attorney's job to rule on the case, and determine what facts are to be given what weight, and such, and to determine if his client did the deed. The attorney's job is represent the interests of the defendant.

There are many instances where truth takes a back seat to right. For example, the police may forget to read the defendant his rights and they may get an admission during an interrogation. If they did not read the witness his rights, then the admission will be kept out of the trial. I think a similar rule applies in the Netherlands. That's a deviation from truth, to serve a greater systemic purpose. That's part of what a defense attorney is supposed to do.

You know, this isn't an indictment of the Dutch system anyway. The only one claiming superiority here is Dutchy, who made some ridiculous and ignorant claims about the American system, of which he knows something between "jack" and "squat." Dutchy has, again, about the same depth of knowledge of the US system as the Euros used to have about the US during the Spaghetti Western days, when they thought the wild west was what they saw on t.v. screens.

[pErvinalia]

I think he's seen too many Hollywood movies.

[Forty Two]

Atticus makes miss Mayella look foolish and "destroys" her testimony...and in a rape trial, no less.