Snopes - Again

[kyburg]

A lesson in teasing out true, false and WTF.

And a very simple one, at that.

It takes time to sift through any amount of "evidence."

How long did it take to find out that neither Clinton had done anything "bookable" re: Whitewater? And that the only thing Clinton could be arguably tried for was lying about a blowjob? He lied to a Grand Jury about being unfaithful to his wife. Took how long to make that determination?

It took almost the entire two terms of Clinton in office. And cost a buncha money.

And that was after someone brought the case, which has not been the case with any of the Bush administration - yet. No, these things don't just happen. You have to pay someone. aiobheil can speak to this - you have to pay them, and keep paying them.

"Free" country - uh, no. There has been the idea that everyone should have access to the legal process, but in the past that access was provided by various and sundry supported programs - including the whole "public defender" concept.

Try finding any kind of legal aid now.

I'm picking up bits and pieces of the Jackson case from time to time (no, I don't have a radio in the car, at my desk, or at work and I don't watch television news at home. Rarely. I read newspapers - when I get enough time. Which I haven't lately.) I am immediately struck by how the legal process is first trying to determine what evidence can be allowed. Not that there is any, but what. And gathered how.

I think we should look at everything, including how it was obtained - and decide that in the courts. Don't you?

I think my objection is the order in which they do that.

Random drive-by gripe. Your mileage may vary.

Comments

[murphymom.livejournal.com]

Let me see if I can dredge up something useful from the year I spent in hell - er, law school. Whether or not something is evidence of a crime, etc, is a question of fact, for the jury to decide (in other words, the fact that Smith was observed standing over Jones' dead body holding a smoking gun may or may not mean Smith killed Jones - but the jury gets to decide). What "evidence" is allowed to be presented is decided up front because some facts, true though they may be, cannot be admitted because they are prejudicial, or they were obtained illegally ("fruit of the poisoned tree"). I know it seems backward, if what one side has to present is basically garbage (even if true), but, that's the way it works. Think of it as mining - first you use a screen to separate the larger lumps from the sand - then you have to examine the lumps to see if they're nuggets or just rocks.

At least, that's the way I understood Civil/Criminal Procedure. (Of course, i did wash out of law school, so my input may be just rocks.)