For PV - some REAL evidence
Just passing by
recent post as that one was essentially about you and this one is
about the Woodward case.
When you have finished reading this, if you have any sense at all, you
will never again try to use the rulings of the trial judge and appeal
court judges as "proof" of Louise Woodward's guilt.
From the beginning it was inevitable that you would NEVER respond to
my challenge to address the evidence as presented at trial to support
your position that LW had been PROVEN to be guilty (as distinct from
being found guilty by the jury). You have been searching through my
postings in other newsgroups, and you have delighted in posting
numerous out of context quotes here together with the lie that I only
ever make wild accusations without ever backing anything up with
evidence. But if you have read those postings, you know that I do
provide evidence of the claims I have made. But you have preferred not
to post any of that here.
It was also inevitable that rather than respond to my challenge to
show the trial evidence that convicted her and convinces you of her
guilt, you would instead rely on the fact that apart from the jury,
neither the trial judge nor the appeal judges ruled that she was
completely innocent. This is how you put it in your latest post:
____________________________
"The jury found her guilty of a greater crime... each one of them.
Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The appeal
court TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was guilty."
_____________________________
What you don't know, because you have never studied this case in
sufficient depth, is what single alleged event enabled both Zobel and
the appeal court to create the myth that LW had committed that "lesser
crime" you referred to. Yes, PV, it is only one event, and now I am
going to show you, using provable facts, why that event never really
occurred.
Firstly let's look at what Zobel said in his ruling. The emphasis on
certain parts is mine, not his, but you will see why below:
_____________________________
The government buttressed the scientific evidence with testimony that
the baby had been normal earlier in the day; that Defendant had been
the only adult in his presence throughout; and that SHE HAD ADMITTED
TO POLICE THAT SHE HAD BEEN "A LITTLE ROUGH" WITH HIM when putting him
on a bed, bathing him, and placing him on the bathroom floor.
Viewing the evidence broadly, as I am permitted to do, I believe that
the circumstances in which Defendant acted were characterized by
confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but
not malice (in the legal sense) supporting a conviction for second
degree murder. Frustrated by her inability to quiet the crying child,
she was "A LITTLE ROUGH WITH HIM," under circumstances where another,
perhaps wiser, person would have sought to restrain the physical
impulse. THE ROUGHNESS WAS SUFFICIENT TO START (OR RE-START) A
BLEEDING THAT ESCALATED FATALLY.
Had the manslaughter option been available to the jurors, they might
well have selected it, not out of compromise, but because that
particular verdict accorded with at least one rational view of the
evidence, namely: (1) Matthew did indeed have a pre-existing,
resolving (i.e., healing) blood clot; (2) DEFENDANT DID HANDLE HIM
"ROUGHLY"; (3) the handling (although perhaps not the roughness) was
intentional; (4) the force was, under the circumstances, excessive,
and therefore unjustified; (5) the handling did cause re-bleeding; and
(6) the re-bleeding caused death.
_______________________________
This alleged rough handling was the one and only basis for Zobel's
manslaughter verdict. And anyone reading the above could be forgiven
for thinking that it was an established and undisputed fact that
Louise a) did handle Matthew roughly b) admitted doing so to police
c) has never denied doing so.
To deal with the third fallacy first: Louise Woodward has always
denied being "a little rough" with Matthew and still denies it to this
day. She also, to this day, denies ever having said that to the
police. This is from her testimony (from the transcripts):
________________________________
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): And you're telling us that the only time
the words "a little rough" came up was when Apotheker and Downing
[police officers] suggested that to you?
LOUISE WOODWARD: Yes.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Were you still upset that he was crying,
cranky and fussy?
LOUISE WOODWARD: I was upset that he was upset, yes. I was trying to
distract him out of it.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): And didn't you tell the Newton Police
later that evening that you'd been a little rough with Matthew that
day?
LOUISE WOODWARD: No, I told you what I said previously.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Well, don't you recall saying to the
police officers when you dropped Matthew onto the towels, you may have
banged his head on the floor where the floor meets the tub?
LOUISE WOODWARD: No, I didn't say that.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Didn't you tell the Newton Police
officers, specifically Sergeant Byrne that night, that you dropped
Matthew on the towels? Didn't you tell him that?
LOUISE WOODWARD: Absolutely not.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Never used the word "dropped."
LOUISE WOODWARD: I did not.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Didn't Sergeant Byrne ask you to
demonstrate how you dropped him, and you showed Sergeant Byrne how you
dropped him onto the towels?
LOUISE WOODWARD: No, Sergeant Byrne kept --
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Yes or no. Did he have you do a
demonstration of dropping the baby onto the towel?
LOUISE WOODWARD: Of dropping the baby, no.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Ms. Woodward, on February 4th, the day
Matty was rushed to the hospital, you didn't treat Matthew any
different that day than any other day before, did you?
LOUISE WOODWARD: No.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Weren't rough with him.
LOUISE WOODWARD: No.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): Didn't drop him, didn't toss him, didn't
bang his head.
LOUISE WOODWARD: No.
GERALD LEONE (Prosecution): And you weren't angry or frustrated with
his crying that day.
LOUISE WOODWARD: I wasn't angry at him, no.
___________________________________________
So that establishes that Louise Woodward did not admit in court to
being rough with Matthew or dropping him, or banging his head, or
being angry with him. It is amazing how many people believe that she
did admit to those things in court.
These allegations were made by Det. Sgt. William Byrne. So at this
point, we know that the allegation is nothing more than one person's
word against another. So one of them - either Louise or Sgt. Byrne -
is lying. I will now show you, with facts, which one it is.
On the evening of Feb 4 - the day Matthew had earlier been rushed to
hospital - Det. Sgt William Byrne arrived at the Eappen house to
interview Louise Woodward about the day's events. Also present at the
house was Matthew McCue, a close friend of the Eappens.
After the interview, Byrne turned to Mr. McCue and told him that he
was impressed with the way Louise had acted that day in quickly giving
mouth to mouth resuscitation to Matthew and calling the emergency
services. Byrne told McCue that he considered Louise to be "a
borderline hero".
Byrne then returned to the police station and wrote his report of the
interview which he submitted to his boss, Captain Marchand. In that
report Byrne gave an account of the interview that made no mention of
Louise having admitted dropping the baby, being "a little rough" with
the baby, banging the baby's head or being angry with the baby. He did
mention such things as Louise's date of birth, her age, her race,
what her job was and who employed her. But he did not mention anything
that could incriminate her in any possible crime. In other words, he
reported to Captain Marchand that there were no suspicious
circumstances to report.
But then the next day, Byrne returned to the house to arrest Louise,
claiming that during the interview she had admitted angrily dropping
Matthew and being rough with him.
So pause here, PV, and think about this. How could this possibly be
true? Louise could not have said those things during the interview. If
she had said them :-
1. Byrne would have arrested her there and then.
2. He would not have turned to Matthew McCue and called her "a
borderline hero".
3. He would not have omitted to make any mention of this alleged
confession in his report to Captain Marchand.
And there is another very important piece of evidence that Byrne was
lying. Matthew McCue, who was present during this interview, testified
that he had not heard Louise say any of those things Byrne accused her
of saying.
Now, Matthew McCue, a lawyer, is certainly no friend of Louise
Woodward. He remains a very close friend of the Eappens to this day
and supported them throughout the nine months leading up to the trial
and beyond. He made the news when it was discovered that he had been
regularly posting messages - using a nickname - in a forum
specifically set up to discuss the Louise Woodward case. He began
doing this after being angered by some of Louise's supporters who were
suggesting that Matthew's parents - his friends - were the real
killers.
So if there are/were two sides in this case, there is no doubt that
Matthew McCue has never been on the side of Louise Woodward. But Mr.
McCue is, first and foremost, an honest man. He could have lied to
back up Sgt. Byrne's story, but preferred to tell the truth. He could
have withheld the information about Byrne calling Louise "a borderline
hero" but didn't. If it had not been for Mr. McCue's honesty we would
never have known about that "borderline hero" remark Byrne made. But
after he revealed what Byrne had said to him, there was no way Byrne
could lie himself out of it. This is from the transcripts:
_________________________
ANDREW GOOD (defence): Okay. Now, sir, you mentioned that you had this
conversation with Mr. McCue.
SGT. BYRNE: Yes, sir.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): And, in fact, you talked to Mr. McCue after
this supposed conversation involving dropping the baby occurred.
SGT. BYRNE: Yes, sir.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): And isn't it true, sir, that you told Mr. McCue
that, that Ms. Woodward was, in your term, "a borderline hero"?
SGT. BYRNE: Yes, sir. No, no --
ANDREW GOOD (defence): Isn't that what you called Ms. Woodward?
SGT. BYRNE: No, sir, no, sir. I said that she could have been a
borderline hero, and I was confused and still didn't want to make a
rush to judgment.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): Okay. You referred to Ms. Woodward as "maybe a
borderline hero."
SGT. BYRNE: Yes, sir.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): And this is after Ms. Woodward supposedly told
you that she dropped this baby from two and a half or two feet off the
floor in anger.
SGT. BYRNE: That's correct.
_____________________________
Yes, that really is what Det. Sgt. William Byrne told the court.
And that was after this testimony:
____________________________
ANDREW GOOD (defence): You're saying that she told you that she did
this on purpose.
SGT. BYRNE: She was angry, sir.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): Okay. That's what she meant by "angry,"
according to you, right, that she did this on purpose.
SGT. BYRNE: She didn't say that she did it on purpose.
ANDREW GOOD (defence): But you understood that to mean that she did
it on purpose.
SGT. BYRNE: That was my feeling.
_______________________________
So what we are asked to believe is that Louise Woodward told Sgt.
Byrne that she angrily dropped Matthew on the floor, that he took this
to mean PURPOSELY, and yet rather than arrest her, he described her as
"maybe a borderline hero".
And what we are further asked to believe is that he then made out a
report to Captain Marchand in which he made no mention of that alleged
confession.
So, PV, it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened here. When
Byrne arrived to interview Louise, he had no intention of lying, no
intention of framing her, but simply wanted to do his job properly.
And right up to the point of submitting his report to Captain
Marchand, the thought of lying never even entered his head.
But then, after that report was submitted, SOMEBODY told Byrne to
change his story and lie about Louise saying she had dropped the baby.
Now again consider that the above allegation by Byrne is the sole
basis of Zobel's verdict of manslaughter. There is nothing else.
In one respect, Zobel was right to PRETEND to believe Byrne's lies. He
had to justify the verdict reduction and that was how he did it. The
alternative could have meant Louise being sentenced to 15 - 25 years
in jail (as demanded by the prosecution) if the SJC had overruled the
reduction and sent the matter to another judge for re-sentencing.
So, PV, your attempts to use Zobel's ruling and the SJC ruling it
influenced to create the impression that the manslaughter verdict had
any evidential basis, has now been blown out of the water.
A Planet Visitor
and prove it for the rest of us? Yes... and Yes. His obsessive
fixation and fascination with the 'Great White Whale' has now
become legend. Fact it, JPB... she was guilty.. she is guilty...
she will always be guilty. No doubt about it. I no longer find
you interesting. Rather, I see you as holding an argument that
stinks like a three-day old mackrel left in the sun too long...
yet you won't die... you just keeps flopping around. Even though
I had let you have the last hysterical word. But one was not
enough for you. So allow me to now top post to your comment,
repeating a short list of your past hysterical ravings, which I
will continue to do whenever you become hysterical again.
GENTLE READER --
We no longer need to look at the 'evidence,' since it has long
been decided what the evidence is, and how it was weighed.
JPB would hope to weigh it the way HE sees it, rather than
how rational people see it. This road has been traveled over
and over, but JPB simply repeats the same song and dance,
over and over, hoping that someone, somewhere, will believe
him. He does what he likes, without consulting facts, which
he despises, or those who examines those facts, whom he
detests. He's gone bonkers, and it's time the white-coat
people took him away. Like the rooster that crows every
morning. Closing his eyes to the sun when he crows...
hearing nothing and seeing nothing but himself, JPB just
refuses to examine facts, and will always depend on innuendo.
The evidence is in. Not only is the 'Great White Whale' guilty,
but JPB is guilty of being utterly corrupt, twisting fact, and
preferring to live in a fantasy world, where he and the 'Great
White Whale,' can live happily ever after.
So, Gentle Reader... let us again examine some of JPB's
unfounded accusations against EVERYONE in the justice
process, while making claims of her 'innocence' (sic) without
the slightest foundation of 'proof' -- Just a small number of those
silly words, which he's provided in the past, lacking any
substance other than those hysterical ravings I speak of --
His words in quotes, and my comments when appropriate --
1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
Again, as you did with me, presuming that 'proof' must be provided that
'proves' she was guilty, when that's already been established, and
the responsibility to 'disprove' is totally yours. One does not need
to 'prove' what has already been 'proven' in a court of law.
2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
Eappen."
Oops... doing it again.
3) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully convicted of"
4) "Louise Woodward was framed by a gang of criminals who lied, cheated,
conspired to pervert justice and committed perjury to deliberately
obtain a wrongful and fraudulent murder conviction against someone
they knew to be innocent."
The 'conspiracy' begins. Of course, and Bin Laden did not plan the WTC
attack either. The U.S. is trying to 'frame' him as well.
5) "So whoever hid them - and it had to be someone from the prosecution
team - knew she was innocent"
The 'conspiracy' continues.
6) "Dr. Eli Newberger, the principal architect of the framing of Louise
Woodward."
The 'conspiracy' continues.
7) "Lies he told in order to frame someone he knew and still knows to
be totally innocent."
And continues.
8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
And continues.
9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
was framed"
And continues.
10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
convicted of. She was framed."
And continues.
11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
brainwashed, biased population."
And continues.
12) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
proven crimes?"
And continues. It seems like the 'world' is just against the
poor, and heavy 'Great White Whale.'
13) "Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in causing
the death of Matthew Eappen. No cop outs like "The jury said this" or
"this person said the other"
Yes, of course.. let's not 'cop out' by using the words of those
who were closest to the case. Let's use YOUR hysterical accusations
that your 'proof' rests on claims of corruption, lies, crooks, jury
contamination, conspiracy, cover-up, frame-up, perjury, biased
yellow journalism, accusations and innuendo. At least those
don't actually have to be 'proven.'
14) "it is scientifically impossible for Louise Woodward to have done
what she was convicted of"
Actually, it is scientifically impossible to truthfully say it is 'scientifically
impossible.'
15) "Louise Woodward was the one who was wrongfully convicted (she was
definately innocent)"
16) "She was also totally innocent of harming that baby in any way
whatsoever - a crime for which she was blatantly framed"
TO JPB --
You will never convince anyone (I've seen other responses to your
hysteria proving that fact) that the 'Great White Whale' was anything
but guilty. In every instance in our dialog here, you have only tried to turn
argument into farce. You promised 'evidence' and instead ended
with silly accusations against everyone in the process, and even
turned on my silly comment remarking on not being able to
'find' rule 25 (b) (2). Which is obviously NOT EVIDENCE. Every
person in the ENTIRE justice process was convinced of her guilt.
In every case, there will always be a hysterical dissenter unwilling and
unable to see the truth. In the case of the 'Great White Whale' you
are that person. You are living proof of a remark made by Robert
Kennedy -- "1/5 of the people are against everything... all the time."
The trial and appeal process came to the CORRECT conclusion.
She was guilty as sin, but there was no malice, only stupidity.
The jury found her guilty of a greater crime... each one of them.
Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The
appeal court TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was
guilty. With four ruling in favor of Zobel's reduction of the verdict,
and the other three dissenting in favor of restoring the original
jury verdict and sending it to another judge for resentencing.
Not even ONE, believed she was in any way 'innocent' (sic).
These are what are called 'FACTS,' and constitute 'EVIDENCE'
which provide 'PROOF.'
IMHO, the courts in every instance bent over backwards, and
provided the most limited penalty possible. And, IMHO, the
best interests of the general population was served by getting
rid of her as quickly as possible, since in an American prison
she would have become a cause célèbre. While now she is
the problem of the U.K. I wish both her and the U.K. well,
but I certainly wish she never returns, and I'm rather certain
she never will.
PV
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com...
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 3/09/02 7:57 :
> Closing his eyes to the sun when he crows
PV posted this:
Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 01:57:48 EDT
One wonders when he himself has seen the sun?
He has not gone to beddy bye, at around 2AM, and will sleep into the
morning. The glare of the sun, if he decides to poke he head out from
underneath his rock, will blind him.
Earl
John Rennie
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:B99A5734.3D66%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
So what, Earl. Why should it worry when PV does his posting? Do you envy
his tenacity and energy? I do a little. I visited my father-in-law the
other day - he is 90. He said that one begins to feel old roundabout 85.
I felt like throttling him there and then - rather the same reaction as
yours to PV's nocturnal posting.
Just passing by
on a subject you know next to nothing about. Then, when challenged to
back up your rants with some evidence FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS you
run away from that challenge and instead hide behind the judge's and
SJC's rulings, thinking they provide all the proof you need.
But then when I show you - with evidence that you make no attempt to
rebut a single word of - that both those rulings are based, entirely
for convenience, on the obvious lies of a corrupt police officer and
nothing else, what do you do? You take the coward's way out and repost
your entire previous post from a different thread and different
discussion. Not a single word dealing with the evidence I gave you.
Just as you took the coward's way out when I challenged you to give a
simple answer to a simple question: "Is it possible for an eight month
old baby to fall head first from 15ft onto hard concrete without
suffering a single mark or bump to his head?" An easy question that
nobody but you would have any difficulty giving an answer to. But you
ran away from the question because you knew that if you replied you
would destroy your own argument if you answered "no" and your
credibility if you answered "yes".
Just as you have repeatedly run away from the challenge to explain why
you told somebody here the lie that I had asked you to prove that
Judge Zobel was not a crook. That person asked you why you would not
discuss with me the evidence that you pretended to be familiar with.
This was your answer
"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
'the judge was a crook'? Other than to say the person is an imbecile
if HE cannot provide proof. But what he is asking is that I provide
proof that the judge is not a crook. It defies every principle of
logic, and in fact justice. Since there is the presumption of
innocence... or haven't you heard of that?"
That was a blatant lie and this was my immediate reply to it:
______________________________
You just make it up as you go along don't you, PV? Nowhere have I ever
asked you to provide proof that the judge is not a crook. Moreover, I
have never said, here or anywhere else, that the judge (Zobel) is a
crook because I don't believe he is.
What I have asked you to provide proof of is that you know why Louise
Woodward was convicted. You can only do that by showing which part(s)
of the evidence convinces you that she was guilty, and not by simply
telling everyone what they already know (i.e. jury verdict, judges
amendment and SJC ruling).
But so desperate are you to escape from that challenge that you go to
the bizarre and extreme length of trying to convince people that the
challenge is to prove the judge is not a crook!
______________________________
But you ignored that challenge because you knew you were cornered. You
knew your lie had been exposed. And when I have subsequently raised
that matter in other threads here, you have similarly run away like
the coward you are.
Is that the way you behave when debating the death penalty? If so,
then if I were a retentionist, I would regard you as a liability. And
if I were an abolitionist, I would regard you as an asset. Because
anyone coming here with an open mind could only be swayed towards
support for the abolitionists' arguments by you and the dishonest and
cowardly way you operate.
I will now be moving on again, but when I do resurface here in the
future - no doubt to reply to more of your drivel - I will have
something I didn't have when I first came this time. I will have your
post claiming that I had asked you to prove the judge is not a crook.
And I will repost that lie. There is nothing you can do to erase that
lie now, PV. Nor is there anything you can do to erase the evidence
that you ran away every time I confronted you about it. It's all there
on record now.
I told you recently that you were your own worst enemy, and giving me
that lying post to remind you of again and again is further proof of
that.
Just passing by
> Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The
> appeal court TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was
> guilty.
You don't get it do you, PV? Then let me spell it out for you:
THE FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD HAS EFFECTIVELY ENDED THE ARGUMENT THAT
ZOBEL'S RULING PROVES LOUISE'S GUILT.
That argument can go no further - EVER - unless and until you can do
one of two things:
1. Put up some sort of cohesive argument that it was Louise, rather
than Byrne, who was lying.
2. Show that there was any basis for Zobel's ruling other than Byrne's
testimony.
But you haven't even attempted to do either of those things. This is
like arguing that 2 + 2 = 5 and then, after being shown that is wrong,
continuing with the same argument as if it had never been corrected.
I'll tell you what I strongly suspect, PV. I suspect that you didn't
actually read the posting. I think you opened it, saw that there was
quite a lot of text, and thought: "Look at this! He's obsessing again!
I can't read all this," and then started typing away without even
knowing what you were replying to. I can't see any other possible
explanation.
A Planet Visitor
Let us sum up JPB's 'argument' (sic) by making apologies to
Lewis Carroll and quoting --
"Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might
be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't. That's logic."
JPB --
Face it, JPB... she was guilty.. she is guilty... she will always BE
guilty. No doubt about it. I no longer find you interesting. Rather,
I see you as holding an argument that stinks like a three-day old
mackerel left in the sun too long... yet you won't die... you just
keeps flopping around. Even though I had let you have the last
hysterical word. But one was not enough for you. So allow me
to now top post to your comment, again repeating a short list of
your past hysterical ravings, which I will continue to do whenever
you become hysterical again.
AGAIN GENTLE READER --
Did I say JPB was obsessed? Did he go ahead and prove it for
the rest of us? Yes... and Yes. His obsessive fixation and
fascination with the 'Great White Whale' has now become legend.
We no longer need to look at the 'evidence,' since it has long
been decided what the evidence is, and how it was weighed.
JPB would hope to weigh it the way HE sees it, rather than
how rational people see it. This road has been traveled over
and over, but JPB simply repeats the same song and dance,
over and over, hoping that someone, somewhere, will believe
him. He does what he likes, without consulting facts, which
he despises, or those who examines those facts, whom he
detests. The longer it goes on, the more irrational and
hysterical he becomes. He cannot accept defeat. He's gone
bonkers, and it's time the white-coat people took him away.
Like the rooster that crows every morning. Closing his eyes
to the sun when he crows... hearing nothing and seeing nothing
but himself, JPB just refuses to examine facts, and will always
depend on innuendo. Hearing the crow of that rooster, one is first
shocked by that strident sound, which is the purpose of it, of
course. But after it is repeated over and over, one simply realizes
that it has no purpose other than hoping to irritate the rational.
Because the rational would show the senselessness of that very
crowing. The evidence is in. Not only is the 'Great White Whale'
Oops... doing it again.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
AGAIN TO JPB --
You will never convince anyone (I've seen other responses to your
hysteria proving that fact) that the 'Great White Whale' was anything
but guilty. In every instance in our dialog here, you have only tried to turn
argument into farce. Your argument (sic) is corrupt because it
depends totally on presuming that EVERYONE in the prosecution
and judgment of her guilt was corrupt. Yet, not one juror voted for her
acquittal to a higher crime. Not one judge suggested she was innocent
of all crime. You promised 'evidence' and instead ended
PV
We return now to the 'raving rebuttal.'
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
A Planet Visitor
Let us sum up JPB's 'argument' (sic) by making apologies to
Lewis Carroll and quoting --
"Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might
be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't. That's logic."
PV
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
GeneralZod
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<wbYc9.80721$bc.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> > Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The
> > appeal court TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was
> > guilty.
>
> You don't get it do you, PV? Then let me spell it out for you:
>
> THE FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD HAS EFFECTIVELY ENDED THE ARGUMENT THAT
> ZOBEL'S RULING PROVES LOUISE'S GUILT.
>
> That argument can go no further - EVER - unless and until you can do
> one of two things:
>
> 1. Put up some sort of cohesive argument that it was Louise, rather
> than Byrne, who was lying.
>
> 2. Show that there was any basis for Zobel's ruling other than Byrne's
> testimony.
What about the evidence?
Matthew Eappen died because of brain swelling caused by him being
violently shaken.
Woodward's attorney actually tried to place blame for the injury on
Matthew's older brother, who was only three at the time.
There was an established record of callousness and neglience on
Woodward's part while Matthew and his brother were in her care.
Woodward was heard commenting in the presence of a reporter, "It's
not like I hit him with a baseball bat."
Let me make this clear: If Louise Woodward did not kill Matthew
Eappen, then he is still alive.
Just passing by
>
> What about the evidence?
Ah good: somebody wants to talk about the evidence. You see PV, it's
easy. Why couldn't you manage that?
>
> Matthew Eappen died because of brain swelling caused by him being
> violently shaken.
So you disagree with both the defence AND the prosecution? You think
the brain swelling came from shaking? So that is now four different
explanations for the brain swelling that caused the raised intra
cranial pressure that in turn led to the cerebral edema.
The prosecution proposed that the primary cause of the brain swelling
was severe impact. The example they offered was of Matthew's head
being slammed against a hard object with the same force as falling
head first from 15ft onto hard concrete. The defence argued that the
brain swelling was caused by severe hypoxic ischemic injury to the
brain. And then there later came the theory of Dr. Floyd Gilles & Dr.
Marvin Nelson that the brain swelling was the result of strangulation.
They argued that the prosecution's theory was impossible because only
the right side of the brain was swollen. In the event of severe impact
being the cause, the swelling would have affected both sides.
Speaking on TV's 60 Minutes, Nelson said: "Well I see a large number
of skull fractures that come through here on almost a daily basis and
the vast majority of them don't have swelling underneath. Fractures
even more severe than the one that Matthew had." Nelson and Gilles
agreed that brain swelling to one side only could only have been
caused by Matthew's neck being pressed around the voice box, and
compressing the carotid artery on the left side of his neck, thus
cutting off the blood supply to the right side of Matthew's brain.
This, they said, was the cause of the brain swelling on the right
side and explains the lack of swelling on the left side.
So where does the question of shaking come into this? Well, the
prosecution did claim that, in addition to the alleged severe impact
with a hard object, Matthew was violently shaken for a full minute.
But that theory too has been disproved. If Matthew had been shaken in
the manner described, he would have sustained neck and spine injuries,
but there were none. Additionally there would have been evidence of
axonal shearing (tearing of brain tissue) and shearing of
inter-meningal vascular tissue (bridging veins) caused by the brain
moving relative to the skull under shaking/impact. The complete
absence of all those key signs completely rules out shaken baby
syndrome in this case.
> Woodward's attorney actually tried to place blame for the injury on
> Matthew's older brother, who was only three at the time.
Harvey Silverglate did say, some time after the trial, that with
hindsight he wished he had explored that possibility more at the
trial.
> There was an established record of callousness and neglience on
> Woodward's part while Matthew and his brother were in her care.
No there wasn't. If you have any proof of that, post it here.
> Woodward was heard commenting in the presence of a reporter, "It's
> not like I hit him with a baseball bat."
>
Then why did the prosecution not produce this "reporter" as a witness
at the trial? I'll tell you why: because there was no such "reporter"
and the story was made up. It was made up by the prosecution and fed
to a journalist called Anne Scadding who obediently reported it as if
it were fact. The purpose of spreading that and many more lies was to
pollute the jury pool before the trial even started. That whole
"baseball bat" story is false and well known to be so.
Just passing by
> "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com> wrote in message news:<_Z8d9.5872$Iz6.137...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Woodward was heard commenting in the presence of a reporter, "It's
> > not like I hit him with a baseball bat."
> >
>
> Then why did the prosecution not produce this "reporter" as a witness
> at the trial? I'll tell you why: because there was no such "reporter"
> and the story was made up. It was made up by the prosecution and fed
> to a journalist called Anne Scadding who obediently reported it as if
> it were fact. The purpose of spreading that and many more lies was to
> pollute the jury pool before the trial even started. That whole
> "baseball bat" story is false and well known to be so.
To add to that, the report was written by Anne Scadding for Newton
Graphic and also distributed through Newton Town Online and published
on June 12, 1997.
The report was headed: " 40 Witnesses May Testify Against Au Pair".
Amongst these "witnesses", wrote Scadding, was "a woman who rode in a
police van with the the 19-year-old au pair four days after
9-month-old Matthew Eappen's death, according to documents filed this
week by the prosecution." Scadding then added: "The woman in the van
said, '(Woodward), while getting into the transport vehicle,
apparently in response to a question called out by a news reporter,
stated 'What makes them think I didn't use a baseball bat on the
baby?' according to the documents."
Later in that same report, Scadding again pressed home that this
"witness", this "woman in the van" would be appearing as a prosecution
witness. She wrote: "A woman who rode in a van that transported
Woodward from Newton District Court to MCI-Framingham will also
testify about a statement Woodward allegedly made about the case on
Feb. 13, according to the documents."
So what happened to this "woman in the van" and this "journalist" who
the alleged remark was said to have been made to? Mysteriously, they
never appeared. They never gave evidence.
Because they never existed. And because that remark was never made by
Louise Woodward. It was a lie dreamed up by District Attorney Tom
Reilly and his friends to pollute the jury pool through the media. It
was one of countless similar lies fed to the media in this way over
nearly nine months while Louise Woodward was locked away unable to
give her side.
So is there really any great wonder that before the trial had even
started, 90% of the eligible jurors, when asked if they had formed any
opinions about the case, said they thought she was guilty?
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > What about the evidence?
>
> Ah good: somebody wants to talk about the evidence. You see PV, it's
> easy. Why couldn't you manage that?
>
Look, JPB... you're a delusional obsessive, standing on a soapbox, raving
hysterical accusations. I stopped to listen for a moment, commented
appropriately to show you are delusional, and moved on. Now another
one passes by and you shout hysterically at ME, in a "Come Back, Shane...
Come Back" shrill voice, for having dismissed you. The General.. if he
has half a brain, will soon realize, as I and many others in many other
newsgroups have realized: You're in love with the 'Great White Whale.'
And nothing will dissuade you from claiming the entire world has wronged
that 'baby shaker,' regardless of ALL evidence to the contrary. But I'm sure
that after the General realizes what so many have already done, some unwary
listener will be caught again by the sound of your agitated ravings and
again stop to comment, giving you the soapbox audience you so desperately
crave. There will always be SOMEONE to listen to those ravings. Be happy
for Usenet in that respect. But pardon me if I find no reason to be part of it.
PV
Just passing by
> "Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com> wrote in message news:<_Z8d9.5872$Iz6.137...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > What about the evidence?
> >
> > Ah good: somebody wants to talk about the evidence. You see PV, it's
> > easy. Why couldn't you manage that?
> >
> Because you're a fruitcake? As is again illustrated by your comment here.
> Look, JPB... you're a delusional obsessive, standing on a soapbox, raving
> hysterical accusations. I stopped to listen for a moment, commented
> appropriately to show you are delusional, and moved on. Now another
> one passes by and you shout hysterically at ME, in a "Come Back, Shane...
> Come Back" shrill voice, for having dismissed you. The General.. if he
> has half a brain, will soon realize, as I and many others in many other
> newsgroups have realized: You're in love with the 'Great White Whale.'
> And nothing will dissuade you from claiming the entire world has wronged
> that 'baby shaker,' regardless of ALL evidence to the contrary. But I'm sure
> that after the General realizes what so many have already done, some unwary
> listener will be caught again by the sound of your agitated ravings and
> again stop to comment, giving you the soapbox audience you so desperately
> crave. There will always be SOMEONE to listen to those ravings. Be happy
> for Usenet in that respect. But pardon me if I find no reason to be part of it.
>
> PV
Then let me remind you once again, PV: it was YOU, not me, who first
brought up the subject of LW. I wouldn't even be here now if you had
not started that ignorant rant to dirtdog.
And it was you, not me, who then ran away after being challenged to
show that your rants were based on any knowledge of the subject you
were ranting about.
Whatever his views on the matter, General Zod managed to achieve, in
just one posting, what you failed to do in countless posts covering
several threads: he addressed the evidence.
You never had the guts to do that because you knew it would expose
what a total ignoramus you are. As I said before, if I were a DP
retentionist I would consider you a liability, and if I were an
abolitionist, I would regard you as an asset. I have read some
interesting and well made contributions from DP supporters in this
newsgroup. You should leave it to them.
Earl Evleth
à j.re...@ntlworld.com a écrit le 3/09/02 12:54 :
> So what, Earl. Why should it worry when PV does his posting? Do you envy
> his tenacity and energy? I do a little. I visited my father-in-law the
> other day - he is 90. He said that one begins to feel old roundabout 85.
> I felt like throttling him there and then - rather the same reaction as
> yours to PV's nocturnal posting.
PV is a night stalker. His energy is derived from a pathological
condition. We should admire nuts? He is hyper in things that have
nothing to do with using what brains he has to think. He does provide
some interests for observatiion, however.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
1) She received a law degree from an English University
2) She is a convicted felon. Convicted of manslaughter, as a matter
of FACT.
????????????
Are either of those two statements FALSE?
> And it was you, not me, who then ran away after being challenged to
> show that your rants were based on any knowledge of the subject you
> were ranting about.
>
> Whatever his views on the matter, General Zod managed to achieve, in
> just one posting, what you failed to do in countless posts covering
> several threads: he addressed the evidence.
>
> You never had the guts to do that because you knew it would expose
> what a total ignoramus you are. As I said before, if I were a DP
> retentionist I would consider you a liability, and if I were an
> abolitionist, I would regard you as an asset. I have read some
> interesting and well made contributions from DP supporters in this
> newsgroup. You should leave it to them.
GENTLE READER --
Let us sum up JPB's 'argument' (sic) by making apologies to
Lewis Carroll and quoting --
"Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might
be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't. That's logic."
JPB --
Face it, JPB... she was guilty.. she is guilty... she will always BE
guilty. No doubt about it. I no longer find you interesting. Rather,
I see you as holding an argument that stinks like a three-day old
mackerel left in the sun too long... yet you won't die... you just
keeps flopping around. Even though I had let you have the last
hysterical word. But one was not enough for you. So allow me
to now top post to your comment, again repeating a short list of
your past hysterical ravings, which I will continue to do whenever
you become hysterical again.
AGAIN GENTLE READER --
Did I say JPB was obsessed? Did he go ahead and prove it for
the rest of us? Yes... and Yes. His obsessive fixation and
fascination with the 'Great White Whale' has now become legend.
We no longer need to look at the 'evidence,' since it has long
been decided what the evidence is, and how it was weighed.
JPB would hope to weigh it the way HE sees it, rather than
how rational people see it. This road has been traveled over
and over, but JPB simply repeats the same song and dance,
over and over, hoping that someone, somewhere, will believe
him. He does what he likes, without consulting facts, which
he despises, or those who examines those facts, whom he
detests. The longer it goes on, the more irrational and
hysterical he becomes. He cannot accept defeat. He's gone
bonkers, and it's time the white-coat people took him away.
Like the rooster that crows every morning. Closing his eyes
to the sun when he crows... hearing nothing and seeing nothing
but himself, JPB just refuses to examine facts, and will always
depend on innuendo. Hearing the crow of that rooster, one is first
shocked by that strident sound, which is the purpose of it, of
course. But after it is repeated over and over, one simply realizes
that it has no purpose other than hoping to irritate the rational.
Because the rational would show the senselessness of that very
crowing. The evidence is in. Not only is the 'Great White Whale'
Oops... doing it again.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
AGAIN TO JPB --
You will never convince anyone (I've seen other responses to your
hysteria proving that fact) that the 'Great White Whale' was anything
but guilty. In every instance in our dialog here, you have only tried to turn
argument into farce. Your argument (sic) is corrupt because it
depends totally on presuming that EVERYONE in the prosecution
and judgment of her guilt was corrupt. Yet, not one juror voted for her
acquittal to a higher crime. Not one judge suggested she was innocent
of all crime. You promised 'evidence' and instead ended
with silly accusations against everyone in the process, and even
turned on my silly comment remarking on not being able to
'find' rule 25 (b) (2). Which is obviously NOT EVIDENCE. Every
person in the ENTIRE justice process was convinced of her guilt.
In every case, there will always be a hysterical dissenter unwilling and
unable to see the truth. In the case of the 'Great White Whale' you
are that person. You are living proof of a remark made by Robert
Kennedy -- "1/5 of the people are against everything... all the time."
The trial and appeal process came to the CORRECT conclusion.
She was guilty as sin, but there was no malice, only stupidity.
The jury found her guilty of a greater crime... each one of them.
Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The
appeal court TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B99D26F5.4593%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
ostentatious, gassy, inflated, self-important, turgid, vain, tumid,
bombastic, flatulent, ego-driven posts literally REEK with a
pathologic need to pretend you are intellectual. When in fact, you
are a demonstrated snob, devoid of an original thought and finding
it necessary to ALWAYS draw on the crutch of some biased article.
While dismissing all reasonable argument and proof to the contrary.
And your hate for the U.S. is most certainly pathological in its far
reaching range.
PV
> Earl
>
>
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <%7Yd9.141526$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
> Go on, Earl... we both know who is 'pathological' here. Your pompous,
> ostentatious, gassy, inflated, self-important, turgid, vain, tumid,
> bombastic, flatulent, ego-driven posts literally REEK with a
> pathologic need to pretend you are intellectual. When in fact, you
> are a demonstrated snob, devoid of an original thought and finding
> it necessary to ALWAYS draw on the crutch of some biased article.
> While dismissing all reasonable argument and proof to the contrary.
> And your hate for the U.S. is most certainly pathological in its far
> reaching range.
>
> PV
Oh my. Now that you have gotten all that out of your system, I do hope you
feel a lot better.
Donna Evleth
Just passing by
> >
> Why shouldn't I bring up the FACTS that --
> 1) She received a law degree from an English University
> 2) She is a convicted felon. Convicted of manslaughter, as a matter
> of FACT.
> ????????????
> Are either of those two statements FALSE?
That she has received a law degree and was convicted of manslaughter
are indeed facts. But if that was all you had written, as I said
before, I wouldn't be here. But as you are asking me about false
statements, I will remind you of one:
___________________________
"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
'the judge was a crook'? Other than to say the person is an imbecile
if HE cannot provide proof. But what he is asking is that I provide
proof that the judge is not a crook. It defies every principle of
logic, and in fact justice. Since there is the presumption of
innocence... or haven't you heard of that?"
_____________________________
So why don't you deal with THAT false statement, PV? How many times
have I now confronted you with it? How many times have I challenged
you to show where I said the judge was a crook and asked you to prove
he wasn't? And how many times have you instead just run away like the
pathetic coward you are? Answer: EVERY TIME!
Are you going to run away again this time? Of course you are. Instead
of, for the first time in your miserable life, finding the courage to
face up to your blatant dishonesty, you will again post/paste your now
customary response in the hope that people might think you are
actually replying to something. So let me save you the trouble by
posting it for you.
"IMHO"? PV, your opinion is worthless because it is based on
ignorance, because you don't have the courage to back it up, because
you resort to lying about the person challenging you to back it up,
and because when confronted with your lies, you run away like a
terrified rabbit.
And it was very noticeable that you were rather frustrated with
General Zod when you wrote:
> The General.. if he has half a brain, will soon realize, as I and many
> others in many other
> newsgroups have realized: You're in love with the 'Great White Whale.'
> And nothing will dissuade you from claiming the entire world has wronged
> that 'baby shaker,' regardless of ALL evidence to the contrary. But I'm sure
> that after the General realizes what so many have already done,
You hated it when General Zod wanted to discuss the evidence because
he had - albeit unwittingly - shown you up. I bet you cursed him even
more than you curse me, didn't you, PV? The two of you are, as I
understand, on the same side in the DP debate. But I know which one
would be the more likely to persuade me of the retentionist argument
.... and it sure aint you!
Someone like you could only ever turn people AGAINST your "cause".
Cowards who lie and then run away bring only disrepute and discredit
upon the causes they claim to support.
A Planet Visitor
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:3d78fcb2$0$1575$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
pathological need to refer to me as having some pathological
aspect to my character.
PV
> Donna Evleth
>
A Planet Visitor
Oops... doing it again.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
The 'conspiracy' continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
And continues.
PV
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> > >
> > Why shouldn't I bring up the FACTS that --
> > 1) She received a law degree from an English University
> > 2) She is a convicted felon. Convicted of manslaughter, as a matter
> > of FACT.
> > ????????????
> > Are either of those two statements FALSE?
>
>
> That she has received a law degree and was convicted of manslaughter
> are indeed facts. But if that was all you had written, as I said
> before, I wouldn't be here. But as you are asking me about false
> statements, I will remind you of one:
> ___________________________
>
> "How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
> 'the judge was a crook'? Other than to say the person is an imbecile
> if HE cannot provide proof. But what he is asking is that I provide
> proof that the judge is not a crook. It defies every principle of
> logic, and in fact justice. Since there is the presumption of
> innocence... or haven't you heard of that?"
> _____________________________
>
Umm... return to your statements 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, above.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from those statements is that
Zobel was 'part of the conspiracy,' and he certainly represents the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, thus he is a part of that which you
claim is utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." Crooks are
those who are 'riddled with corruption.'
> So why don't you deal with THAT false statement, PV? How many times
> have I now confronted you with it? How many times have I challenged
> you to show where I said the judge was a crook and asked you to prove
> he wasn't? And how many times have you instead just run away like the
> pathetic coward you are? Answer: EVERY TIME!
Any time you've claimed the trial was a 'conspiracy,' you obviously
are implicating the judge in such an accusation, since he is in
CONTROL of all aspects of the trial. In other words, you are now
DENYING the statements you made in 1,2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and
most especially 12? Further, you also said before that "I have no
doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction"
With such responsibility goes the clear connection to what you've
claimed was a 'framing,' which obviously would make him a
crooked judge in your view.
>
> Are you going to run away again this time? Of course you are. Instead
> of, for the first time in your miserable life, finding the courage to
> face up to your blatant dishonesty, you will again post/paste your now
> customary response in the hope that people might think you are
> actually replying to something. So let me save you the trouble by
> posting it for you.
Thank you kindly, but it should actually be top-posted so I've moved it.
And you've obviously passed the point of a hysterical obsession,
and now entered total dementia. Simply because you've been so
totally destroyed in this 'argument.'
> "IMHO"? PV, your opinion is worthless because it is based on
> ignorance, because you don't have the courage to back it up, because
> you resort to lying about the person challenging you to back it up,
> and because when confronted with your lies, you run away like a
> terrified rabbit.
>
Take a look at the 16 silly 'accusations' you've made against
others, and realize that any supposed insult you might provide to
me, simply is negated by your obvious track record in providing
meaningless insults to others.
> And it was very noticeable that you were rather frustrated with
> General Zod when you wrote:
>
Huh??? I found it hilarious, that he would waste his time. And you'll
notice that he became aware of your dementia well before I ever
did. Since he posted one time, and gave you up as a total loser.
Which, of course, is what you are. But you really thought you could
play him against me, and maybe stroke him a little to suck him into
your whirlpool of hysteria.
> > The General.. if he has half a brain, will soon realize, as I and many
> > others in many other
> > newsgroups have realized: You're in love with the 'Great White Whale.'
> > And nothing will dissuade you from claiming the entire world has wronged
> > that 'baby shaker,' regardless of ALL evidence to the contrary. But I'm sure
> > that after the General realizes what so many have already done,
>
> You hated it when General Zod wanted to discuss the evidence because
> he had - albeit unwittingly - shown you up. I bet you cursed him even
> more than you curse me, didn't you, PV? The two of you are, as I
> understand, on the same side in the DP debate. But I know which one
> would be the more likely to persuade me of the retentionist argument
> .... and it sure aint you!
Oh, gee... you think??? Persuading you to be a retentionist, would
be like trying to persuade FDP to become a U.S. citizen. It's not
something I dream of. Actually I find your argumentative 'skills'
quite lacking. So it's best that you stay an abolitionist, since you are then
one of the better weapons retentionists actually have.
Nevertheless, I found nothing but amusement when you tried to 'counter'
GeneralZod, and he quickly realized how demented you are in your love
for the 'Great White Whale.' If anyone 'hates' it, I'm sure it's you, because
one thing you CANNOT stand is to be ignored. You need that soapbox...
a pathological need for that soapbox.
> Someone like you could only ever turn people AGAINST your "cause".
> Cowards who lie and then run away bring only disrepute and discredit
> upon the causes they claim to support.
>
Oh, gee... I'm a coward. I've already noted that only a fool continues to
engage a fool, after discovering that he is one. BTW -- You're a fool.
And you've become almost catatonically angry that I am trying to
ignore you, having realized you are a fool. The more I ignore you, the
more angry you become... and the happier I become. Because it
demonstrates that yours is not a rational argument, but one based on
hysterical claims of 'cheating.' Cheating by everyone in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. They're all out to get you... you and the 'Great White
Whale.'
PV
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 7/09/02 7:00 :
> GENTLE READER --
> Let us sum up JPB's 'argument'
A pretty long post, PV, which I did not read after seeing how long
and ranting it was. A glance suffices. All this writing during the
middle of the night is not doing you well.
So to other "gentle readers", forget it, not worth your time.
Eal
Just passing by
> >
> Umm... return to your statements 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, above.
> The only conclusion that can be drawn from those statements is that
> Zobel was 'part of the conspiracy,' and he certainly represents the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts, thus he is a part of that which you
> claim is utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." Crooks are
> those who are 'riddled with corruption.'
You mean it has taken you this long to dream up that desperate attempt
at covering up your lie? If you really believed that numerous general
comments I have made had the cumulative effect of suggesting the judge
was a crook, why didn't you say that when I first confronted you about
it? Or the time after? Or the time after that? Or the next, or the
next, etc?
Why have you, after all this time, had to be dragged, kicking and
screaming, from your embarrassed silence into putting together this
lame attempt at a cover up, which I am now about to take apart? Why
only now, PV?
I know why. It is because you now know that it isn't going to go away.
Your earlier strategy was the old "ignore it and it will go away" one.
But when you saw that I was not going to just leave it, you started
looking for a plan B.
But plan B has failed too. You cite eight examples from those out of
context quotes of mine to back up your lie. OK, let's look at the ones
you refer to: 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
> 1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
> deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
> law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
> relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
> indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
Nothing about Zobel there. I mentioned prosecutors and cops there but
nobody else. Zobel is a judge, not a prosecutor or cop.
> 2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
> which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
> indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
> Eappen."
The only people I mentioned there were Louise and Matthew. Zobel isn't
either of those is he? Moreover, that quote does not even refer to any
crooks at all. What were you thinking of when you included that one?
> 4) "Louise Woodward was framed by a gang of criminals who lied, cheated,
> conspired to pervert justice and committed perjury to deliberately
> obtain a wrongful and fraudulent murder conviction against someone
> they knew to be innocent."
Nothing about Zobel there.
>
> 8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
> demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
>
Nothing about Zobel there.
>
> 9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
> was framed"
Nothing about Zobel there.
> 10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
> convicted of. She was framed."
Nothing about Zobel there.
> 11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
> media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
> she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
> brainwashed, biased population."
>
Nothing about Zobel there.
Which brings us to number 12. And I'm sure you are sitting there
thinking: "Ah yes, this is the one I can pretend I was thinking of
when I lied about him saying the judge was a crook." But don't get too
excited because I am going to pour cold water over it in a moment.
> 12) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
> corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
> officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
> perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
> proven crimes?"
>
Still no mention of Zobel, but my rather over generalised comment (I
admit that) about "top to bottom" might have given you the lifeline
you needed ...... if you had not purported to be DIRECTLY quoting me
when you wrote: "How does one go about providing a counter-example to
someone saying 'the judge was a crook'?"
You put those last five words in quotes, PV. In doing so, you were
telling dirtdog that those were my exact words.
So you lied and the proof above is incontestable.
> Further, you also said before that "I have no
> doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction"
> With such responsibility goes the clear connection to what you've
> claimed was a 'framing,' which obviously would make him a
> crooked judge in your view.
I have just shown how your inclusion of punctuation has proved your
dishonesty, and now it is your deliberate omission of punctuation that
will do the same. In that quote above, you were quoting only part of a
sentence. You should, therefore, have placed dots after the word
"conviction" to denote this. That wasn't an honest mistake but another
deliberate attempt at deception. This was what I originally wrote:
"I have no doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful
conviction and so went as far as he possibly could - short of falling
foul of rule 25B - to make amends."
So clearly there I was accusing Zobel of nothing more than making
mistakes (which he did). But you tried to turn that into an accusation
of him deliberately trying to frame someone. That is why you cut off
the end of the sentence. I wrote that well over a year ago. Maybe you
thought I wouldn't remember it or that I wouldn't find it after all
this time and so you would get away with your latest attempt to
deceive.
So, with your latest post, you have not only reinforced the evidence
of your earlier deliberate deception, but added another one. And make
no mistake, PV, I will remind you of them both whenever the need
arises.
> And you've become almost catatonically angry that I am trying to
> ignore you, having realized you are a fool. The more I ignore you, the
> more angry you become... and the happier I become.
You are ignoring me? So is it this fake PV - who apparently posts here
occasionally - who is frantically and desperately trying to answer the
unanswerable on your behalf? So all these replies my posts receive are
from your impostor, are they?
Yes, that would explain it. As I understand it, the fake PV dislikes
you. So he has deliberately put together one of the most pathetic,
lying, cowardly attempts at debating ever seen on usenet, for the
purpose of discrediting you? So you, the real PV, are not the
pathetic lying coward "your" posts have manifestly shown you to be?
Of course! It's all so clear now. I should have realised that nobody
could possibly make such a pitifully ineffective attempt at debating
as "your" entire set of posts have amounted to unless they were
deliberately trying to make it look that way.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > Umm... return to your statements 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, above.
> > The only conclusion that can be drawn from those statements is that
> > Zobel was 'part of the conspiracy,' and he certainly represents the
> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts, thus he is a part of that which you
> > claim is utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." Crooks are
> > those who are 'riddled with corruption.'
>
> You mean it has taken you this long to dream up that desperate attempt
> at covering up your lie? If you really believed that numerous general
> comments I have made had the cumulative effect of suggesting the judge
> was a crook, why didn't you say that when I first confronted you about
> it? Or the time after? Or the time after that? Or the next, or the
> next, etc?
>
bothered. But there is no question that you've 'called' Zobel a crook.
<clipped hysteria>
> But plan B has failed too. You cite eight examples from those out of
> context quotes of mine to back up your lie. OK, let's look at the ones
> you refer to: 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
>
> > 1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
> > deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
> > law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
> > relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
> > indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
>
> Nothing about Zobel there. I mentioned prosecutors and cops there but
> nobody else. Zobel is a judge, not a prosecutor or cop.
>
Everything about Zobel there. He is a judge, and a 'frame-up' cannot
take place without him being aware of this 'frame-up' since you've
already claimed the 'Great White Whale' had a great defense team.
> > 2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
> > which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
> > indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
> > Eappen."
>
> The only people I mentioned there were Louise and Matthew. Zobel isn't
> either of those is he? Moreover, that quote does not even refer to any
> crooks at all. What were you thinking of when you included that one?
>
The implication is the same as in 1). You are presuming that the
judge was INVOLVED in this 'frame-up' and accepted into evidence
that which is NOT TRUE evidence. Since you rather state that none
actually exists.
>
> > 4) "Louise Woodward was framed by a gang of criminals who lied, cheated,
> > conspired to pervert justice and committed perjury to deliberately
> > obtain a wrongful and fraudulent murder conviction against someone
> > they knew to be innocent."
>
> Nothing about Zobel there.
>
The judge is PART of the process of conviction. Clearly your statement
implicates EVERYONE, including the jury in such a 'frame-up.' Since
ANY ONE of them could have prevented that presumed 'frame-up.'
> >
> > 8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
> > demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
> >
>
> Nothing about Zobel there.
>
Hey.. you're claiming the TRIAL was a conspiracy. Zobel was the
JUDGE in that trial. Such a conspiracy cannot be perpetrated
without the knowing consent of the judge.
> >
> > 9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
> > was framed"
>
> Nothing about Zobel there.
See above. Everywhere where you imply 'framed' in respect to the
trial, the judge is presumed part of such a 'frame-up.' You certainly
don't EXCLUDE him. Nor can you, since he has ultimate control
of the trial process.
>
> > 10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
> > convicted of. She was framed."
>
> Nothing about Zobel there.
See above.
>
> > 11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
> > media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
> > she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
> > brainwashed, biased population."
> >
>
> Nothing about Zobel there.
Ummm. the judge has control of jury selection. Frame-up...
frame-up...frame-up. The old conspiracy argument, of which the
judge MUST have been a part, if your argument is supposedly
sound.
>
> Which brings us to number 12. And I'm sure you are sitting there
> thinking: "Ah yes, this is the one I can pretend I was thinking of
> when I lied about him saying the judge was a crook." But don't get too
> excited because I am going to pour cold water over it in a moment.
>
Sure you are...And I see that YOU have placed words in QUOTES
assuming that they are MY words. But they are NOT. So any
'presumed' argument you may have with my placing the 'meaning'
of YOUR words in quotes, in respect to a direct-quote is just so
much rubbish.
> > 12) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
> > corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
> > officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
> > perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
> > proven crimes?"
> >
>
> Still no mention of Zobel, but my rather over generalised comment (I
> admit that) about "top to bottom" might have given you the lifeline
> you needed ...... if you had not purported to be DIRECTLY quoting me
> when you wrote: "How does one go about providing a counter-example to
> someone saying 'the judge was a crook'?"
>
We've been down this road before. Direct quotes in U.S. English
are placed in double-quotation marks. I placed 'the judge was a
crook' in single quotation marks, and there are NO double-quotation
marks in my entire sentence. I have stated before -- over and over
(whether you like it or not is immaterial) that --
"I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words, phrases, paraphrases,
or the sense I find in someone words independent from a DIRECT
word-for-word quotation. I use double-quotation marks to indicate
DIRECT word-for-word quotations. "
You will find this disclaimer in various posts I've provided in the past.
The 'sense' of your words in many posts was that Judge Zobel was
part and parcel of this presumed conspiracy, and thus a 'crook.' If
I had MEANT a direct-quote, it would have been placed in double-
quotation marks, as are ALL your direct quotes from 1 through 16,
as in my previous quotes of you directly.
> You put those last five words in quotes, PV. In doing so, you were
> telling dirtdog that those were my exact words.
They were the EXACT SENSE of your words.
> So you lied and the proof above is incontestable.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah... and you must have lied when you claimed judge
Zobel was corrupt (see 12). Because now you appear intent on
denying it.
>
> > Further, you also said before that "I have no
> > doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction"
> > With such responsibility goes the clear connection to what you've
> > claimed was a 'framing,' which obviously would make him a
> > crooked judge in your view.
>
> I have just shown how your inclusion of punctuation has proved your
> dishonesty, and now it is your deliberate omission of punctuation that
> will do the same. In that quote above, you were quoting only part of a
> sentence. You should, therefore, have placed dots after the word
> "conviction" to denote this. That wasn't an honest mistake but another
> deliberate attempt at deception. This was what I originally wrote:
>
> "I have no doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful
> conviction and so went as far as he possibly could - short of falling
> foul of rule 25B - to make amends."
One part does not NEGATE the other. And I can only presume
you are attempting to lie, as to what you actually said. Saying 'AND'
presumes FURTHER, and takes NOTHING away from the fact that
you claim Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction.
If you say 'He raped AND murdered,' then having murdered does not
take away from the fact he ALSO raped.
>
> So clearly there I was accusing Zobel of nothing more than making
> mistakes (which he did).
No, sport... you were accusing him of feeling partly responsible for
the wrongful (sic) conviction. AND something else. He is the judge,
if he REALLY felt partly responsible, it was his bound duty to at the
least declare a mistrial. He did not do so, thus he was responsible
for the continued perpetration of what you claim is a conspiracy.
After all he is the supreme arbiter in such a trial until the jury is
sent out to provide a verdict.
> But you tried to turn that into an accusation
> of him deliberately trying to frame someone.
You claimed the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was
"utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." The judge
sat at the TOP of this trial, thus there is no question that you
considered him corrupt.
> That is why you cut off
> the end of the sentence. I wrote that well over a year ago. Maybe you
> thought I wouldn't remember it or that I wouldn't find it after all
> this time and so you would get away with your latest attempt to
> deceive.
>
Whether you 'remembered' it or not, I'm sure you checked it out,
after I quoted you.
> So, with your latest post, you have not only reinforced the evidence
> of your earlier deliberate deception, but added another one. And make
> no mistake, PV, I will remind you of them both whenever the need
> arises.
>
Oh, gee... I'm so scared. While I will remind you that you claimed
judge Zobel was 'corrupt,' which clearly implies you believe he was
a 'crook' as well.
>
> > And you've become almost catatonically angry that I am trying to
> > ignore you, having realized you are a fool. The more I ignore you, the
> > more angry you become... and the happier I become.
>
>
> You are ignoring me? So is it this fake PV - who apparently posts here
> occasionally - who is frantically and desperately trying to answer the
> unanswerable on your behalf? So all these replies my posts receive are
> from your impostor, are they?
>
You had your chance. When I tire of you, I'll again consider you
a non-person. Other than that you certainly are an asset to the
retentionist movement.
> Yes, that would explain it. As I understand it, the fake PV dislikes
> you. So he has deliberately put together one of the most pathetic,
> lying, cowardly attempts at debating ever seen on usenet, for the
> purpose of discrediting you? So you, the real PV, are not the
> pathetic lying coward "your" posts have manifestly shown you to be?
>
You seem to be falling off the edge of reality now. Have I really
made you so delusional?
> Of course! It's all so clear now. I should have realised that nobody
> could possibly make such a pitifully ineffective attempt at debating
> as "your" entire set of posts have amounted to unless they were
> deliberately trying to make it look that way.
ho ho ho. You still judge Zobel 'corrupt,' meaning he was a 'crook,'
and in fact, called the entire trial "one of the most blatant criminal
conspiracies to frame a demonstrably innocent person there has ever
been." This most certainly implicates Judge Zobel DIRECTLY in
any such presumed conspiracy. All in all, JPB... you're a fruitcake.
And your 'evidence' (sic) is actually non-existent, thus you need to
rely on the worthless comments you now provide. The 'Great White
Whale' was guilty. Make no doubt about it. She was a 'baby shaker'
and probably a 'baby bouncer' as well. Only babies don't bounce as
well as basketballs. And she certainly CAUSED the death of that
infant.
PV
Just passing by
> >
> > You mean it has taken you this long to dream up that desperate attempt
> > at covering up your lie? If you really believed that numerous general
> > comments I have made had the cumulative effect of suggesting the judge
> > was a crook, why didn't you say that when I first confronted you about
> > it? Or the time after? Or the time after that? Or the next, or the
> > next, etc?
> >
> No, actually. It's because you're a fool, and I never felt like even being
> bothered.
Then check the post you told the lie about Zobel in and my reply to
it. Look at the dates. Then look at all the other messages I posted to
you around that time. You replied to every one of them .... except
that one. That answer doesn't wash, PV. You ran away from a question
it has taken you until now to dream up this totally unconvincing
answer to. Couldn't be bothered really means couldn't think of an
answer.
> But there is no question that you've 'called' Zobel a crook.
No, there is no question that I have ever called him a crook because I
haven't. Think about this: as you well know, I have called numerous
people involved in the frame up crooks - Newberger, Reilly, Byrne and
others. Those posts you found on your searches don't even scratch the
surface of what I have written about this case ( I have written far
more on web sites and elsewhere than on usenet) and I have for years
been calling certain people crooks and worse. So if I thought Zobel
was a crook, why would I not say so? If I unequivocally call some
people crooks, regularly - which I do - why would I not include the
judge if I thought he had been in on the crimes? This is very simple
logic that even you ought to be able to understand.
I don't believe all the prosecution witnesses were crooks. I don't
even believe everyone on the prosecution team was a crook. The only
people I regard as crooks are those I have happily named. And I have
never named Zobel among them.
> > > 1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
> > > deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
> > > law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
> > > relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
> > > indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
> >
> > Nothing about Zobel there. I mentioned prosecutors and cops there but
> > nobody else. Zobel is a judge, not a prosecutor or cop.
> >
> Everything about Zobel there. He is a judge, and a 'frame-up' cannot
> take place without him being aware of this 'frame-up' since you've
> already claimed the 'Great White Whale' had a great defense team.
What nonsense! Of course a frame-up can succeed without a judge's
knowledge and complicity. Those cops & prosecutors who framed Rolando
Cruz were indicted for it, but the trial judge was not. Stefan Kiszco
was framed by corrupt British police but there is no suggestion that
the judge was involved.
> > > 2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
> > > which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
> > > indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
> > > Eappen."
> >
> > The only people I mentioned there were Louise and Matthew. Zobel isn't
> > either of those is he? Moreover, that quote does not even refer to any
> > crooks at all. What were you thinking of when you included that one?
> >
> The implication is the same as in 1). You are presuming that the
> judge was INVOLVED in this 'frame-up' and accepted into evidence
> that which is NOT TRUE evidence. Since you rather state that none
> actually exists.
You must be the only person on this planet who could imagine there to
be any implicit suggestion in what I wrote there, that "the judge was
INVOLVED in this 'frame-up' ". Taken in isolation, what I wrote there
does not even suggest a frame-up at all, let alone one the judge was
involved in. Also consider that that was the very first line of a
reply I posted in a newsgroup I had not used before. So nobody, at
that point, would even know that my position was that a frame-up had
taken place. There are many LW supporters who, while they proclaim her
innocence, have never claimed that any frame-up or criminal conspiracy
occurred. From that line alone, I could have been one of them.
> >
> The judge is PART of the process of conviction. Clearly your statement
> implicates EVERYONE, including the jury in such a 'frame-up.' Since
> ANY ONE of them could have prevented that presumed 'frame-up.'
>
Having the power to prevent it does not automatically equal being
knowingly involved in it.
> > > 8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
> > > demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
> > >
> >
> > Nothing about Zobel there.
> >
> Hey.. you're claiming the TRIAL was a conspiracy. Zobel was the
> JUDGE in that trial. Such a conspiracy cannot be perpetrated
> without the knowing consent of the judge.
No, I am claiming the PROSECUTION'S CASE was the result of a
conspiracy, just like the Rolando Cruz case. The trial, the judge,
and, above all, the defendant, were just innocent bystanders.
> > > 11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
> > > media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
> > > she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
> > > brainwashed, biased population."
> > >
> >
> > Nothing about Zobel there.
>
> Ummm. the judge has control of jury selection. Frame-up...
> frame-up...frame-up. The old conspiracy argument, of which the
> judge MUST have been a part, if your argument is supposedly
> sound.
When 90% of eligible jurors admit to believing the defendant guilty
before the trial has even begun, and polls were showing similar
results from the local population as a whole, what good is having the
power over jury selection? However, this was one of the mistakes I
accused Zobel of making. The defence applied for the trial to be held
out of state because of the pre-trial press lies. The prosecution
opposed this and Zobel ruled in their favour. That doesn't make him a
crook but it does reveal appalling judgement.
> > Which brings us to number 12. And I'm sure you are sitting there
> > thinking: "Ah yes, this is the one I can pretend I was thinking of
> > when I lied about him saying the judge was a crook." But don't get too
> > excited because I am going to pour cold water over it in a moment.
> >
> Sure you are...And I see that YOU have placed words in QUOTES
> assuming that they are MY words. But they are NOT. So any
> 'presumed' argument you may have with my placing the 'meaning'
> of YOUR words in quotes, in respect to a direct-quote is just so
> much rubbish.
The key word here is "context". I made clear that I was merely
predicting what you would be thinking. Nobody could have read that and
believed I was quoting something you had written or said previously.
How else could that have been correctly written without the use of
quotes? It couldn't. Whereas your 'the judge is a crook' could and
should have been.
If that is your usual style - and I have not the inclination to search
your posts to check - then, OK, I'll let that one go.
> > You put those last five words in quotes, PV. In doing so, you were
> > telling dirtdog that those were my exact words.
>
> They were the EXACT SENSE of your words.
No they were not. Nothing more than that needs saying.
> > "I have no doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the
wrongful
> > conviction and so went as far as he possibly could - short of falling
> > foul of rule 25B - to make amends."
>
> One part does not NEGATE the other. And I can only presume
> you are attempting to lie, as to what you actually said. Saying 'AND'
> presumes FURTHER, and takes NOTHING away from the fact that
> you claim Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction.
> If you say 'He raped AND murdered,' then having murdered does not
> take away from the fact he ALSO raped.
You are showing yourself to be very stupid there. What links the two
parts of that sentence is not just the word "AND" but the two words
"AND SO". The word "and", on its own, can mean that he did A and also
B. But with the word "so" added, it changes that meaning to, he did B
because of A. Your rape & murder example is invalid because both are
bad/negative. My sentence begins with a negative and ends with a
positive - the two being divided by "and so". I know that is a little
complicated for you, so go away and think about it for awhile or ask
someone smarter than you to explain it for you.
> > But you tried to turn that into an accusation
> > of him deliberately trying to frame someone.
>
> You claimed the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was
> "utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." The judge
> sat at the TOP of this trial, thus there is no question that you
> considered him corrupt.
Yes but I also admitted that I had over generalised when I said "top
to bottom" (as can be seen above)but you chose to ignore that part in
the above paragraph. I wonder why?
>
> > That is why you cut off
> > the end of the sentence. I wrote that well over a year ago. Maybe you
> > thought I wouldn't remember it or that I wouldn't find it after all
> > this time and so you would get away with your latest attempt to
> > deceive.
> >
> Whether you 'remembered' it or not, I'm sure you checked it out,
> after I quoted you.
But of course. Whatever else I may be, I am very thorough.
> >
> Oh, gee... I'm so scared. While I will remind you that you claimed
> judge Zobel was 'corrupt,' which clearly implies you believe he was
> a 'crook' as well.
I have never said he was either corrupt or a crook, and you know it.
In another thread I have seen you vigorously defending yourself from
accusations that you said OJ Simpson was "convicted of murder" and
challenging people to prove that you did say that. What a hypocrite
you are!
But that only deals with one part of your lie, doesn't it? That lie
came in two parts; the first part was that I had called Zobel a crook
and the second part was that I had asked you to prove he wasn't one.
Had you forgotten about that part? I haven't.
The truth is that I have never asked you to prove that ANYONE is not a
crook, and you can search through every post of mine and you won't
find a single example proving that wrong. The only thing I have asked
you to prove is that you know anything about the evidence presented at
the trial that points to Louise Woodward's guilt.
And it is no good offering examples of where I have called cops or
prosecutors crooks (which I have) because at no time have I
accompanied those accusations with requests to you to disprove them.
I have never asked you to prove there was no frame up. I have never
asked you to prove that Massachusetts is not "riddled with corruption
from top to bottom". I have never asked you to prove anything relating
to that case except that you know anything about the evidence.
My request to you to prove that you knew what you were "talking" about
could by no stretch of the imagination be described as unreasonable.
You knew it was a reasonable request but you also knew you couldn't
meet it. So instead you tried to make it look unreasonable by saying
that the request was to prove something entirely different. When
dirtdog asked you why you would not discuss the evidence, you told him
that was not what I was asking you to do at all, but to prove Zobel
was not a crook. As these latest exchanges have established, I have
never called Zobel a crook, but even if I had done or even if your
interpretation of other remarks of mine was that this was what I had
implied, you still cannot escape from the fact that you lied in
telling dirtdog that I had asked you to *PROVE* he was not a crook.
So here again is the challenge I offered you in my first post on Aug
14 (My God, have I been here that long?):
________________________________
Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in causing
the death of Matthew Eappen. No cop outs like "The jury said this" or
"this person said the other". I am challenging you to reveal what YOU
know about the EVIDENCE that points to Louise Woodward being guilty. I
know that you know nothing, and so will guarantee that whatever you
produce here in response to this challenge, I will take it apart,
using records from the trial transcripts, autopsy report, hospital
records and irrefutable medical facts, and show it to be completely
false and evidence of nothing.
________________________________
Nothing there about proving anyone is not a crook or proving there was
no conspiracy or frame-up, is there? Just a perfectly reasonable
challenge to reveal how much you really know about the evidence.
> And she certainly CAUSED the death of that
> infant.
And yet you have not once explained how you think she did that. The
prosecution said so; the jury said so; the judge said so; the SJC said
so; Uncle Tom Cobley said so. What about what PV believes actually
happened on Feb 4 1997? You have never revealed that. Because you know
I can dismantle and destroy every single claim you make with provable
and irrefutable scientific/medical realities. You have been smart
enough to avoid going down that road. You say it is because you don't
want to give me a platform or soapbox, and that may be partly true.
But it is also because you know where that road leads. You will deny
that but we both know it is true.
But frankly PV, I am now bored with all this. I have been here much
longer than I originally intended and so it is now time to move on.
The only reason I posted here to begin with was to establish: a) that
your rants about LW could not be backed up by medical and other
evidence from the trial - the only evidence that means anything - and
b) that neither you nor anyone else can challenge the science that
proves the impossibility of guilt. Both of those objectives were fully
achieved after the first few postings. Since then the whole debate has
moved to peripheral irrelevancies such as my accusations about your
lies and evasiveness and your accusations about my obsessiveness and
need for a soapbox.
Even if it were true that I needed a soapbox, that soapbox would not
be for the purpose of exposing your shortcomings which, were it not
for your position on the LW case, would be of absolutely no interest
to me. So I will now leave you to your favourite pursuit of exchanging
insults with those from the anti-DP side.
Although I had posted in this forum several times before, I had never
stayed quite this long. On the earlier occasions I had never taken a
great deal of notice of the other discussions taking place. This time
I have done, and my impression is that it is one of the most combative
groups I have seen. Almost every thread here seems to bring the two
sides together locking horns in battle. And as a purely neutral
observer (whether you choose to believe that or not) I have to say
that when it comes to sharp wit and humour, the abolitionists are way
out in front. Some of the witty comments and put-downs I have seen
from some on the anti-DP side are quite brilliant and very original.
If you have a redeeming feature it is probably your tenacity which
manifests when you think events are turning an argument to your
advantage. You showed this in your determination to establish that
Massachusetts judges are able to overturn convictions. You were right
about that. But then, surprisingly, you failed to fully exploit your
gains. You seemed to lose heart when I showed that, although you were
right about the judges' powers, your original statement was
*technically* incorrect. I was splitting hairs there and you let me
get away with it. That matter about rule 25 (without the (b) (2) ) was
your best moment and was the only time you caused me to have to sit
and really think hard about how best to respond You should have
pursued me on that in the same way as I have pursued you about the
"judge is a crook" lie. But it's too late now.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:23:57 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 08 Sep 2002 05:03:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> No, actually. It's because you're a fool, and I never felt like even being
>> bothered. But there is no question that you've 'called' Zobel a crook.
>
>There is no question that you're a liar, either in this thread, or any
>other. Perhaps you could remind the group of when 'JPB' said that
>Judge Zobel was a crook. Indeed, he made no such claim, and the only
>time he even memtioned the word 'crook', was to reply to your mendacious
>claims that he had said it ...
>
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Zobel%20crook&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_u
authors=Just%20passing%20by&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
>
>Indeed, he even stated that he does not believe Zobel (perhaps you'd
>understand it better if I used your 'alternative' spelling of 'Sobel' ...
>or would you like us to ROT-13 all posts now, so that they make sense to
>you ?) was a crook ...
>
> Moreover, I have never said, here or anywhere else, that the
> judge (Zobel) is a crook because I don't believe he is.'
> (21 August 2002)
>
>{ snip rote abuse and LDB dodging his well-deserved spanking }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!f
u-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:23:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <slrnannces.1p6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><_Z8d9.5872$Iz6.137...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031516796 60079115 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnannces.1p6.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 08 Sep 2002 05:03:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > bothered. But there is no question that you've 'called' Zobel a crook.
>
> other. Perhaps you could remind the group of when 'JPB' said that
> Judge Zobel was a crook. Indeed, he made no such claim, and the only
> time he even memtioned the word 'crook', was to reply to your mendacious
> claims that he had said it ...
>
that your nose would never come out again.
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Zobel%20crook&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_uauthors=Just%20passing%20by&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl
=fr
>
> Indeed, he even stated that he does not believe Zobel (perhaps you'd
> understand it better if I used your 'alternative' spelling of 'Sobel' ...
> or would you like us to ROT-13 all posts now, so that they make sense to
> you ?) was a crook ...
>
Perhaps you should examine your alternate spelling of 'memtioned' (sic).
But... as you, he believes he can speak from both sides of his mouth.
Clearly he HAS said EXACTLY "Because the state of Massachusetts
is utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." There is no doubt
that the trial of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was presided over
by judge Zobel. JPB's comment directly accuses Massachusetts of
being corrupt from that top (judge Zobel) to the bottom (whatever that
is). There is no doubt that a 'corrupt' judge is a 'crook.' When I
CALLED him on it, is when he began his denials, not fully realizing
I had the evidence in his past words. Want some more? He also
said "The proven crimes and corruption of those working within the
system is ignored lest its greater public exposure might weaken public
confidence in the system itself." Now who do you think is 'working
within the system'? Why, Judge Zobel, of course. While another
of JPB's vast claims of a conspiracy that directly involves judge
Zobel were his words that "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it"
Now, presuming that, what makes Zobel NOT a crook for having
STILL found her guilty of manslaughter?
> Moreover, I have never said, here or anywhere else, that the
> judge (Zobel) is a crook because I don't believe he is.'
> (21 August 2002)
>
He can deny it all he wishes. But the fact is he directly called
judge Zobel part of that corruption (more than once), as he certainly
represented Massachusetts in that trial.
> { snip rote abuse and LDB dodging his well-deserved spanking }
Yeah, sure... like your claim that the judge couldn't set aside the
verdict and enter a finding of not guilty. Who was thoroughly spanked
there? It must have INFURIATED you to be done in by a 'red-neck
American.' Simply proving you're just a blow-hard, full of hot air.
PV
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > > You mean it has taken you this long to dream up that desperate attempt
> > > at covering up your lie? If you really believed that numerous general
> > > comments I have made had the cumulative effect of suggesting the judge
> > > was a crook, why didn't you say that when I first confronted you about
> > > it? Or the time after? Or the time after that? Or the next, or the
> > > next, etc?
> > >
> > No, actually. It's because you're a fool, and I never felt like even being
> > bothered.
>
> Then check the post you told the lie about Zobel in and my reply to
> it. Look at the dates. Then look at all the other messages I posted to
> you around that time. You replied to every one of them .... except
> that one. That answer doesn't wash, PV. You ran away from a question
> it has taken you until now to dream up this totally unconvincing
> answer to. Couldn't be bothered really means couldn't think of an
> answer.
>
If I worried about every lie and distortion you've presented here, my
list would be much greater than the 16 distortions you've provided
that I've referred to.
>
> > But there is no question that you've 'called' Zobel a crook.
>
> No, there is no question that I have ever called him a crook because I
> haven't. Think about this: as you well know, I have called numerous
> people involved in the frame up crooks - Newberger, Reilly, Byrne and
> others. Those posts you found on your searches don't even scratch the
> surface of what I have written about this case ( I have written far
> more on web sites and elsewhere than on usenet) and I have for years
> been calling certain people crooks and worse. So if I thought Zobel
> was a crook, why would I not say so? If I unequivocally call some
> people crooks, regularly - which I do - why would I not include the
> judge if I thought he had been in on the crimes? This is very simple
> logic that even you ought to be able to understand.
>
> I don't believe all the prosecution witnesses were crooks. I don't
> even believe everyone on the prosecution team was a crook. The only
> people I regard as crooks are those I have happily named. And I have
> never named Zobel among them.
>
He is a part of the system that you called "The proven crimes
and corruption of those working within the system is ignored lest its
greater public exposure might weaken public confidence in the system
itself." Now who do you think is 'working within the system'? Why,
Judge Zobel, of course. My point is that you've called the ENTIRE
Justice System of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "utterly riddled
with corruption from top to bottom." There is no question as to the
implication of your words.
> > > > 1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
> > > > deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
> > > > law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
> > > > relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
> > > > indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
> > >
> > > Nothing about Zobel there. I mentioned prosecutors and cops there but
> > > nobody else. Zobel is a judge, not a prosecutor or cop.
> > >
> > Everything about Zobel there. He is a judge, and a 'frame-up' cannot
> > take place without him being aware of this 'frame-up' since you've
> > already claimed the 'Great White Whale' had a great defense team.
>
> What nonsense! Of course a frame-up can succeed without a judge's
> knowledge and complicity. Those cops & prosecutors who framed Rolando
> Cruz were indicted for it, but the trial judge was not. Stefan Kiszco
> was framed by corrupt British police but there is no suggestion that
> the judge was involved.
>
Umm... it CAN'T succeed if the judge KNOWS the accused is
innocent. And you've ALSO said "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it"
There is a direct connection to complicity in finding the 'Great White
Whale' guilty, if he 'knows she didn't do it.' How can Zobel NOT BE
a 'crook' if he was the sitting judge, 'knows she didn't do it,' yet still
allows a conviction to stand?
>
> > > > 2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
> > > > which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
> > > > indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
> > > > Eappen."
> > >
> > > The only people I mentioned there were Louise and Matthew. Zobel isn't
> > > either of those is he? Moreover, that quote does not even refer to any
> > > crooks at all. What were you thinking of when you included that one?
> > >
> > The implication is the same as in 1). You are presuming that the
> > judge was INVOLVED in this 'frame-up' and accepted into evidence
> > that which is NOT TRUE evidence. Since you rather state that none
> > actually exists.
>
> You must be the only person on this planet who could imagine there to
> be any implicit suggestion in what I wrote there, that "the judge was
> INVOLVED in this 'frame-up' ". Taken in isolation, what I wrote there
> does not even suggest a frame-up at all, let alone one the judge was
> involved in. Also consider that that was the very first line of a
> reply I posted in a newsgroup I had not used before. So nobody, at
> that point, would even know that my position was that a frame-up had
> taken place. There are many LW supporters who, while they proclaim her
> innocence, have never claimed that any frame-up or criminal conspiracy
> occurred. From that line alone, I could have been one of them.
>
Taken in 'isolation' a lot of things are not mentioned. Taken as
a BODY of your words, they clearly implicate Massachusetts
and the entire justice system of that state as riddled with
corruption. There is no other way to see that you feel differently
ONLY about the judge, since he was the most important part
of the justice system in that particular trial.
> > >
> > The judge is PART of the process of conviction. Clearly your statement
> > implicates EVERYONE, including the jury in such a 'frame-up.' Since
> > ANY ONE of them could have prevented that presumed 'frame-up.'
> >
>
> Having the power to prevent it does not automatically equal being
> knowingly involved in it.
>
If you're THE JUDGE??? Of course it does. KNOWING that she
was innocent and STILL allowing even a lesser verdict to stand is
simply nothing but calling him a crook. That is the EXACT
meaning of your words that "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it"
> > > > 8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
> > > > demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing about Zobel there.
> > >
> > Hey.. you're claiming the TRIAL was a conspiracy. Zobel was the
> > JUDGE in that trial. Such a conspiracy cannot be perpetrated
> > without the knowing consent of the judge.
>
> No, I am claiming the PROSECUTION'S CASE was the result of a
> conspiracy, just like the Rolando Cruz case. The trial, the judge,
> and, above all, the defendant, were just innocent bystanders.
>
Nonsense... just backtracking from the clear implication that she
was 'framed' by the Justice System. All parts of it. "The judge..."
was just an innocent bystander, is perhaps the most outrageous
remark you've made to date. How could HE be so 'innocent,'
if he knew SHE was innocent?
>
> > > > 11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
> > > > media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
> > > > she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
> > > > brainwashed, biased population."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing about Zobel there.
> >
> > Ummm. the judge has control of jury selection. Frame-up...
> > frame-up...frame-up. The old conspiracy argument, of which the
> > judge MUST have been a part, if your argument is supposedly
> > sound.
>
> When 90% of eligible jurors admit to believing the defendant guilty
> before the trial has even begun, and polls were showing similar
> results from the local population as a whole, what good is having the
> power over jury selection? However, this was one of the mistakes I
> accused Zobel of making. The defence applied for the trial to be held
> out of state because of the pre-trial press lies. The prosecution
> opposed this and Zobel ruled in their favour. That doesn't make him a
> crook but it does reveal appalling judgement.
>
Just more backtracking. If the process of jury selection was
corrupt, and the judge had control of that selection, then by
extension the judge is corrupt, even if you would attribute it to
appalling judgment, the ACTS he took were 'corrupt' in your
view, for whatever reasons you would attribute to him. You
cannot wiggle out of calling the system corrupt, while he is
a part of the system, by now accusing him of 'only' being
dumb. You've already said that he knew she was innocent.
>
> > > Which brings us to number 12. And I'm sure you are sitting there
> > > thinking: "Ah yes, this is the one I can pretend I was thinking of
> > > when I lied about him saying the judge was a crook." But don't get too
> > > excited because I am going to pour cold water over it in a moment.
> > >
> > Sure you are...And I see that YOU have placed words in QUOTES
> > assuming that they are MY words. But they are NOT. So any
> > 'presumed' argument you may have with my placing the 'meaning'
> > of YOUR words in quotes, in respect to a direct-quote is just so
> > much rubbish.
>
> The key word here is "context". I made clear that I was merely
> predicting what you would be thinking. Nobody could have read that and
> believed I was quoting something you had written or said previously.
> How else could that have been correctly written without the use of
> quotes? It couldn't. Whereas your 'the judge is a crook' could and
> should have been.
>
The keyword here is 'wiggle.' And you're trying desperately to wiggle
out of a clear statement that accuses the entire justice system of
Massachusetts of being riddled with corruption from top to bottom.
You certainly cannot exclude Judge Zobel from the meaning of your
words.
It was certainly the sense that I found of your words. Exactly how
is one 'riddled with corruption,' and not a 'crook'?
>
> > > "I have no doubt that Zobel felt partly responsible for the
> wrongful
> > > conviction and so went as far as he possibly could - short of falling
> > > foul of rule 25B - to make amends."
> >
> > One part does not NEGATE the other. And I can only presume
> > you are attempting to lie, as to what you actually said. Saying 'AND'
> > presumes FURTHER, and takes NOTHING away from the fact that
> > you claim Zobel felt partly responsible for the wrongful conviction.
> > If you say 'He raped AND murdered,' then having murdered does not
> > take away from the fact he ALSO raped.
>
> You are showing yourself to be very stupid there. What links the two
> parts of that sentence is not just the word "AND" but the two words
> "AND SO". The word "and", on its own, can mean that he did A and also
> B. But with the word "so" added, it changes that meaning to, he did B
> because of A. Your rape & murder example is invalid because both are
> bad/negative. My sentence begins with a negative and ends with a
> positive - the two being divided by "and so". I know that is a little
> complicated for you, so go away and think about it for awhile or ask
> someone smarter than you to explain it for you.
If he did 'B' BECAUSE of 'A'... then he CERTAINLY DID 'A' Which is
my point... 'he felt partly responsible.' Even if you had said 'He went
as far as he could AND SO Zobel felt partly responsible for the
wrongful conviction,' that would not change the meaning one bit.
It would STILL mean that you imply that Zobel felt partly responsible
for the wrongful conviction. And my words that "With such responsibility
goes the clear connection to what you've claimed was a 'framing,' which
obviously would make him a crooked judge in your view," still apply.
>
>
> > > But you tried to turn that into an accusation
> > > of him deliberately trying to frame someone.
> >
> > You claimed the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was
> > "utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom." The judge
> > sat at the TOP of this trial, thus there is no question that you
> > considered him corrupt.
>
> Yes but I also admitted that I had over generalised when I said "top
> to bottom" (as can be seen above)but you chose to ignore that part in
> the above paragraph. I wonder why?
>
Well, your overgeneralization happened to include the judge, which
has always been what I've referred to.
> >
> > > That is why you cut off
> > > the end of the sentence. I wrote that well over a year ago. Maybe you
> > > thought I wouldn't remember it or that I wouldn't find it after all
> > > this time and so you would get away with your latest attempt to
> > > deceive.
> > >
> > Whether you 'remembered' it or not, I'm sure you checked it out,
> > after I quoted you.
>
>
> But of course. Whatever else I may be, I am very thorough.
>
>
> > >
> > Oh, gee... I'm so scared. While I will remind you that you claimed
> > judge Zobel was 'corrupt,' which clearly implies you believe he was
> > a 'crook' as well.
>
> I have never said he was either corrupt or a crook, and you know it.
> In another thread I have seen you vigorously defending yourself from
> accusations that you said OJ Simpson was "convicted of murder" and
> challenging people to prove that you did say that. What a hypocrite
> you are!
>
Well, I used neither the words 'convicted' nor 'murder.' And everyone
knows that a civil trial can only find liability. But I have many instances
of you implying 'riddled with corruption from top to bottom.' Can you
possibly get your own words to sink in to you?
In any case, I've grown sick of you. The 'Great White Whale,' was guilty,
is guilty, and always will be guilty.
<rest clipped>
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>
snip
> He is a part of the system that you called "The proven crimes
> and corruption of those working within the system is ignored lest its
> greater public exposure might weaken public confidence in the system
> itself." Now who do you think is 'working within the system'? Why,
> Judge Zobel, of course. My point is that you've called the ENTIRE
> Justice System of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "utterly riddled
> with corruption from top to bottom." There is no question as to the
> implication of your words.
A very, very poor effort, PV.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:54:57 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:35:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> There is no question that you're a liar, either in this thread, or any
>>> other. Perhaps you could remind the group of when 'JPB' said that
>>> Judge Zobel was a crook. Indeed, he made no such claim, and the only
>>> time he even memtioned the word 'crook', was to reply to your mendacious
>>> claims that he had said it ...
>
>> Gee whiz... you would think you'd been spanked so thoroughly in this
>thread,
>> that your nose would never come out again.
>
>Talking of noses, Pinocchio, I liked your photograph on the BBC website ...
>how much did they pay you to pose for them ?
>
>{ snip even more rote abuse, lies, and declarations of victory }
>
>>> { snip rote abuse and LDB dodging his well-deserved spanking }
>
>> Yeah, sure... like your claim that the judge couldn't set aside the
>> verdict and enter a finding of not guilty. Who was thoroughly spanked
>> there?
>
>Poor LDB. I defused all and any of his 'arguments', by admitting that
>I was mistaken. Even then, his 'victory' was an accident, as he hadn't
>even _heard_ of Rule 25[b][2] until I told him about it.
>
>Poor LDB ... maybe the 'Select Few' should buy him a meal at 'Le
>Pied de Cochon' (sic), to cheer him up ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:54:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 38
>Message-ID: <slrnanovg1.4jj.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><_Z8d9.5872$Iz6.137...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnannces.1p6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><0bYe9.181333$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031568995 60817581 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:B1%e9.925$GJ5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
draw a broad brush of corruption across all working within the Justice
System of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Further, he most
certainly DID 'accuse' the entire 'state of Massachusetts' of being
'riddled with corruption from top to bottom.' His EXACT words were
"Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with corruption
from top to bottom." There isn't any OTHER way to look at those
14 words. Their meaning is PRECISE, and COMPLETE. It includes
from TOP TO BOTTOM. This goes from the Governor, to the Supreme
Court, to judge Zobel, to the prosecutors, to all law enforcement, to
everyone who represented the state in the trial, to the jurors. Every one
of those entities are part of the State of Massachusetts, in the trial
of the 'Great White Whale.' His implication is that they are ALL
corrupt, and thus crooks, in the sense that I apply to being corrupt.
Do you have another opinion of what 'corrupt' means?
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:35:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> other. Perhaps you could remind the group of when 'JPB' said that
> >> Judge Zobel was a crook. Indeed, he made no such claim, and the only
> >> time he even memtioned the word 'crook', was to reply to your mendacious
> >> claims that he had said it ...
>
> > Gee whiz... you would think you'd been spanked so thoroughly in this thread,
> > that your nose would never come out again.
>
> how much did they pay you to pose for them ?
>
most certain that his intent will be quite evil in the debauchery he
hopes to portray.
> { snip even more rote abuse, lies, and declarations of victory }
>
TRANSLATION -- "I'll clip all appropriate meaningful remarks, call
them something else, and move on to my next insult."
> >> { snip rote abuse and LDB dodging his well-deserved spanking }
>
> > Yeah, sure... like your claim that the judge couldn't set aside the
> > verdict and enter a finding of not guilty. Who was thoroughly spanked
> > there?
>
> Poor LDB. I defused all and any of his 'arguments', by admitting that
> I was mistaken. Even then, his 'victory' was an accident, as he hadn't
> even _heard_ of Rule 25[b][2] until I told him about it.
>
But I never received an apology for you being mistaken.
> Poor LDB ... maybe the 'Select Few' should buy him a meal at 'Le
> Pied de Cochon' (sic), to cheer him up ...
>
Still suffering from a lapse in French I see.
PV
> { snip }
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Capitalise all you want, shout out PRECISE, COMPLETE, EXACT
and DID to your heart's content. When a system is described as
corrupt it does not mean that all the individuals within that system
are crooked. Just Passing By never said that Judge Zobel was a crook
You just cannot bear to admit it.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Capitalise all you want, shout out PRECISE, COMPLETE, EXACT
> and DID to your heart's content. When a system is described as
> corrupt it does not mean that all the individuals within that system
> are crooked. Just Passing By never said that Judge Zobel was a crook
> You just cannot bear to admit it.
I've just unplonked PV. He served about a one-month stint for his
on-going war with Desmond and others. It's still on, I note. :(
I only really saw JPB's side of things as a result. I'm not really sure
what to make of it.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:PJjf9.918$g25....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
two limits. Sorry if you see it otherwise, but Judge Zobel certainly
fits in-between those two limits. Not only in those exact words, but
in his words that "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it." Now, if
Zobel KNOWS she didn't do it, but still allowed a guilty verdict to
stand, when it was within his power to change that verdict, whatever
the PRESUMED consequences, isn't that 'corrupt'? And, IMHO, if
it were true (which I do not believe for an instant but JPB DOES),
I would believe his action would be criminal.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:39:10 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > list would be much greater than the 16 distortions you've provided
> > that I've referred to.
>
> us of how you don't 'take [me] seriously', whilst devoting around
> 80% of your posts on AADP to 'obsessiving' (sic) over me, LDB ...
>
Ummm... that's easy... because you're evil... and I'm the 'Force for Good' in
this group. Without me, you might be allowed to perpetrate your evil on
the unsuspecting. Don't believe me??? See --
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020726-98861174.htm
So as Blair says, you should stop your whining, FDP.
> { snip hiding of LDB's life }
What's that sound I hear??? Oh, yeah... FDP's head banging on
his desk again.
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:26:57 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:39:10 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> If I worried about every lie and distortion you've presented here, my
>> list would be much greater than the 16 distortions you've provided
>> that I've referred to.
>
>Can anyone seriously doubt that LDB is a manic obsessive ? Remind
>us of how you don't 'take [me] seriously', whilst devoting around
>80% of your posts on AADP to 'obsessiving' (sic) over me, LDB ...
>
>{ snip hiding of LDB's life }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:26:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID: <slrnanrp8g.8s1.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yeYe9.181369$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031660974 61803340 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:12:05 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:14:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Talking of noses, Pinocchio, I liked your photograph on the BBC website
>...
>>> how much did they pay you to pose for them ?
>
>> One thing is sure when FDP posts a link to a web page.
>
>'Post a link', LDB ??!! Why, I 'created' that site ... after all, it
>does say 'bbc' in the title ... 'whitehouse.org', anyone ?
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Poor LDB ... maybe the 'Select Few' should buy him a meal at 'Le
>>> Pied de Cochon' (sic), to cheer him up ...
>
>> Still suffering from a lapse in French I see.
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... methinks that LDB's 'wife' isn't proofreading his posts
>anymore ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:12:05 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 29
>Message-ID: <slrnansv24.b11.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><_Z8d9.5872$Iz6.137...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnannces.1p6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><0bYe9.181333$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnanovg1.4jj.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><Nzcf9.197285$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031699621 59726131 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:14:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> how much did they pay you to pose for them ?
>
> > One thing is sure when FDP posts a link to a web page.
>
> does say 'bbc' in the title ... 'whitehouse.org', anyone ?
These are the sites you 'created' in my 'honor.' And I thank you for
doing so ---
http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/dp/PV.gif
http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/dp/jed.html
And what is rather obvious is there is a certain neurotic compulsion
associated with your 'creations.'
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Poor LDB ... maybe the 'Select Few' should buy him a meal at 'Le
> >> Pied de Cochon' (sic), to cheer him up ...
>
> > Still suffering from a lapse in French I see.
>
> Ho, ho, ho ... methinks that LDB's 'wife' isn't proofreading his posts
> anymore ...
>
No... you're the one who needs some proofreading. It was Earl who
you need to provide the (sic) to. You should really read my posts.
I've never called it anything other than 'Pied de Cochon.' Earl
called it 'la Pied de Cochon,' and you called it 'Pied du Cochon' (sic).
No one here had EVER called it that, but you. You first called it
that, and put a (sic) after it, implying someone else had written it that
way, but that is not true. I can only assume YOU were mistaken. Now
that you've 'checked it out,' you would 'nitpick' pedantically.. It
is 'Au pied de Cochon'... see
http://www.pied-de-cochon.ch/
However; since pork is the specialty, I doubt you've ever been in there.
Now, fess up... you haven't, have you?
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:04:45 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> Can anyone seriously doubt that LDB is a manic obsessive ? Remind
> >> us of how you don't 'take [me] seriously', whilst devoting around
> >> 80% of your posts on AADP to 'obsessiving' (sic) over me, LDB ...
> >>
> > Ummm... that's easy... because you're evil... and I'm the 'Force for Good' in
> > this group. Without me, you might be allowed to perpetrate your evil on
> > the unsuspecting.
>
>
> { snip the AADP 'altar boy''s arse getting stretched }
Now, now, FDP... Remember that there is that line between
'posting for reading' and 'mental illness.' I think most here see that
you blur that line quite often. I've simply demonstrated you're 'evil.' Just
because I've done so, causing you to again hit the bottle, I would
hope that you don't resume beating your wife in your anger. Better
to just keep banging your head on your desk.
But I noticed you clipped the URL that PROVES I am that 'Force for
Good,' and you are 'evil.' Let me be sure everyone sees that such
is the case -- See --
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020726-98861174.htm
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:08:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> anymore ...
>
> > No... you're the one who needs some proofreading. It was Earl who
> > you need to provide the (sic) to. You should really read my posts.
> > I've never called it anything other than 'Pied de Cochon.' Earl
> > called it 'la Pied de Cochon,' and you called it 'Pied du Cochon' (sic).
>
> roll up ! Roll up !), I once again have to educate you, and point
> out that the restaurant is called _Au_ Pied de Cochon, you moron.
>
Don't be a pedantic fool. It is certainly NOT 'Pied du Cochon.' I called
it 'Pied de Cochon,' and many references call it that as well. Certainly,
I am at this moment looking at page 785, of the Michelin Guide to
France, and it states "(2 knives and forks) Pied de Cochon (ouvert jour
et nuit)........" It does not include the 'Au.' If you are so anal, then
perhaps you should examine the OED for 'quote' and 'plagiarizing,'
to find that you are wrong in respect to the OED.
> { snip }
>
> > http://www.pied-de-cochon.ch/
>
> Oh Good `echo $DEITY`, this is wonderful !!! LDB boasts that he knows
> Paris, and then posts a link to a restaurant in Geneva ...
>
> ROTF*F*LM*F*AO !!!!!
Shit!!!! For the first time ever... you have me. I simply did a search on
Pied de Cochon, and referenced the first one google found.
>
> I'm going to keel over, from laughing !! What's wrong, LDB ... too
> busy 'surfing [sic] Autodin, Milnet, ARPANET, cyphony and the Defense [sic]
> Data Network', that you never took the time to learn that .ch top-level
> domains are Swiss ?
>
> url:http://www.pieddecochon.com/
Quite right. I apologize if anyone was misled. See how easy that is.
You should try it some time when you're proven wrong. Oh... that's
right... you'd hardly have time for anything else. Now about you finally
understanding that 'quote' is also a noun...spank...spank...spank.
>
> ... is the restaurant to which you referred, in your rather pathetic
> example of 'cultural name dropping'. You know ... just when you were
> trying to appear 'sophisticated' (*snigger!*), and convince us all
> that your knowledge of Paris nightlife wasn't like your knowledge of
> everything else : non-existent.
>
Get outta here. I left off 'Au,' which is 'A,' and you expect ANYONE
to accept that it makes such a difference? The Michelin doesn't seem
to think it does. It I call you 'Moron,' that doesn't make it incorrect
because I didn't say 'A moron.' Because you certainly meet the basic
standard in both cases.
> > However; since pork is the specialty, I doubt you've ever been in there.
> > Now, fess up... you haven't, have you?
>
> Once.
>
Bah!!!
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:51:54 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I only really saw JPB's side of things as a result. I'm not really sure
> > what to make of it.
>
> a bit like the group 'mascot': everyone's had his turn at spanking
> him up and down the group. I must confess that I've become rather
> 'greedy', and do so almost every day now ...
>
What worries most abolitionists here, FDP... is that you try to take
their minds off their minds. It's a rather sickening display of 'greed'
that possesses you, rather than one that would provide any insight.
I believe you once expressed that you had taken over this group.
Strange words, from someone who could not keep a group he hoped
to moderate in business for more than a few weeks, with a total of
12 posts... 6 of them from you.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |DP SUPPORTER #1
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 14:10:22 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:51:46 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > I only really saw JPB's side of things as a result. I'm not really sure
>>> > what to make of it.
>
>>> Not much to tell ... LDB's anus was stretched a bit more. He's becoming
>>> a bit like the group 'mascot': everyone's had his turn at spanking
>>> him up and down the group. I must confess that I've become rather
>>> 'greedy', and do so almost every day now ...
>
>> What worries most abolitionists here, FDP... is that you try to take
>> their minds off their minds.
>
>Would that be before, or after they noticed that 'others were posting
>to others' ?
>
>ROTFLMAO ... 'take their minds off their minds' ... classic LDB
>illiteracy. Perhaps you should stick to concentrating on all that
>is 'fowl' (sic) on AADP ...
>
>{ snip LDB's arse being tanned ... 'AGAIN' (sic) ... }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!cpk
-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhc
p212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 14:10:22 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <slrnao6gqd.s9u.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yeYe9.181369$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B1%e9.925$GJ5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
><Nzcf9.197283$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><PJjf9.918$g25....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><jonathan-063059...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><slrnantvl4.b3e.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><S7Ag9.248226$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032012684 1458082 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:51:46 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > what to make of it.
>
> >> Not much to tell ... LDB's anus was stretched a bit more. He's becoming
> >> a bit like the group 'mascot': everyone's had his turn at spanking
> >> him up and down the group. I must confess that I've become rather
> >> 'greedy', and do so almost every day now ...
>
> > What worries most abolitionists here, FDP... is that you try to take
> > their minds off their minds.
>
> to others' ?
>
do not. It's simply recognized as more of your 'mindless drivel.'
> ROTFLMAO ... 'take their minds off their minds' ... classic LDB
> illiteracy. Perhaps you should stick to concentrating on all that
> is 'fowl' (sic) on AADP ...
Actually, one has only to examine the entire body of your posts to the
thread WAR to recognize that you try to take their minds off their
minds. You really are mentally deficient, FDP. Intent on an
intellectual downturn, demonstrating a total disinterest in the subject
of this newsgroup, and a diversionary tactic of discussing 'games'
and other trivia. Poor FDP.... Every word he writes is a lie...
including 'and;' and 'the'.... but poorer mankind for his-kind. (Excuses
to Mary)
> { snip LDB's arse being tanned ... 'AGAIN' (sic) ... }
>
Ah, yes... PV pulls the strings as the 'puppet-master' as FDP
wiggles furiously. Did William Robert spank your little bottom?
Oh, yes he did. And a well deserved spanking it was.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |PV'S #1 PUPPET
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 15 Sep 2002 04:27:33 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
<clipped ravings of FDP>
>
> <fx: wanders off, chortling at how easy that was ... >
>
No... FDP just 'wanders off.' . As one does when mentally confused.
You've been thoroughly spanked by William Robert and all your ravings
will not for one moment help you.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |PV'S FAVORITE PUPPET
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:57:13 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 15 Sep 2002 04:27:33 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > What worries most abolitionists here, FDP... is that you try to take
>>> > their minds off their minds.
>
>>> Would that be before, or after they noticed that 'others were posting
>>> to others' ?
>
>> As usual...You may 'think' others 'think' you are clever, but they
>> do not. It's simply recognized as more of your 'mindless drivel.'
>
>Ah ... so they're still 'sending' (sic) posts to you, then ? Is it
>the 'Select Few' who do it, or someone else ?
>
>*laughs up sleeve*
>
>>> ROTFLMAO ... 'take their minds off their minds' ... classic LDB
>>> illiteracy. Perhaps you should stick to concentrating on all that
>>> is 'fowl' (sic) on AADP ...
>
>> Actually, one has only to examine the entire body of your posts to the
>> thread WAR to recognize that you try to take their minds off their
>> minds.
>
>LOL ... then he repeats it ... bwaaaahahaaaa !!!!
>
>Let's take a little look at LDB's obsessiveness once again ...
>
>1,603 posts made by me since 06 July 2002 ... of which 475 concerned
>LDB. 29.6%
>
>1,560 made by LDB, of which a stupendous 1,070 constituted obsessing
>over all things to do with me. Almost 70% of what LDB writes in
>here, is about me.
>
>It's nice to be loved, but frankly, this is the sort of 'love' that
>you'd be well advised to 'practise' in San Francisco, LDB.
>
>{ snip 'auto-spank' by LDB }
>
>>> { snip LDB's arse being tanned ... 'AGAIN' (sic) ... }
>
>> Ah, yes... PV pulls the strings as the 'puppet-master' as FDP
>> wiggles furiously. Did William Robert spank your little bottom?
>
>I don't know, did he ? <fx: checks google>
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!
>
>So claiming to be an 'engineer' (when everyone knows that he's a
>former printer ribbon with a criminal record), and copying and
>pasting some 'quotes' (sic) from webpages, means he 'spanked' me ?
>
>ROTF**F**LMAO !!!! And they said that you couldn't get any more
>stupid, LDB ... you showed 'em, eh ? Attaboy ...
>
><fx: wanders off, chortling at how easy that was ... >
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!peer-fe
ed.news.demon.net.MISMATCH!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed00.sul.t-onli
ne.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e1
17.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!n
>ot-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: For PV - some REAL evidence
>Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:57:13 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 65
>Message-ID: <slrnao9pgo.11bj....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yHzd9.103566$bc.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><08Yd9.141527$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><NJfe9.123839$bc.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><wSAe9.164922$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02090...@posting.google.com>
><yeYe9.181369$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B1%e9.925$GJ5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
><Nzcf9.197283$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><PJjf9.918$g25....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><jonathan-063059...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><slrnantvl4.b3e.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><S7Ag9.248226$Rx4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnao6gqd.s9u.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><V_Tg9.45613$R7.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032120053 2276787 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
William Robert
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!
>
>So claiming to be an 'engineer' (when everyone knows that he's a
>former printer ribbon with a criminal record), and copying and
>pasting some 'quotes' (sic) from webpages, means he 'spanked' me ?
Well Desi, I did know how to calculate the resonate length of a transmission
line. Did you? I also knew that PV greatly simplified it for you. Did you?
Can you show me the web pages I copied the aircraft information from?
Desi, I've been involved with military aircraft for over 30 years, I knew you
were throwing Bravo Sierra around. You got caught, now be a man.
Now Desi, about the Baltimore police
William Robert
dirtdog
Robert) wrote:
<snipped>
>I've been involved with military aircraft for over 30 years,
Are you _really_ trying to tell this group that the US Air Force
allows a fucking dullard like you near multi-million dollar [sic]
airplanes [sic] ?
Hmmmm.....
[considers litigany of US fuckups, unintentional bombing of civillian
targets, friendly fire, destructions of mosques, a bit more friendly
fire, crashing jets into electricity cables, oops, some more friendly
fire]
OK, I believe you.
w00f