bastards! (and orphans)

the bastard got off.
a chunk of evidence that was allowed would have contradicted boatloads of his story.
thank you police for screwing that pooch.
unfortunately the verdict is probably legally solid.
i reference the oj trial again.
that’s all i’m going to say about the subject.
it makes me too angry.
at least he apologised for the whole unprotected sex part of it.

today’s answer to yesterday’s quote (select text to view): hellraiser bloodlines. said by pinhead himself.

it has been brought to my attention that prehaps my quotes are a little to obscure and/or difficult. this game came about by listening to velvet acid christ who uses lots of movie sound bites in his music.
of course there’s a big difference between reading the quote and hearing it, so i’ll try to make them a little more recognisable.
today’s quote:
“You all wanna be looking very intently at your own belly buttons. I see a head start to rise, violence is going to ensue. Probably guessed we mean to be thieving here but what we’re after is not yours. So, let’s have no undue fussing.”
name that movie :)

its children’s week in world of warcraft this week.
players can pick up orphans from ogrimmar (horde) and stormwind (alliance) who then follow them about on adventures.
there are a few sights that the orphans would like to see and when the player finally returns them to the orphanage (after visiting the sights) the orphan offers on of his/her favourite pets for the player to keep to remember the child by.
thats cool.

archangel is blogging again and has trivia questions (and a scoreboard).
go read her page!

real news roundup:
the miners that were trapped underground in australia are finally free.
the roman catholics neither support nor condone the davinci code movie (finally a sensible standpoint from a religious institution).
brazil is going nuclear: well… it’s enriching (non-weapons grade) uranium for its reactors locally as opposed to spending the ca$h to have it done for them.
and the “aaawww” moment: a baby dolphin stranded in a rock pool near mossel bay has been rescued bu the NSRI and returned to its pod.

and E3 kicked off today.
find the official site here.
there’s way too much to cover here so go browse their site for your specific intrests.
i’m still waiting for al lowe’s announcement.

and thats it for today folks.


2 Responses to bastards! (and orphans)

  1. schpat says:

    Well, to be fair, the judge did not dismiss the cops testimony based on JZ not being informed of his rights, holding that JZ had previously been informed of his rights and that the warning was still valid for the follow-up visit, he just felt that they had lied. He felt that the question about where “it” happened had been ambiguous and meant to trap JZ. The cops denied this stating that they couldn’t have been asking leading questions because they had no idea of what the complainants story was, unfortunately there was evidence to suggest that they did infact know the story and were knowingly trying to entrap JZ. The fact that they had been caught in a lie showed that they were not credible witnesses so the judge discounted their testimony.

    So in the end, not bad police work, just bad policemen. But it’s not a technicality that got him off.

    Ultimately it was a number of factors that helped the judge make his decision.

    The complainant’s previous history of claiming rape at the slightest provocation on numerous occasions. She said that the men had all been found guilty but records and testimony showed that she was wrong, or lying.

    She had been shown to be sexually aggressive, this did not match her version of events but did match JZ’s.

    The state’s psychologist, Dr Merle Friedman, failed to do any of the generally accepted forensic tests to determine if the complainant had been raped. When the complainant was asked by the defense to participate in said tests the state refused to allow it. Further Dr Friedman only had two short sessions with the complainant, and based most of her findings on her statement given to the police. The defense psychologist, Dr Louise Olivier, challenged Dr Friedman’s findings and explained the difference between clinical and forensic psychology. Her arguments were cogent and sensible, not exactly what was reflected in the media.

    The complainant claimed she did not show any of the aggression and assertiveness that she had displayed in the past because she froze. She claimed she froze because she couldn’t understand why someone who she shared a father/daughter relationship with would do something like that. Key to her acting against her nature and freezing was the nature of her relationship with JZ. She claimed to have a father/daughter relationship with him and to be very close friends with his daughter. The fact that she hadn’t seen him in about 15 years before finally seeking him out when she needed cash to finance her studies abroad was rather telling in that regard. She claimed it was because she had “lost his number”, but had no problem getting hold of him to ask for cash. Also the fact that JZ’s daughter didn’t recognize her on the night and that there was no evidence of a friendship between them also showed that she was lying. Also the fact that they were of completely different ages meant that they could not have grown up together as the complainant had claimed. In the apparent absence of an actual father/daughter relationship there was no reason for the complainant to freeze, it looked like just another lie to cover up a previous untruth.

    The judge summarized all the evidence, which took about 4,5 hrs, because he was concerned about one sided reporting in the media. I’ve been following the case pretty closely and realized after the summary that there was a lot that hadn’t been reported on, like the fact that there was a policeman 10m from the complainant’s room, or reported to make JZ look guilty.

    In the end every verifiable claim that the complainant had made had been cast into doubt, or actually found to be a lie. Because of this the judge had to find that she was not a credible witness and that there was at least reasonable doubt that the complainant had consented and afterwards changed her story. I would have liked nothing more than to see JZ removed from politics and society, because I believe him to be a very dangerous, dishonest and unethical man, but I’m even happier to see a legal system that works properly and fairly, despite huge outside pressure. Unfortunately I think it had more to do with the judge than the actual system, but that’s a point for another day.

    oh, the movie quote is way too easy. I’d recognize that phraseology anywhere!

  2. zenstar says:

    since we had a lengthly discussion about the trial last night i’m not going to bother repeat everything.
    basically i think he’s a fuckwit.
    i don’t believe him or her, but i believe him less.

    and the quote was easy on purpose.

%d bloggers like this: