Posts
I'm an appellate geek. I don't think this confession comes as a shock to anyone. I like arguing the law, not facts. I like sussing out what statutes and jury instructions really mean. I really believe that the difference between unless and until is huge and that it matters whether a statute says a or any. I'm also a bit of a dictionary geek. I consult the dictionary on my desk multiple times a day. I have the dictionary app on my phone and iPad. I think carefully about my word choice and regularly look to the dictionary to help decide which word I most want to use.
So I took note of this story in the NYT about the rising use of dictionary citations in Supreme Court decisions. Adam Liptak, some quoted scholars, and many commenters seem to think this is a really bad thing.
I must confess, I'm not sure I understand the brouhaha. I have cited the dictionary in at least two briefs. Once really was to make a point about the difference between "a" and "any." I had to make a point that the word choice made by the legislature mattered. We have to do that in almost every case, haggle over specific words. If the legislature doesn't specifically define a term, we are to presume the word has its commonly understood meaning. (Naturally, the legislature did not include "a" and "any" in its definition section...) So if I can't go to a dictionary for that, where am I supposed to go? I can't just assert that a word means what I want it to mean; I have to cite authority for my position. And on that particular word choice, Black's Law Dictionary wasn't particularly helpful, as that book is not in the business of defining basic words like articles.
I do understand Liptak's concern about cherry-picking from dictionaries. He notes that justices have cited 120 dictionaries. I would like to know if that 120 treats different editions of Webster's as separate dictionaries, though. When I cite, I look at multiple dictionaries, always the most commonly-used dictionaries. And, of course, my adversary is free to consult other dictionaries to find definitions that might disagree with the ones I have offered. It only hurts my case if I avoid a definition that includes a nuance harmful to my position. Instead, I would make my best case for why that definitional nuance doesn't mean my client isn't entitled to relief.
If I have to cite dictionary definitions, it stands to reason that courts have to consider them. Isn't consulting a dictionary preferable to creating a definition out of whole cloth?
In the law, words matter. Often little words you wouldn't think matter can make a big difference. The difference between "a" and "any" meant the difference between my client having 2 convictions or 1, so, no, it wasn't just nitpicking. Where would I have found my answer for that if not the dictionary? I did find a case from another state that supported my argument, but guess where that state's court had turned to help find its answer? A dictionary. And I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.
What say you? When the legislature and case law is silent on the meaning of a word, where should a lawyer or a court look if not to a dictionary? What am I missing about why citing the dictionary is bad or lazy or somehow intellectually lacking?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, June 13, 2011
Things I should stay away from, part II
We have already established that I should stop reading the local papers. Tonight, we can add Republican debates to the things I should stay away from. I made it through a lot. I didn't turn away when they talked about the economy, unemployment, taxes, medicare, etc. I disagreed with most of what they said, but not to the point of yelling.
But then they got to the gay questions. I am fairly certain my head actually did the Exorcist spinning thing. I stomped about the room. I used the f-word a lot. I scared my dog. It's not the gay marriage thing, exactly. I expected those answers. I fundamentally disagree with them and am appalled at how many of those allegedly conservative candidates would so willingly amend the Constitution over something as small as the definition of marriage. Doesn't seem quite in keeping with what the founders intended for the amendment process. It would never pass, so it's all just bluster anyway.
The more frustrating discussion came when the candidates were asked whether they would continue with "Obama's" repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (I use quotation marks because last I checked, Congress passed the repeal bill). They didn't all say they would undo the repeal, but with the exception of Ron Paul, they all gave the sense that DADT had been valid, shouldn't have been repealed, that there are in fact valid concerns with allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military without having to worry that something as simple as going on a date or referring to a significant other by name or a gender pronoun could get them kicked out.
For the last friggin' time, "allowing" gays to serve openly in the military is not a matter of special rights or social experimentation. It's just what should be the normal, natural way things are done. People who volunteer for the army and are willing to lay down their lives for their country should just be able to do so, regardless of which team they play for. And it's odd and unnatural to say if you play for Team Straight you can talk about it all you want but keep your trap shut if you play for Team Gay. So by repealing that odd, unnatural DADT rule, we've finally gotten to where we should have been all along. And hell no, we should never go back.
I just cannot comprehend any reason whatsoever why anyone thinks it's ok to say that gays should be treated differently, that they should be told their employment should be conditioned on remaining silent about their private lives, a condition not required of any other service members. I heard the word immoral a lot of times tonight, but not one of those candidates has any sense of morals that I can respect. Because DADT was immoral. Treating gays differently and then accusing them of asking for "special" rights when they want that differentiation to end is immoral. Asking anyone who puts on a uniform, picks up a gun, and fights for this country to lie about themselves if they want to put their lives on the line for all the rest of us is immoral.*
Every single politician, pundit, service member, or civilian who thinks otherwise should be deeply, deeply ashamed. Being gay is not immoral. Treating gays like they're sick, diseased, icky, or in any way less desirable than straights is immoral.
So, yeah, if that's what the Republican party has to offer, I want no part of it. And I really shouldn't watch any more of their debates.
*(And can I take a moment to give a huge shout-out to all the men and women who served in the military under DADT and were so committed to the idea of service that they were willing to live that lie? Talk about dedication to military service.)
But then they got to the gay questions. I am fairly certain my head actually did the Exorcist spinning thing. I stomped about the room. I used the f-word a lot. I scared my dog. It's not the gay marriage thing, exactly. I expected those answers. I fundamentally disagree with them and am appalled at how many of those allegedly conservative candidates would so willingly amend the Constitution over something as small as the definition of marriage. Doesn't seem quite in keeping with what the founders intended for the amendment process. It would never pass, so it's all just bluster anyway.
The more frustrating discussion came when the candidates were asked whether they would continue with "Obama's" repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (I use quotation marks because last I checked, Congress passed the repeal bill). They didn't all say they would undo the repeal, but with the exception of Ron Paul, they all gave the sense that DADT had been valid, shouldn't have been repealed, that there are in fact valid concerns with allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military without having to worry that something as simple as going on a date or referring to a significant other by name or a gender pronoun could get them kicked out.
For the last friggin' time, "allowing" gays to serve openly in the military is not a matter of special rights or social experimentation. It's just what should be the normal, natural way things are done. People who volunteer for the army and are willing to lay down their lives for their country should just be able to do so, regardless of which team they play for. And it's odd and unnatural to say if you play for Team Straight you can talk about it all you want but keep your trap shut if you play for Team Gay. So by repealing that odd, unnatural DADT rule, we've finally gotten to where we should have been all along. And hell no, we should never go back.
I just cannot comprehend any reason whatsoever why anyone thinks it's ok to say that gays should be treated differently, that they should be told their employment should be conditioned on remaining silent about their private lives, a condition not required of any other service members. I heard the word immoral a lot of times tonight, but not one of those candidates has any sense of morals that I can respect. Because DADT was immoral. Treating gays differently and then accusing them of asking for "special" rights when they want that differentiation to end is immoral. Asking anyone who puts on a uniform, picks up a gun, and fights for this country to lie about themselves if they want to put their lives on the line for all the rest of us is immoral.*
Every single politician, pundit, service member, or civilian who thinks otherwise should be deeply, deeply ashamed. Being gay is not immoral. Treating gays like they're sick, diseased, icky, or in any way less desirable than straights is immoral.
So, yeah, if that's what the Republican party has to offer, I want no part of it. And I really shouldn't watch any more of their debates.
*(And can I take a moment to give a huge shout-out to all the men and women who served in the military under DADT and were so committed to the idea of service that they were willing to live that lie? Talk about dedication to military service.)
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Amanda Knox and the serial killer
I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case. But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about it. I have. (I've always thought the prosecution's theory was ludicrous and that the crime itself is most compatible with a lone-killer theory, which is what the evidence supports.) I just didn't really have much to add to the discussion, if there even is much discussion here in the U.S. Until this week when my college roommate gave me a book to read on the plane ride home. She, like me, is a prolific reader. But unlike me, she does not like to keep physical books lying around her house. (Our roommate relationship worked well because she didn't mind my clutter as long as it stayed on my side of the room. Her side was neat, mine wasn't, and there was never any discussion or nagging about it. I don't respond well to nagging.)
The book she gave me was about a serial killer. Naturally, I wanted to read it. (Apparently, it's said that I spend too much time thinking about criminal law and cases, but really, what the hell else have I got to do?) So when I got to the airport ridiculously early for my flight because that's what I do, I started to read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. (And in case you were wondering, I scored a window seat for my return flight, too.) I couldn't put the book down and finished it Thursday night. (The stuff I had to do just had to wait.)
Now you might think that a book about the only serial killer Florence, Italy has ever known (at least in modern times) has nothing to do with Amanda Knox's case, but you'd be wrong. The murders themselves, to any rational observer, clearly have nothing to do with each other. But based on what I learned from this book and other sources, I've concluded there isn't much that's rational about the Italian criminal justice system. I challenge anyone who thinks it's even possible that Amanda Knox is guilty to read this book and come away with anything but the overwhelming sense that there's just no reason to think she did anything.
Starting from the beginning. In 1981, Florence realized it had a serial killer on its hands. Between 1981 and 1985, someone was killing young couples who were getting to know each other all the way in their cars in the hills above Florence. Soon, officers realized this killer had also killed a couple in 1974. Eventually, the killer, dubbed the Monster of Florence, killed 7 couples total. The gun from those murders had also been used in a 1968 murder. The gun had left one very unique characteristic on all its shells. So the clear, logical solution is that someone with access to the gun used in that '68 killing became a serial killer. Preston and Spezi, who have studied the case for years, have a clear suspect in mind and it's the same person I had in mind before they identified him.
But that seemingly obvious suspect has apparently never been seriously investigated by police or prosecutors in Italy. Why believe that only one person is behind a series of gruesome murders when you can create a conspiracy involving hundreds? Occam's razor is not a preferred principle in Italy.
Instead of accepting the idea that they had a lone-acting serial killer (so prosaic, so American), they decided there just had to be more to it. Not because there was physical evidence to show there was more than one killer. But just because. They managed to convict 3 people of the murders, even though those people clearly lacked the mental faculties to plan such murders and conceal their guilt. One guy even confessed, but apparently it's a big thing to be "in the know" in Italy. So it seems this guy would rather be in the know and in prison for murder than not be part of the action. His story just doesn't match the physical evidence at all. For his story to be true, one of the couples had to have been murdered on the Sunday night before they were discovered on Monday. But another, far more credible witness, provided testimony that meant the murders happened on Saturday. And the scientific evidence also makes it impossible the couple only died 12 hours before being discovered. (I will spare you the details.)
But instead of accepting the testimony of the credible witness and the expert on decomposition, the prosecutors doggedly stuck to their theory. They also dredged up some unrelated 1985 suicide, decided it was really a homicide, and created an elaborate story about how the body had been switched in 1985 and then switched again 17 years later when the body was exhumed. I'm a little fuzzy on why the body-swap was supposed to have happened, but, sure, that's what happened. And then, in 2006, the prosecutor charged Spezi, accusing him of being part of the grand conspiracy behind the murders who was now trying to throw off the investigation by finding that expert and generally questioning the course of the investigation over the past 20 years. Who other than someone deeply involved in the murders, after all, would be so interested in steering the investigation away from the conspiracy theory?
Happily, reason ultimately carried the day and the charges against Spezi were dropped. Largely because the prosecutors also targeted the American writer, a best-seller, who mobilized the global journalism community to raise holy hell about it. Not only was Spezi released, but the prosecutor and chief investigator pushing the insane conspiracy theory were both found to have abused their offices and committed all kinds of misconduct. The prosecutor was actually sentenced to 2 years, but that sentence was suspended.
So, what does all of this have to do with Amanda Knox? Well, the disgraced prosecutor behind the arrest of Spezi and the nutty conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence case is the very prosecutor who handled Meredith Kercher's murder and came up with the notion that it was a sex game gone wrong. Once again, Occam's razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation for Kercher's murder really is that the guy whose DNA is all over the murder scene, whose bloody handprint was on the wall of the room, and whose hair was clutched in the victim's hand is the guilty party. But the prosecutor just didn't like that Amanda; he had a bad feeling about her. I mean, she was buying lingerie in the days after her roommate's murder! (Never mind that she was barred from entering her home, the crime scene, so had to buy new underwear.) And she was making out with her boyfriend and smiling! (If they're talking about the video clip I've seen, I see two sweet, subdued, stunned kids finding a little comfort in each other. But I'm just a silly, prosaic American.) So he decided she did it (and the boyfriend, too), evidence be damned.
In one last interesting twist, there's a prolific blogger in Italy who lives for conspiracy theories. I'm afraid to use her name because I fear she might be one of those who would look up every webpage that has her name on it and I really don't want this crazy lady e-mailing me. But here goes. Her name is Gabriella Carlizzi. I do not know the name of her website. She is really one of the architects of the Monster conspiracy theory. She thinks it's all related to this mysterious Order of the Red Rose, some super-secret order dating back to Florence's heyday in the Renaissance. In her mind, the red rose guys are the cream of the crop in Florence society and engage in all sorts of perverse and satanic activities when no one's looking. They got all those simpletons to commit the monster murders and take body parts of the female victims so they could use those body parts in their rituals. And, no, of course there is no physical evidence to support any of this at all. Well, except for the hexagonal stone piece found at one of the crime scenes that is clearly a conduit between this world and the underworld. Or a standard Tuscan doorstop. Depending on how you look at it. (At one point, they finally thought they'd found the lair used by this sect. There were skulls and bones there! The search revealed Halloween decorations...) So clearly Carlizzi never met a conspiracy nutty enough to find unbelievable.
Perhaps you're already seeing where she took this? If you guessed that in the days after Kercher's murder, Carlizzi suggested on her blog that it was connected to the Monster of Florence conspiracy, you're a winner! Apparently those red rose folks were getting itchy to get back to the killing and satanic rituals, so they decided to try a different kind of murder. Or something. And that Amanda Knox was involved. It was the very next day that the prosecutor charged Knox and her boyfriend. In the book, Preston and Spezi write of Carlizzi having a Rasputin-like hold over this prosecutor. In his case against Spezi, the prosecutor used quote after quote after quote from her blog to the court. Spezi apparently had some fun pointing that out in his rebuttal.
This woman has no credibility. A prosecution based on a fantastical theory she came up with has no credibility. A prosecutor who would be guided by her (and has already been found to have abused his office, etc.) has no credibility. And yet Amanda Knox was prosecuted by this man spouting a fantastical theory originally thought up by this woman. How could anyone think her conviction has any credibility?
So, no, I don't think Amanda Knox is guilty. I don't even think it's possible. I don't think there is any rational reason for any person to believe otherwise. All the stuff against her is hysteria, sound and fury signifying nothing. The physical evidence points to Rudy Guede. All of it. But, Sarah, you say, what about the knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade? Oh, you mean the knife that isn't the freakin' murder weapon?? Of course a knife that Amanda used to cook could have her DNA on it and the miniscule amount of Meredith's DNA on it is much more consistent with either transfer (some of her skin transferred onto Amanda who then carried it to the boyfriend's house and got it on the knife) or contamination at the lab. Either way, it really doesn't matter because that knife wasn't the one that killed Kercher!
The prosecution's theory simply defies all logic, ignores the actual physical evidence, and refuses to accept the likeliest explanation. Having now seen that this is just what prosecutors do in this region of Italy (especially this prosecutor), spin out crazy huge conspiracy theories and get innocent people convicted of murder, I have no doubt that Amanda Knox has no business being in prison. And I seriously question whether I will ever return to Italy. Which is a shame because I really did love Florence. But you never know where or when a dead body might turn up and how far the conspiracy behind that body might reach.
The book she gave me was about a serial killer. Naturally, I wanted to read it. (Apparently, it's said that I spend too much time thinking about criminal law and cases, but really, what the hell else have I got to do?) So when I got to the airport ridiculously early for my flight because that's what I do, I started to read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. (And in case you were wondering, I scored a window seat for my return flight, too.) I couldn't put the book down and finished it Thursday night. (The stuff I had to do just had to wait.)
Now you might think that a book about the only serial killer Florence, Italy has ever known (at least in modern times) has nothing to do with Amanda Knox's case, but you'd be wrong. The murders themselves, to any rational observer, clearly have nothing to do with each other. But based on what I learned from this book and other sources, I've concluded there isn't much that's rational about the Italian criminal justice system. I challenge anyone who thinks it's even possible that Amanda Knox is guilty to read this book and come away with anything but the overwhelming sense that there's just no reason to think she did anything.
Starting from the beginning. In 1981, Florence realized it had a serial killer on its hands. Between 1981 and 1985, someone was killing young couples who were getting to know each other all the way in their cars in the hills above Florence. Soon, officers realized this killer had also killed a couple in 1974. Eventually, the killer, dubbed the Monster of Florence, killed 7 couples total. The gun from those murders had also been used in a 1968 murder. The gun had left one very unique characteristic on all its shells. So the clear, logical solution is that someone with access to the gun used in that '68 killing became a serial killer. Preston and Spezi, who have studied the case for years, have a clear suspect in mind and it's the same person I had in mind before they identified him.
But that seemingly obvious suspect has apparently never been seriously investigated by police or prosecutors in Italy. Why believe that only one person is behind a series of gruesome murders when you can create a conspiracy involving hundreds? Occam's razor is not a preferred principle in Italy.
Instead of accepting the idea that they had a lone-acting serial killer (so prosaic, so American), they decided there just had to be more to it. Not because there was physical evidence to show there was more than one killer. But just because. They managed to convict 3 people of the murders, even though those people clearly lacked the mental faculties to plan such murders and conceal their guilt. One guy even confessed, but apparently it's a big thing to be "in the know" in Italy. So it seems this guy would rather be in the know and in prison for murder than not be part of the action. His story just doesn't match the physical evidence at all. For his story to be true, one of the couples had to have been murdered on the Sunday night before they were discovered on Monday. But another, far more credible witness, provided testimony that meant the murders happened on Saturday. And the scientific evidence also makes it impossible the couple only died 12 hours before being discovered. (I will spare you the details.)
But instead of accepting the testimony of the credible witness and the expert on decomposition, the prosecutors doggedly stuck to their theory. They also dredged up some unrelated 1985 suicide, decided it was really a homicide, and created an elaborate story about how the body had been switched in 1985 and then switched again 17 years later when the body was exhumed. I'm a little fuzzy on why the body-swap was supposed to have happened, but, sure, that's what happened. And then, in 2006, the prosecutor charged Spezi, accusing him of being part of the grand conspiracy behind the murders who was now trying to throw off the investigation by finding that expert and generally questioning the course of the investigation over the past 20 years. Who other than someone deeply involved in the murders, after all, would be so interested in steering the investigation away from the conspiracy theory?
Happily, reason ultimately carried the day and the charges against Spezi were dropped. Largely because the prosecutors also targeted the American writer, a best-seller, who mobilized the global journalism community to raise holy hell about it. Not only was Spezi released, but the prosecutor and chief investigator pushing the insane conspiracy theory were both found to have abused their offices and committed all kinds of misconduct. The prosecutor was actually sentenced to 2 years, but that sentence was suspended.
So, what does all of this have to do with Amanda Knox? Well, the disgraced prosecutor behind the arrest of Spezi and the nutty conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence case is the very prosecutor who handled Meredith Kercher's murder and came up with the notion that it was a sex game gone wrong. Once again, Occam's razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation for Kercher's murder really is that the guy whose DNA is all over the murder scene, whose bloody handprint was on the wall of the room, and whose hair was clutched in the victim's hand is the guilty party. But the prosecutor just didn't like that Amanda; he had a bad feeling about her. I mean, she was buying lingerie in the days after her roommate's murder! (Never mind that she was barred from entering her home, the crime scene, so had to buy new underwear.) And she was making out with her boyfriend and smiling! (If they're talking about the video clip I've seen, I see two sweet, subdued, stunned kids finding a little comfort in each other. But I'm just a silly, prosaic American.) So he decided she did it (and the boyfriend, too), evidence be damned.
In one last interesting twist, there's a prolific blogger in Italy who lives for conspiracy theories. I'm afraid to use her name because I fear she might be one of those who would look up every webpage that has her name on it and I really don't want this crazy lady e-mailing me. But here goes. Her name is Gabriella Carlizzi. I do not know the name of her website. She is really one of the architects of the Monster conspiracy theory. She thinks it's all related to this mysterious Order of the Red Rose, some super-secret order dating back to Florence's heyday in the Renaissance. In her mind, the red rose guys are the cream of the crop in Florence society and engage in all sorts of perverse and satanic activities when no one's looking. They got all those simpletons to commit the monster murders and take body parts of the female victims so they could use those body parts in their rituals. And, no, of course there is no physical evidence to support any of this at all. Well, except for the hexagonal stone piece found at one of the crime scenes that is clearly a conduit between this world and the underworld. Or a standard Tuscan doorstop. Depending on how you look at it. (At one point, they finally thought they'd found the lair used by this sect. There were skulls and bones there! The search revealed Halloween decorations...) So clearly Carlizzi never met a conspiracy nutty enough to find unbelievable.
Perhaps you're already seeing where she took this? If you guessed that in the days after Kercher's murder, Carlizzi suggested on her blog that it was connected to the Monster of Florence conspiracy, you're a winner! Apparently those red rose folks were getting itchy to get back to the killing and satanic rituals, so they decided to try a different kind of murder. Or something. And that Amanda Knox was involved. It was the very next day that the prosecutor charged Knox and her boyfriend. In the book, Preston and Spezi write of Carlizzi having a Rasputin-like hold over this prosecutor. In his case against Spezi, the prosecutor used quote after quote after quote from her blog to the court. Spezi apparently had some fun pointing that out in his rebuttal.
This woman has no credibility. A prosecution based on a fantastical theory she came up with has no credibility. A prosecutor who would be guided by her (and has already been found to have abused his office, etc.) has no credibility. And yet Amanda Knox was prosecuted by this man spouting a fantastical theory originally thought up by this woman. How could anyone think her conviction has any credibility?
So, no, I don't think Amanda Knox is guilty. I don't even think it's possible. I don't think there is any rational reason for any person to believe otherwise. All the stuff against her is hysteria, sound and fury signifying nothing. The physical evidence points to Rudy Guede. All of it. But, Sarah, you say, what about the knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade? Oh, you mean the knife that isn't the freakin' murder weapon?? Of course a knife that Amanda used to cook could have her DNA on it and the miniscule amount of Meredith's DNA on it is much more consistent with either transfer (some of her skin transferred onto Amanda who then carried it to the boyfriend's house and got it on the knife) or contamination at the lab. Either way, it really doesn't matter because that knife wasn't the one that killed Kercher!
The prosecution's theory simply defies all logic, ignores the actual physical evidence, and refuses to accept the likeliest explanation. Having now seen that this is just what prosecutors do in this region of Italy (especially this prosecutor), spin out crazy huge conspiracy theories and get innocent people convicted of murder, I have no doubt that Amanda Knox has no business being in prison. And I seriously question whether I will ever return to Italy. Which is a shame because I really did love Florence. But you never know where or when a dead body might turn up and how far the conspiracy behind that body might reach.
Dr. Kimble didn't kill his wife and I do care
Ok, so I'm supposed to be working tonight. (Or should I say this morning as it's now 2 a.m.) I could have attended a block party or gone to the roller derby or watched "The Princess Bride" under the stars, but I didn't. I stayed home because I'm under double deadline. (Ok, so I went out for one drink, but I was only gone for an hour.)
Mostly this evening, I've been working. Which means I've been watching t.v., surfing the net, and puttering around my house. With the occasional jotting down of a brilliant thought thrown in. Tonight, I got lucky and found "The Fugitive" on t.v. Who doesn't love that movie? Harrison Ford at his Indestructoman best. Love it.
But tonight, while I was "working" and watching Harrison Ford refuse to die no matter how many times he plunged off a dam or fell through windows onto elevators below, I was reminded of a conversation I had on my college's computer message board back when this movie first came out in 1992. In those days before web browsing was the thing, we had quite the robust discussion board. One of the groups I frequently read and commented on was the movie forum. And at the time that "The Fugitive" came out, I distinctly recall one poster declaring it as ludicrous and a fatal flaw of the movie to think that anyone would be convicted of evidence on the scant, miniscule amount of evidence against Harrison Ford. Remember, there was no forced entry into Dr. Kimble's home, he was telling some outlandish story about a one-armed man, and Helen Kimble said something like, "He's trying to kill me. Richard, Richard." on her 911 call. This one poster kept insisting that he couldn't stand the movie because it was just beyond belief that anyone would be convicted and sentenced to death based on that evidence. I disagreed with him at the time, but I was just a lowly college student, so I didn't get far in convincing him he was wrong.
But because I am now "working" and have always suffered from "Someone is wrong on the internet"itis and I just watched the whole movie and I now have a decade of criminal defense work under my belt, I will now definitively state that Mr. Know-it-all on Vax was just plain wrong and I was right. People absolutely do get convicted on that kind of evidence. I have personally witnessed people getting mighty long prison sentences on less evidence than was presented against Dr. Kimble. And not just poor defendants who couldn't afford high-priced lawyers and fancy experts.
The cold, hard truth is that so much of our criminal cases comes down to hunches. Police follow their hunches and sometimes they can get a little blinded by those hunches and then interpret all of the evidence in ways that conform to what they already feel in their gut happened. In Dr. Kimble's case, there was no sign of forced entry but he insisted he came in to find a one-armed man attacking his wife. Of course the police viewed that with skepticism and then viewed all future evidence with the thought in mind that the good doctor was trying to fool them. It is no surprise to me whatsoever, knowing what I know now, that a real man in Dr. Kimble's position would be charged. (Let's not forget, he was covered in her blood. Of course, he claimed that all got on him while he was fighting with the one-armed man and then valiantly trying to revive his wife...)
Juries act on hunches, too. We don't like to admit this, but it's true. Heck, many jurors may not even realize they're doing it. But they do. Haven't you ever watched one of those "48 Hours" or "Dateline" episodes where the jurors say they could just tell the defendant was guilty? I sure have. And I've seen plenty of cases where nothing can explain the guilty verdict except that gut feeling. They then view the evidence through that lens of the gut feeling.
So while it may not be believable that Dr. Kimble survived that fall off the dam or that he managed to sneak into the one-armed man's apartment without being seen by the cops swarming the block or that he took all those lickings and kept on ticking, it is entirely believable that he was convicted on the evidence presented. I am ready for your apology, Mr. Vax commenter whose name I either never knew or have long since forgotten.
Mostly this evening, I've been working. Which means I've been watching t.v., surfing the net, and puttering around my house. With the occasional jotting down of a brilliant thought thrown in. Tonight, I got lucky and found "The Fugitive" on t.v. Who doesn't love that movie? Harrison Ford at his Indestructoman best. Love it.
But tonight, while I was "working" and watching Harrison Ford refuse to die no matter how many times he plunged off a dam or fell through windows onto elevators below, I was reminded of a conversation I had on my college's computer message board back when this movie first came out in 1992. In those days before web browsing was the thing, we had quite the robust discussion board. One of the groups I frequently read and commented on was the movie forum. And at the time that "The Fugitive" came out, I distinctly recall one poster declaring it as ludicrous and a fatal flaw of the movie to think that anyone would be convicted of evidence on the scant, miniscule amount of evidence against Harrison Ford. Remember, there was no forced entry into Dr. Kimble's home, he was telling some outlandish story about a one-armed man, and Helen Kimble said something like, "He's trying to kill me. Richard, Richard." on her 911 call. This one poster kept insisting that he couldn't stand the movie because it was just beyond belief that anyone would be convicted and sentenced to death based on that evidence. I disagreed with him at the time, but I was just a lowly college student, so I didn't get far in convincing him he was wrong.
But because I am now "working" and have always suffered from "Someone is wrong on the internet"itis and I just watched the whole movie and I now have a decade of criminal defense work under my belt, I will now definitively state that Mr. Know-it-all on Vax was just plain wrong and I was right. People absolutely do get convicted on that kind of evidence. I have personally witnessed people getting mighty long prison sentences on less evidence than was presented against Dr. Kimble. And not just poor defendants who couldn't afford high-priced lawyers and fancy experts.
The cold, hard truth is that so much of our criminal cases comes down to hunches. Police follow their hunches and sometimes they can get a little blinded by those hunches and then interpret all of the evidence in ways that conform to what they already feel in their gut happened. In Dr. Kimble's case, there was no sign of forced entry but he insisted he came in to find a one-armed man attacking his wife. Of course the police viewed that with skepticism and then viewed all future evidence with the thought in mind that the good doctor was trying to fool them. It is no surprise to me whatsoever, knowing what I know now, that a real man in Dr. Kimble's position would be charged. (Let's not forget, he was covered in her blood. Of course, he claimed that all got on him while he was fighting with the one-armed man and then valiantly trying to revive his wife...)
Juries act on hunches, too. We don't like to admit this, but it's true. Heck, many jurors may not even realize they're doing it. But they do. Haven't you ever watched one of those "48 Hours" or "Dateline" episodes where the jurors say they could just tell the defendant was guilty? I sure have. And I've seen plenty of cases where nothing can explain the guilty verdict except that gut feeling. They then view the evidence through that lens of the gut feeling.
So while it may not be believable that Dr. Kimble survived that fall off the dam or that he managed to sneak into the one-armed man's apartment without being seen by the cops swarming the block or that he took all those lickings and kept on ticking, it is entirely believable that he was convicted on the evidence presented. I am ready for your apology, Mr. Vax commenter whose name I either never knew or have long since forgotten.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
My arm has now officially cost me over $1,000. That is one expensive roller skating outing.
That could have been a plane ticket somewhere warm or exotic. It could have been the materials for a fence. It could have been many nice shoes. Or a whole boatload of books. Or just a nice addition to my interest-bearing savings account.
Instead, it's an arm that can't lift over 5 pounds and will probably have limited range of motion for another year. At least I got a cool scar out of it.
UPDATE: As soon as I hit publish on this post, I went to check the mail. Guess what was in it? Another bill! At least this one was only $27.53. So only a pair of Payless shoes. Or yarn for a baby blanket. How many more bills are still to come?
That could have been a plane ticket somewhere warm or exotic. It could have been the materials for a fence. It could have been many nice shoes. Or a whole boatload of books. Or just a nice addition to my interest-bearing savings account.
Instead, it's an arm that can't lift over 5 pounds and will probably have limited range of motion for another year. At least I got a cool scar out of it.
UPDATE: As soon as I hit publish on this post, I went to check the mail. Guess what was in it? Another bill! At least this one was only $27.53. So only a pair of Payless shoes. Or yarn for a baby blanket. How many more bills are still to come?
Friday, June 10, 2011
Will they be providing the cake?
I should just stop reading the local news as all it does is aggravate me. I do not like the direction my state is headed.
(Side story: on my recent travels, I found a set of "cause" bracelets. They each say "I care about" on one side and then offer a variety of causes on the other side. I bought the one that said "the arts" and elicited gasps from the sales clerks when I explained that my state had recently become the only one not to have an arts commission.)
But I keep reading the paper. I really am a glutton for punishment. And today, I saw this: that our recently decimated, slashed, reorganized, and generally made useless Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS) is now going to focus lots of energy on encouraging marriage. Not successful family units or good parenting or stable homes. Just marriage. So all those single-parent families aren't desirable. And forget about families headed by same-sex couples 'cause of course, they can't really get married and marriage is the root of all that is good and pure in the world from the beginning of time. (We'll just agree to pretend that one man, one woman marriage has always been the be all and end all, even though deep down we all know that just ain't true.)
So, to recap, socialism (meaning any kind of sharing of sacrifice and burden) is bad but social-engineering is good. So much for keeping government out of private realms. I don't understand this administration's idea about the proper role of government at all. Government shouldn't be involved in funding the arts, regulating business (except, of course, the family planning business and abortion services), or limiting guns in any way. But government should micromanage the script a doctor must read to a patient contemplating abortion and should encourage marriage (but only of the opposite sex variety, of course).
I'm not opposed to marriage. (Well, ok, maybe I'm just the tiniest bit bitter about it, but I really don't begrudge anyone who wants to get married.) But I'm not ok with my state so readily shoving marriage down our throats. A public relations campaign on the benefits of marriage? Really? Make it possible for people to get married, sure, but don't spend taxpayer money, my money, to encourage marriage. Especially not the agency that is charged with helping all children and families. Of all agencies, this one should not set the tone that one type of family is preferred to all others, is better.
It kinda makes me want to have a child out of wedlock. And I'd really like to answer some of their questions about my attitude toward marriage, divorce, cohabitation, and children born out of wedlock (which would necessarily include children born to same-sex couples). Because I wouldn't mind giving them my two cents. I might even include the point that whatever money they're spending on this public relations campaign could have been much better spent funding arts programs for kids in Iola.
(Side story: on my recent travels, I found a set of "cause" bracelets. They each say "I care about" on one side and then offer a variety of causes on the other side. I bought the one that said "the arts" and elicited gasps from the sales clerks when I explained that my state had recently become the only one not to have an arts commission.)
But I keep reading the paper. I really am a glutton for punishment. And today, I saw this: that our recently decimated, slashed, reorganized, and generally made useless Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS) is now going to focus lots of energy on encouraging marriage. Not successful family units or good parenting or stable homes. Just marriage. So all those single-parent families aren't desirable. And forget about families headed by same-sex couples 'cause of course, they can't really get married and marriage is the root of all that is good and pure in the world from the beginning of time. (We'll just agree to pretend that one man, one woman marriage has always been the be all and end all, even though deep down we all know that just ain't true.)
So, to recap, socialism (meaning any kind of sharing of sacrifice and burden) is bad but social-engineering is good. So much for keeping government out of private realms. I don't understand this administration's idea about the proper role of government at all. Government shouldn't be involved in funding the arts, regulating business (except, of course, the family planning business and abortion services), or limiting guns in any way. But government should micromanage the script a doctor must read to a patient contemplating abortion and should encourage marriage (but only of the opposite sex variety, of course).
I'm not opposed to marriage. (Well, ok, maybe I'm just the tiniest bit bitter about it, but I really don't begrudge anyone who wants to get married.) But I'm not ok with my state so readily shoving marriage down our throats. A public relations campaign on the benefits of marriage? Really? Make it possible for people to get married, sure, but don't spend taxpayer money, my money, to encourage marriage. Especially not the agency that is charged with helping all children and families. Of all agencies, this one should not set the tone that one type of family is preferred to all others, is better.
It kinda makes me want to have a child out of wedlock. And I'd really like to answer some of their questions about my attitude toward marriage, divorce, cohabitation, and children born out of wedlock (which would necessarily include children born to same-sex couples). Because I wouldn't mind giving them my two cents. I might even include the point that whatever money they're spending on this public relations campaign could have been much better spent funding arts programs for kids in Iola.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Maybe I'm a snob, but I don't think Southwest Airlines is for me. The whole no assigned seats thing stresses me out. I don't like the uncertainty of not knowing where I'm going. I don't like the pressure of having to guess who might be an acceptable seat neighbor. I really, really don't like not knowing for sure that I will have a window seat. I just want the airline to tell me where to sit, after allowing me to note my preference for a window seat.
I stress out enough about flying. While some in my family (Dad) claim to enjoy the "process" of traveling, I do not. I may like my destination, but getting there makes me cranky. Southwest's system only increases my crankiness. I don't think I will fly them again.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I stress out enough about flying. While some in my family (Dad) claim to enjoy the "process" of traveling, I do not. I may like my destination, but getting there makes me cranky. Southwest's system only increases my crankiness. I don't think I will fly them again.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
