from PV to the FAKE PV
A Planet Visitor
one line of his pathetic posts, I bypass straight to another. His opening
sentences leave alot to be desired. You are merely a piece of shit.
I posted the original message for keen posters in this group. I expected
reply on their emotions whilst viewing this beautiful master piece.
Please express your remarks about my creation
____________________________________
The fake PV need not reply....
incubus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Don't worry about it. Like i said before, the headers will show him up
>
>
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sat, 3 Aug 2002 15:27:09 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a écrit :
>
>>> I am furious that I am being impersonated by a boring twat. After reading
>>> one line of his pathetic posts, I bypass straight to another. His opening
>>> sentences leave alot to be desired. You are merely a piece of shit.
>>>
>>> I posted the original message for keen posters in this group. I expected
>>> reply on their emotions whilst viewing this beautiful master piece.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please express your remarks about my creation
>>>
>>> The fake PV need not reply....
>
>> Don't worry about it. Like i said before, the headers will show him up
>
>*guffaw!!*
Indeed, truly wonderful
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com...
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:50:56 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 3 Aug 2002 15:27:09 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a écrit :
>
>>> I am furious that I am being impersonated by a boring twat. After reading
>>> one line of his pathetic posts, I bypass straight to another. His opening
>>> sentences leave alot to be desired. You are merely a piece of shit.
>>>
>>> I posted the original message for keen posters in this group. I expected
>>> reply on their emotions whilst viewing this beautiful master piece.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please express your remarks about my creation
>>>
>>> The fake PV need not reply....
>
>> Don't worry about it. Like i said before, the headers will show him up
>
>*guffaw!!*
>
>--
>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: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:50:56 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
>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 1028386481 38500547 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
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:1028401285.24230....@news.demon.co.uk...
> i love it in here, sometimes i never leave
>
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Join the club, you imbecile.
<comments of 'gang of imbeciles clipped>
<belly laugh off>
Stick around PV... this place certainly needs the laughs, and
the demonstration that there is not only something 'rotten in
Denmark.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net...
> >> one line of his pathetic posts, I bypass straight to another. His opening
> >> sentences leave alot to be desired. You are merely a piece of shit.
> >>
> >> I posted the original message for keen posters in this group. I expected
> >> reply on their emotions whilst viewing this beautiful master piece.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please express your remarks about my creation
> >>
>
> > Don't worry about it. Like i said before, the headers will show him up
>
>
<belly laugh on>
SLURP ... SLURP... SLURP...
<belly laugh off>
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
A Planet Visitor
SLURP... SLURP... SLURP...
<belly laugh off>
PV
> w00f
>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
I've never seen someone take so much time aiming a gun at their foot, PV.
Such accuracy!
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
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
news:jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au...
become very clear of late, that you now represent a voice
tainted by a personal connection. If have something direct
to say, than I would expect you to say it. Otherwise, it
appears that you only wish them to 'pass you that football.'
BTW --- :-)
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:Qx539.88001$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
snip
>
> >
> > I've never seen someone take so much time aiming a gun at their foot,
PV.
> >
> > Such accuracy!
> >
> You should have directed your remark to your 'buddy.' It's
> become very clear of late, that you now represent a voice
> tainted by a personal connection. If have something direct
> to say, than I would expect you to say it. Otherwise, it
> appears that you only wish them to 'pass you that football.'
> BTW --- :-)
>
>
> PV
He was giving you some very good advice. You, as ever,
misunderstood.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 10:02:34 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 04 Aug 2002 18:14:15 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > >*guffaw!!*
>
>>> > Indeed, truly wonderful
>
>>> <belly laugh on>
>>> SLURP... SLURP... SLURP...
>>> <belly laugh off>
>
>> I've never seen someone take so much time aiming a gun at their foot, PV.
>>
>> Such accuracy!
>
>*snigger*
>
>--
>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: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 10:02:34 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnakputq.2fhp....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
><eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com>
><kB439.87931$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au>
>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 1028455468 38161488 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:oA639.10061$U44.609024@newsfep2-gui...
crowd of 'armchair psychologists,' who would condescend
to offer me 'advice.' When will you ever understand that I
don't presume to tell you who and when to post to, and
what to say in that post? What makes you believe that
he is QUALIFIED to offer 'advice'?
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS qualified TO GIVE YOU ADVICE. I SAID THAT THAT WAS
WHAT HE WAS GIVING YOU!!!
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:tAs39.18704$Eq4.6...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
have 'qualified' that advice as 'very good,' which presumes a
level of qualification to the one giving such 'advice.' And you
presumed I should 'take it,' because you view it as 'very good
advice,' as well. Let me give YOU, some 'very good advice'
Don't try to judge what qualifies as 'good advice,' without being
presumed to be portentious (ho ho ho... look it up for desi
would you? He hasn't taken his OED with him, and his
'Microsoft Word' spell-checker rejects it) yourself.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaksp7e.2qi4.pasd...@lievre.voute.net...
> In a cybercafé in Bordeaux, I read this ...
>
> Le Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:38:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > > I've never seen someone take so much time aiming a gun at their foot,
> >> PV.
> >> > >
> >> > > Such accuracy!
>
> >> > You should have directed your remark to your 'buddy.' It's
> >> > become very clear of late, that you now represent a voice
> >> > tainted by a personal connection. If have something direct
> >> > to say, than I would expect you to say it. Otherwise, it
> >> > appears that you only wish them to 'pass you that football.'
> >> > BTW --- :-)
>
> >> misunderstood.
>
> > And you, as ever... have managed to join the portentious
>
>
> Once again, LDB aims the gun at his foot ... he must spend an
> absolute _fortune_ on bullets !! 'Portentious' !!! ROTFLMAO !!!
>
Oh.. this is just SO DELICIOUS!!!!!
I LOVE IT when desi is 'on the road.' When he's at home, and I use
a word that's unfamilar to him, he quickly runs to his OED before
answering to insure it is not there, and what it means. But poor
desi, does not HAVE his OED on the road. And it's now perfectly
clear that WITHOUT his OED, he is a blithering idiot, and the very
'pseudo-intellectual,' that he would call others. It rather proves he
DOES use a 'Microsoft Word' or some other puny form of 'spell-checker.'
His logophobia (fear of words) is legendary in this group, and
words he is unfamilar with, create havoc in his brain cells.
FROM THAT OED -- PORTENTIOUS -- "Pretentious, pompous;
portentous. Hence portentiously adv."
And he claimed that 'I' was a pseudo-intellectual.' Good grief, without
his OED the guy can't even read English. Any time that John Rennie
is willing to step in and confirm this, would demonstrate the unbiased
nature of most of John's posts. Because I don't think desi will be 'rolling
on the floor' in anything other than acute pain, when he regains
access to the only document that lends him some measure of
understanding of the English language -- The OED.
Now roll over and admit your 'pseudo-intellectualism,' desipoo.
While I 'roll in the aisle' with laughter.
PV
> --
> Des On The Road |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I've printed the meanings and the several uses of the
word. You will note that it is used to explain quite
different things all the way from pompous to being
a portent. I would never use such a word as it
is easily misunderstood..
portentious a.
[Corruption of portentous a., infl. by pretentious a.]
Pretentious, pompous; portentous. Hence
por_tentiously adv.
1863 K. Stone Jrnl. 16 July in Brokenburn (1955) 227 The earth, the air, the
sky, all are a dull dead grey. The sun seems to emit neither heat nor light,
gleaming with a red glare like a blood-red moon._ Some think it portenteous,
a sign of great victories or defeats.
1937 in Partridge Dict. Slang.
1949 Sun (Baltimore) 21 Jan. 3/1 A portentious feature of this first
telecast of a presidential inauguration was the use made of it in schools.
1956 Ibid. 20 Feb. (B ed.) 8/3 If you were lucky enough to have seen them,
you witnessed a portentious enlargement of mankind's field of knowledge.
1958 Times 29 Oct. 3/1 A poem_was hammered home as a portentious statement
containing the whole truth about the meaning, or meaninglessness, of life.
1962 John o'London's 15 Feb. 163/4 An Italian send-up of the portentious
I.Q. flummery.
1975 Publishers Weekly 3 Mar. 64/2 Loving Ty whom she sees as somehow
portentiously East Coast.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:16:17 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > And you, as ever... have managed to join the portentious
>
> >> 'Portentious' ? *guffaw*
> >>
> >> Once again, LDB aims the gun at his foot ... he must spend an
> >> absolute _fortune_ on bullets !! 'Portentious' !!! ROTFLMAO !!!
>
> > Oh.. this is just SO DELICIOUS!!!!!
>
> deeper ... ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
> > I LOVE IT when desi is 'on the road.' When he's at home, and I use
> > answering to insure it is not there, and what it means. But poor
> > desi, does not HAVE his OED on the road.
>
> corruption (an erroneous form, a misspelling (or 'mis-spelling', if
> you prefer)) of 'portentous'. Um, let's see ... since you're such a
> fan of the web to 'prove' your points ... from dictionary.com ...
>
> url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentious
>
ROTFLMAO... this from the guy who 'laughed' when I used this
source... and now thinks he might use it. It doesn't exist in
Microsoft Word as well, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
in the English language, sport. And thinking so, only proves
your ignorance.
> 'No entry found for portentious' ... oh, dear ... let's try it without
> the little superfluous 'i' that idiots who want to appear clever, tend
> to insert ...
>
> url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentous
>
From the OED --
PORTENTOUS --
"1. Of the nature of a portent; foreboding some
extraordinary and (usually) calamitous event; ominous, threatening,
warning.
2. Applied, without any connected sense of augury, to an object
exciting wonder, awe, or amazement; marvellous, monstrous,
prodigious; hence as an intensive (sometimes humorous) =
extraordinary.
PORTENTIOUS a. --
[Corruption of PORTENTOUS a., infl by PRETENTIOUS a.]
Pretentious, pompous; portentous. Hence por'tentiously. adv.
> However, a quick e-mail to a friend in the UK, who _does_ have access
> to a written _The OED_, reveals ... oops, no entry for 'portentious'.
Well, he must have a version unfamiliar to the rest of the world.
Since version 2.0, in BOTH of my sources have it, as well as
John Rennie. Apparently your 'friend' doesn't really know how
to 'look' for words.
> Unsuprisingly enough, there _is_ an entry for 'portentous' ...
I THINK I'M ABOUT TO PEE IN MY PANTS, LAUGHING..
'unsuprisingly' (sic). Ho de fucking ho ho ho.
One of most egregious errors I can imagine. It sticks out like a
thumb that pokes one in the eye. Much worse than any 'green-
grocer,' apostrophe. It seems as if you are saying you missed
your 'supper,' upon rising. It took dirt 6 months of constant wrath
on my part to get him to correct his spelling of this word, and
then YOU come along. It doesn't even LOOK or PRONOUNCE
right, you dipshit. It needs an 'r,' so get with the pogam (sic).
ROTFLMAO. But... after stifling my laughter.. I suppose you 'mean'
unsurprisingly. So let me remark... No shit, Sherlock. Since
they are not the SAME word, your 'find' is nothing short of a
'meaningless miracle.' Portentious is influenced by PRETENTIOUS,
which is different in respect to portentous.
> then there
> is _The Oxford Guide to English Usage_, which states quite categorically
> (and I paraphrase as I don't have it with me), 'the word "portentious"
> is erroneous, and comes about due to confusion between "portentous",
> and "pretentious".'
>
Well, I am looking DIRECTLY at two separate sources of the SAME
version of that body of work. I have these TWO separate and distinct
versions of the OED, through two different sources, an on-line version
through the BOMC, and my CD-Rom version. Both are the LATEST
version (version 2.0). Here is EXACTLY what both say.. in an
agreement in every period and comma --
PORTENTIOUS a.
[Corruption of PORTENTOUS a., infl. by PRETENTIOUS a.]
Pretentious, pompous; portentous. Hence por'tentiously adv.
1863 K. Stone Jrnl. 16 July in Brokenburn (1955) 227 The
earth, the air, the sky, all are a dull dead grey. The sun
seems to emit neither heat nor light, gleaming with a red
glare like a blood-red moon.. Some think it portenteous, a
sign of great victories or defeats. 1937 in Partridge Dict.
Slang. 1949 Sun (Baltimore) 21 Jan. 3/1 A portentious
feature of this first telecast of a presidential inauguration
was the use made of it in schools. 1956 Ibid. 20 Feb. (B ed.)
8/3 If you were lucky enough to have seen them, you witnessed
a portentious enlargement of mankind's field of knowledge.
1958 Times 29 Oct. 3/1 A poem.. was hammered home as a
portentious statement containing the whole truth about the
meaning, or meaninglessness, of life. 1962 John o'London's
15 Feb. 163/4 An Italian send-up of the portentious I.Q.
flummery. 1975 Publishers Weekly 3 Mar. 64/2 Loving Ty whom
she sees as somehow portentiously East Coast.
Whether it is formed as a 'corruption' or not, the word is
recognized as a 'word,' in the OED, and quotations are
given for its usage.
> > And it's now perfectly
> > clear that WITHOUT his OED, he is a blithering idiot, and the very
> > 'pseudo-intellectual,' that he would call others. It rather proves he
> > DOES use a 'Microsoft Word' or some other puny form of 'spell-checker.'
> > His logophobia (fear of words) is legendary in this group, and
> > words he is unfamiliar with, create havoc in his brain cells.
> >
> > FROM THAT OED -- PORTENTIOUS -- "Pretentious, pompous;
> > portentous. Hence portentiously adv."
>
> Once again, we see the 'Advise Syndrome' ... rather than doing what any
> intelligent being would do, and pointing out that it was a typo, LDB
> tries to brazen it out ... and only ends up looking even _more_
> stupid.
>
Oh, my aching ass. What a FUCKING liar you can be. Since the
word IS in the OED, and was used EXACTLY as the OED defines.
Whether it is a 'corruption' or not, is immaterial, since it EXISTS
in the OED. This is obviously another of your 'lockerbie disaster' posts,
where you will rely on a lie in hope it will get you out of your obvious
ignorance. And then others wonder why I become incensed over
your stupidity.
> Oh yes, it _is_ 'DELICIOUS' (sic) ... I might not even 'send' (sic) this
> article to you. I might just wait, watch, and witness you making a
> pompous ... no, a 'portentious' (sic) ass out of yourself ... ROTFLMAO !!!
>
Silly boy... we BOTH know.. and the 'eye-of-the-beholder' knows,
who has displayed their ignorance here.
> > And he claimed that 'I' was a pseudo-intellectual.' Good grief, without
> > his OED the guy can't even read English. Any time that John Rennie
> > is willing to step in and confirm this, would demonstrate the unbiased
> > nature of most of John's posts. Because I don't think desi will be 'rolling
> > on the floor' in anything other than acute pain, when he regains
> > access to the only document that lends him some measure of
> > understanding of the English language -- The OED.
> >
> > Now roll over and admit your 'pseudo-intellectualism,' desipoo.
> > While I 'roll in the aisle' with laughter.
>
> Is that egg yolk cooked or uncooked, LDB ?
>
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
I don't think you're doing much 'laughing' here, desi. I do believe
you're trying to lie your way out of a very embarrassing situation,
where the limits of your knowledge have been tested and proved
to be flawed. I'm the one ROTFLMAO. Despite your hysterical
attempts to extract yourself here.
In any case, the use of the word 'portentious' is the use of a
'word' that exists in the English language, and is defined as such,
with the notation of how it rather combines portentous and
pretentious (which was my meaning) in a 'corrupted' form.
But you will find NO instance of the words ''obsessiving' (sic)
or 'halfwittedness' (sic), EXISTING in the OED. While
your use of the non-existent word 'suprising' (sic) is staggering
stupidity. Try not to do it again. Putting in 'obsessiving'
(sic), in the OED gives you "There is no results." Putting in
'halfwittedness,' gives you 'half-wittedness,' with no mention
of 'halfwittedness' existing as even a 'corrupted' form. It just
DOESN'T EXIST. And it seems you used BOTH those words
in a three-line typical piece of crap. and then you, as usual,
tried to lie your way out of that one. Which brings up...
Since your major was in 'French Feminist Literature,' it's
amazing that it didn't contain as least SOME mention of
Anna Kingsmill Finch, Countess of Winchilsea, (1661-1720).
She was significant as one of the earliest published women
poets in England A poet well ahead of her time, and a
feminist, who criticized the misogyny prevalent at the time
in England, with satirical commentary of the social roles
forced on women appearing often in her work Sometimes,
I wonder about the 'depth' of your 'working-class training'???
I would refer you to her work --- 'A Pindarick Poem' --
----------------
Whilst You obey'd, you Winds! that must fulfill
The just Disposer's Righteous Will;
Whilst not the Earth alone, you disarray,
But to more ruin'd Seas wing'd your impetuous Way.
Which to foreshew, the still portentious Sun
Beamless, and pale of late, his Race begun,
Quenching the Rays, he had no Joy to keep,
In the obscure, and sadly threaten'd Deep.
------------------
This was exactly my meaning in the use of the word.
And I did not need to alter the text to try and cover up,
as you deviously did in Easter -1916 by Yeats.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:24:59 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> presumed to be portentious (ho ho ho... look it up for desi
> >> would you? He hasn't taken his OED with him, and his
> >> 'Microsoft Word' spell-checker rejects it) yourself.
>
> > word. You will note that it is used to explain quite
> > different things all the way from pompous to being
> > a portent. I would never use such a word as it
> > is easily misunderstood..
> >
> > portentious a.
> > [Corruption of portentous a., infl. by pretentious a.]
>
> is an _incorrect_ spelling of 'portentous'.
>
> ROTFLMAO ... really ... tears of laughter running down my face ... oh,
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Don't kid us, desi... those are just 'tears.' But try to learn
how to spell surprise, please. Because it LOOKS grotesque
the way you spell it.
PV
> { snip }
dirtdog
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:16:17 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > And you, as ever... have managed to join the portentious
>
>>> 'Portentious' ? *guffaw*
>>>
>>> Once again, LDB aims the gun at his foot ... he must spend an
>>> absolute _fortune_ on bullets !! 'Portentious' !!! ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>> Oh.. this is just SO DELICIOUS!!!!!
>
>It is, isn't it ? Here, LDB, here's a spade ... dig yourself in a bit
>deeper ... ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>> I LOVE IT when desi is 'on the road.' When he's at home, and I use
>> a word that's unfamilar to him, he quickly runs to his OED before
>> answering to insure it is not there, and what it means. But poor
>> desi, does not HAVE his OED on the road.
>
>Nor do I need it ... the word 'portentious' does not exist. It is a
>corruption (an erroneous form, a misspelling (or 'mis-spelling', if
>you prefer)) of 'portentous'. Um, let's see ... since you're such a
>fan of the web to 'prove' your points ... from dictionary.com ...
>
>url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentious
>
>'No entry found for portentious' ... oh, dear ... let's try it without
>the little superfluous 'i' that idiots who want to appear clever, tend
>to insert ...
>
>url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentous
>
>However, a quick e-mail to a friend in the UK, who _does_ have access
>to a written _The OED_, reveals ... oops, no entry for 'portentious'.
>Unsuprisingly enough, there _is_ an entry for 'portentous' ... then there
>is _The Oxford Guide to English Usage_, which states quite categorically
>(and I paraphrase as I don't have it with me), 'the word "portentious"
>is erroneous, and comes about due to confusion between "portentous",
>and "pretentious".'
>
>> And it's now perfectly
>> clear that WITHOUT his OED, he is a blithering idiot, and the very
>> 'pseudo-intellectual,' that he would call others. It rather proves he
>> DOES use a 'Microsoft Word' or some other puny form of 'spell-checker.'
>> His logophobia (fear of words) is legendary in this group, and
>> words he is unfamilar with, create havoc in his brain cells.
>>
>> FROM THAT OED -- PORTENTIOUS -- "Pretentious, pompous;
>> portentous. Hence portentiously adv."
>
>Once again, we see the 'Advise Syndrome' ... rather than doing what any
>intelligent being would do, and pointing out that it was a typo, LDB
>tries to brazen it out ... and only ends up looking even _more_
>stupid.
>
>Oh yes, it _is_ 'DELICIOUS' (sic) ... I might not even 'send' (sic) this
>article to you. I might just wait, watch, and witness you making a
>pompous ... no, a 'portentious' (sic) ass out of yourself ... ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>> And he claimed that 'I' was a pseudo-intellectual.' Good grief, without
>> his OED the guy can't even read English. Any time that John Rennie
>> is willing to step in and confirm this, would demonstrate the unbiased
>> nature of most of John's posts. Because I don't think desi will be 'rolling
>> on the floor' in anything other than acute pain, when he regains
>> access to the only document that lends him some measure of
>> understanding of the English language -- The OED.
>>
>> Now roll over and admit your 'pseudo-intellectualism,' desipoo.
>> While I 'roll in the aisle' with laughter.
>
>Is that egg yolk cooked or uncooked, LDB ?
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Applause*
Football back to you, desi [sic].
w00f
dirtdog
<snipped>
...wrong.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:38 +0000, Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> a écrit :
>
> { snip }> Oops, didn't see it first time around ... what's that, written just
> below the 'No entry found for portentious' ? Why, I do believe it says,
>
> '1 suggestion found:
>
> portentous'
>
So... you FOUND it, and it offered a 'suggestion.' While the OED
maintains it is a 'word.' But surprisingly enough... 'unsuprisingly'
(sic) is just silly nonsense.
> LOL ... a healthy *guffaw*, and a big, 'BIG' (sic) ROTFLMAO !!!!!! Even
> when I'm 700 km from Paris, without access to any of my reference works,
> it's sooo easy to spank him down. Here, LDB ... drop those trousers,
> it's spanky-time again !!!
>
Too bad you didn't go 700 km due North. That would take you to about
60 degree latitude North (or is that too 'intellectual' for you), well into
the North Sea, and on the way to your final destination somewhere
into the Arctic Ocean, where your Schwinn would probably run out of gas.
PV
> { snip }
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:19:31 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:38 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
><pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentious
>>
>> 'No entry found for portentious'
>
>Oops, didn't see it first time around ... what's that, written just
>below the 'No entry found for portentious' ? Why, I do believe it says,
>
> '1 suggestion found:
>
> portentous'
>
>LOL ... a healthy *guffaw*, and a big, 'BIG' (sic) ROTFLMAO !!!!!! Even
>when I'm 700 km from Paris, without access to any of my reference works,
>it's sooo easy to spank him down. Here, LDB ... drop those trousers,
>it's spanky-time again !!!
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |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 <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:19:31 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <slrnaktgdi.2r8j.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
><eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com>
><kB439.87931$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au>
><Qx539.88001$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><oA639.10061$U44.609024@newsfep2-gui>
><Ajn39.211254$XH.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaksp7e.2qi4.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><lxx39.97520$s8.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaktfn9.2r8j.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1028571557 38425813 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:43:42 +0000
>
>In a cybercafé in Bordeaux, I read this ...
>
>Le Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:38:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > > I've never seen someone take so much time aiming a gun at their foot,
>>> PV.
>>> > >
>>> > > Such accuracy!
>
>>> > You should have directed your remark to your 'buddy.' It's
>>> > become very clear of late, that you now represent a voice
>>> > tainted by a personal connection. If have something direct
>>> > to say, than I would expect you to say it. Otherwise, it
>>> > appears that you only wish them to 'pass you that football.'
>>> > BTW --- :-)
>
>>> He was giving you some very good advice. You, as ever,
>>> misunderstood.
>
>> And you, as ever... have managed to join the portentious
>
>'Portentious' ? *guffaw*
>
>Once again, LDB aims the gun at his foot ... he must spend an
>absolute _fortune_ on bullets !! 'Portentious' !!! ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>At this point, perhaps he should 'insure' (sic) that his 'advise' (sic)
>is followed, by crying 'Good Good [sic] !'
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!
>
>--
>Des On The Road |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!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-be
rlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:43:42 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 36
>Message-ID: <slrnaksp7e.2qi4.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
><eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com>
><kB439.87931$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au>
><Qx539.88001$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><oA639.10061$U44.609024@newsfep2-gui>
><Ajn39.211254$XH.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1028547802 39025119 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:47 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:24:59 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> presumed to be portentious (ho ho ho... look it up for desi
>>> would you? He hasn't taken his OED with him, and his
>>> 'Microsoft Word' spell-checker rejects it) yourself.
>
>> I've printed the meanings and the several uses of the
>> word. You will note that it is used to explain quite
>> different things all the way from pompous to being
>> a portent. I would never use such a word as it
>> is easily misunderstood..
>>
>> portentious a.
>> [Corruption of portentous a., infl. by pretentious a.]
>
>LOL ... and this bit will have sailed over his head. 'Portentious'
>is an _incorrect_ spelling of 'portentous'.
>
>ROTFLMAO ... really ... tears of laughter running down my face ... oh,
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news.maxwell.syr.e
du!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:47 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 30
>Message-ID: <slrnaktfnj.2r8j.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
><eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com>
><kB439.87931$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au>
><Qx539.88001$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><oA639.10061$U44.609024@newsfep2-gui>
><Ajn39.211254$XH.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><tAs39.18704$Eq4.6...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><lxx39.97518$s8.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><Mxy39.20526$Eq4.6...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1028570881 39374888 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:38 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:16:17 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > And you, as ever... have managed to join the portentious
>
>>> 'Portentious' ? *guffaw*
>>>
>>> Once again, LDB aims the gun at his foot ... he must spend an
>>> absolute _fortune_ on bullets !! 'Portentious' !!! ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>> Oh.. this is just SO DELICIOUS!!!!!
>
>It is, isn't it ? Here, LDB, here's a spade ... dig yourself in a bit
>deeper ... ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>> I LOVE IT when desi is 'on the road.' When he's at home, and I use
>> a word that's unfamilar to him, he quickly runs to his OED before
>> answering to insure it is not there, and what it means. But poor
>> desi, does not HAVE his OED on the road.
>
>Nor do I need it ... the word 'portentious' does not exist. It is a
>corruption (an erroneous form, a misspelling (or 'mis-spelling', if
>you prefer)) of 'portentous'. Um, let's see ... since you're such a
>fan of the web to 'prove' your points ... from dictionary.com ...
>
>url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=portentious
>
>--
>Des On The Road |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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsxfer.visi.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.ma
xwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-f
or-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: from PV to the FAKE PV
>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:38 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 81
>Message-ID: <slrnaktfn9.2r8j.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1028380496.6731.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
><GJR29.7973$U44.518930@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaknreg.1obb....@lievre.voute.net>
><eosnkuk6d9r6upk22...@4ax.com>
><kB439.87931$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-465C1B...@news.pacific.net.au>
><Qx539.88001$s8.16...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><oA639.10061$U44.609024@newsfep2-gui>
><Ajn39.211254$XH.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaksp7e.2qi4.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><lxx39.97520$s8.18...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1028570880 39374888 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:jrp8lu0jgpp69gpta...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:34:36 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:05r2lukqqflpij48g...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:12:16 +0100, "John Rennie"
>> >> <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >peristaltic
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I had to look that up.
>> >>
>> >> I was funny though, and I shall now attempt to utilise it more in
>> >> future.
>> >>
>> >ROTFLMAO -- How are you going to 'utilise' (sic) it? First, you
>> >have to define what 'utilise' (sic) is.
>> >
>> >> I thank you for broadening my horizons.
>> >
>> >Cheee... Arithmetic would 'broaden' your horizons. Remember
>> >'education' (sic).
>> >
>> >PV
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 'nuff said
>>
>
>Seeing as how you couldn't pour water out of a boot even if
>there were instructions on the heel, you have in two words, said
>'more than enough.'
Still having problems with the ol' punctuation and quotes, FW?
w00f
David McDonald
>
> it is my pleasure to announce that dirtbag is now
> joined in his profession by a convicted manslaughterer.
> Apparently they will let ANYONE become a lawyer in
> the U.K. (of course, we already suspected that, if dirt
> is 'actually' a lawyer). It seems that Louise Woodward,
> a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
> of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from
> Southbank University in London. Wasn't that where
> YOU received your 'classical education' (sic), dirt?
> Good old Louise, now 24, attended the graduation with
> her controversial parents Gary and Sue, who split up
> after their daughter returned to England. Both were
> accused of bilking thousands from Louise's appeal
> fund, but were cleared by a judge. Louise smiled for
> photographers after being awarded her degree. When
> she first returned to England she went to work for
> the legal department of a collection agency in Edinburgh
> (your firm, perhaps?), before starting her three-year law
> degree course (a 'classical education' only takes three
> years, compared to the usual four). This is NO JOKE.
> Of course, Louise, dirt, and the entire United Kingdom
> legal profession IS A JOKE. But this is NO JOKE. In
> the U.S., a conviction for manslaughter usually
> creates a big problem for someone in pursuit of becoming
> a member of the legal 'profession' (sic).
>
Better she is a lawyer in England than a baby sitter in New England.
David
> PV
>
>
> > w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:jcn9lu009v7ghnpu1...@4ax.com...
sentence. you've really become hysterical here, dirtbag. Has
the thought of sharing an 'intellectual' seat next to Louise Woodward
bothered you that much? Or do you now realize how badly you
are being spanked?
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
"David McDonald" <david_m...@subspacemail.com> wrote in message
news:2cc4ab9.02081...@posting.google.com...
I'll drink to that.. and dirtbag will get drunk to that. He's already
trying to figure out how he can 'hit on her.'
PV
> David
>
> > PV
> >
> >
> > > w00f
>
Jake Snorfion
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
> Or do you now realize how badly you
>are being spanked?
>
TO be honest, I wasn't aware that I had.
What have I been spanked [sic] over this time, FW? Is it 'bastardised'
or 'utilised'?
Ho ho ho. FW is a fuckwit.
w00f
David McDonald
But if, and only if Louise reminds Dirtdog of his MOTHER.
David
>
> PV
>
> > David
> >
> > > PV
> > >
> > >
> > > > w00f
> >
dirtdog
McDonald) wrote:
<snipped>
>But if, and only if Louise reminds Dirtdog of his MOTHER.
>
Can anyone else hear something?
No? Must be just me.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Jake Snorfion" <jake.s...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:pdmcluc3llckoc1s3...@4ax.com...
Potty mouth... Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked
so badly, he assumes another persona and creates childish one-line
'idiot-speak.'
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Or do you now realize how badly you
> >are being spanked?
> >
>
> TO be honest, I wasn't aware that I had.
When have you ever been 'aware,' dirtbag? The truth is you
slept through your 'classical education' (sic), and now it's
been exposed that a twit who could not handle a baby, has
the same level of that 'classical education' that you've
touted so boisterously. That's why you taken to hiding
your previous handle in shame.
ho ho ho.
PV
Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked so
badly, he assumes another persona and creates childish one-line
'idiot-speak.'
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Ho ho ho. FW is a ****wit.
>
> > Potty mouth... Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked
> > so badly, he assumes another persona and creates childish one-line
> > 'idiot-speak.'
>
> copies and pastes a one-paragraph text file on his 'desktop'.
>
Whenever FDP finds he's been drinking too much... he beats his wife,
and then posts a silly one sentence bit of 'mindless drivel' to PV.
PV
> --
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:vsm69.280611$XH.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
I note that you have recently decided to add wife beating
to the imaginary list of Desmond's 'crimes'. Do you find
this necessary? I would have thought that with his recent
sympathetic response to you, you could have tried to
restrain yourself. Or is restraint beyond you?
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Jbo69.1538$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Yesterday, he posted one message, commenting 'favorably'
on one of my comments. Of course, I neither solicited nor care
about his 'agreement.' Further, he still posted 6 other paedomorphic
comments on my posts from his total of 13 posts. While I
posted 6 out of my total 12 messages in reply to those
paedomorphic posts. Ignoring the one 'sympathetic and
restrained' post he offered. It is obvious that our 'dialog'
has long since passed the point of relevance, in respect to
the DP.
We all have our opinions, and if occasionally his agrees with
mine, does that REQUIRE me to agree with one of his, in a
quid pro quo type arrangement, even if I DON'T agree with it?
Whether he acknowledges my existence here or
does not should not and cannot affect my opinions. Nor
should mine affect his. And when and if, I ever find one of
his comments that I agree with, I would not be reluctant
to state I do. Perhaps you can tell me which of them you
believe I SHOULD agree with, outside of his obvious pedantic
postings?
Further I would remind you of some of FDP's imaginary
list of my 'crimes.' He has called me an -
1) "altar-boy shagging Bible-basher"
2) "altar-boy shagging prick"
3) "a bigoted old altar-boy-shagger"
4) "you altar-boy-molesting dipshit."
5) "It might have flown right over your pointy little
redneck head as said head was bobbing up and down over
Dwight-the-Altar-Boy-From-Tampa's crotch"
6) "Dwight the altar-boy from Wisconsin (or was he from
Tampa ? Can't remember. So many young boys, so
little time, eh, Jed ?) "
Clearly there is an intense rage within FDP. The man literally
sprays 'urine marking' onto his keyboard when posting. And we
well know by his own admission that he is 'in his cups,' more
often than not. One can refer to many studies which connect
excessive alcohol consumption with spousal abuse. And to
be perfectly blunt (quite a change from my previous diplomatic
posting style), both dirtbag and desi, represent exactly what
I spoke of in my other post to you today. FDP (Flopping
drunken puppet) bases his entire argument on silly insults
to all posters who disagree with him, and the U.S. in general.
dirtbag believes the U.S. should abide by English Law, or
relies totally on moronic one-line obscene trolls. Both
of them suffer from severe inferiority complexes, which they
hide by presenting false superiority complexes here in front
of this group. Witness their obsession with their 'classical
education.' Hardly what one would consider normal. Their
arguments do not consist of arguing the POINT, but by
hoping to degrade the poster. I am not above such behavior
if I find a certain level of stupidity within the post, nor do I
claim to be. But both dirtbag and FDP makes it a habit to
do so, regardless of how the other poster has framed his post,
or the intent of that post.
desi could expect to receive better treatment if in fact he
admitted some of his unfortunate, and disgusting comments
here. He could begin by publicly apologizing for his comments
to a grieving mother, bobbyc, where he presumed to call her
perverse, and attempted to portray her son's murderer as the
'victim.' As with murder, and the impossibility of bringing the
victim 'back to life'; it would not bring back the fact that he
demonstrated a crass behavior beyond description, and
'victimized' a poster going through an emotional crisis, who
was looking here more for compassion than anything else.
And desi proceeded to slap her in the face, as he does ALL
victims, unless he can call a murderer, a 'victim.' In which
case, it is usually the 'kiss with tongue inserted in the others
mouth.'
Nevertheless, him admitting his words were unfortunate, would
be a start at contrition, and perhaps self-recognition that he
intends to argue from something other than a 'crazy lunatic'
viewpoint. But I do not believe his ego would EVER permit
him to do so.
Why not ask HIM to do what you ask of me, in respect to his
altar-boy comments, rather than pick out my rather reasonable
extrapolation of what I find of his character in his comments?
I can only believe the reasons you don't are four fold --
1) He is of English/Irish/Scottish (whatever) stock.
2) He holds the same agenda as you in respect to the DP.
3) I am not of English/Irish/Scottish (whatever) stock.
4) I hold a different agenda than you in respect to the DP.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
And so it goes on and on and on. What bores you and he
are - 'a curse on both your houses.'
Just passing by
>
> it is my pleasure to announce that dirtbag is now
> joined in his profession by a convicted manslaughterer.
> Apparently they will let ANYONE become a lawyer in
> the U.K. (of course, we already suspected that, if dirt
> is 'actually' a lawyer). It seems that Louise Woodward,
> a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
> of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from
> Southbank University in London.......
................and on and on the idiotic rant goes
Still ranting about a case you know nothing about, I see. And are you
again going to run off with your tail between your legs - as you did
the last time - rather than attempt to prove me wrong. Are you going
to repeat that pathetic cop-out line that fools nobody of ".... there
are some arguments that by simply arguing them, it lends some credence
to the belief that they CAN be argued. Those are arguments that are
too absurd to even argue. This is one of them."?
Yes, I am sure you will indeed pretend that is the reason you won't
back up your ignorant outburst with any facts, but, nonetheless I will
reissue the challenge:
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.
I am only asking for one item of evidence. Not much, is it? But then
the last time I asked you for that, you firstly ran away leaving only
the above mentioned cop-out, and then returned making a complete fool
of yourself by linking to a web site that you thought contained
medical facts pointing to Louise's guilt but which was, in fact, a
site totally supporting her and attacking the prosecution's junk
science.
So try using your own words this time, not someone else's that you
have hastily and carelessly misinterpreted in a desperate attempt to
hide your ignorance. And in the meantime, have another go at
explaining how Louise Woodward could possibly be guilty of that crime
given the following facts:
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden (more on this deliberate perversion of
justice at another time) until the trial was almost over, showed that
this lipping was indeed present.
3. New bone (periosteum) was clearly identified at the fracture site.
This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr. DeGirolami (a
PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be explained by
the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew’s
head against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a
2nd storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew’s
head did not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises;
no cuts; no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
>I am a...
>1) "altar-boy shagging Bible-basher"
>2) "altar-boy shagging prick"
>3) "a bigoted old altar-boy-shagger"
>4) "you altar-boy-molesting dipshit."
>5) "It might have flown right over your pointy little
>redneck head as said head was bobbing up and down over
>Dwight-the-Altar-Boy-From-Tampa's crotch"
>6) "Dwight the altar-boy from Wisconsin (or was he from
>Tampa ? Can't remember. So many young boys, so
>little time, eh, Jed ?) "
Please accept my apologies, having followed up my booking a week in
Amsterdam at New Year last week by booking two weeks in
Bar-fucking-bados today, I am in a particularly good mood.
You will therefore excuse me for laughing once again out loud.
LOL!
<PV's nationalistic paranoia snipped>
w00f
DesiCsMOM
>Very soon, he'll claim that my late father was an alcoholic ... that
>my late mother was a prostitute. He'll start talking about this
>'sister' that I'm supposed to have, in Texas.
Young Desmond, before you were born, I did have an affair with Bill Clinton. We
would meet at the McDonald's.
Desi's Mum (Becky)
Desmond, Tom never knew.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<TO_49.136593$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> >
> > it is my pleasure to announce that dirtbag is now
> > joined in his profession by a convicted manslaughterer.
> > Apparently they will let ANYONE become a lawyer in
> > the U.K. (of course, we already suspected that, if dirt
> > is 'actually' a lawyer). It seems that Louise Woodward,
> > a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
> > of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from
> > Southbank University in London.......
>
> ................and on and on the idiotic rant goes
>
your opinion, sport. And I think you have a screw loose up topside.
> Still ranting about a case you know nothing about, I see. And are you
> again going to run off with your tail between your legs - as you did
> the last time - rather than attempt to prove me wrong. Are you going
> to repeat that pathetic cop-out line that fools nobody of ".... there
> are some arguments that by simply arguing them, it lends some credence
> to the belief that they CAN be argued. Those are arguments that are
> too absurd to even argue. This is one of them."?
>
always someone who thinks his insensible arguments provide a nice
contrast to the real world. GUILTY... GUILTY... GUILTY. I don't
care how many perverse night-sweats you have dreaming of holding
'sweet Louise' in your sweaty little arms,' in some twisted
fantasy, but GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY. You are the ONLY half-wit
dumb enough, or 'in love enough,' to think otherwise. I've heard of
women marrying their pen-pal murderers, but you're something else.
> Yes, I am sure you will indeed pretend that is the reason you won't
> back up your ignorant outburst with any facts, but, nonetheless I will
> reissue the challenge:
la de da. Like I'm supposed to really CARE that you 'reissue the
challenge.' What a fruitcake. Are you about to throw your glove
on the ground or something like that? 'Reissue the challenge'!!!
What fucking planet are YOU from?
> Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in causing
> the death of Matthew Eappen.
FACT ONE -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY. Of course, you would
deny that FACT.
> 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.
Of course, let's not 'cop out,' by speaking of anything the 'jury
said.' Why listen to THEM? They just viewed the evidence.
FACT -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY. Get over it, and
start fantasizing about someone with some looks, like Nicole
Kidman, rather than some fat cow of an adolescent, incompetent
baby-killer. It'll get your dick harder, faster. Unless you have a taste
for the perverse. Oopss... perhaps I've 'struck a nerve.'
> 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.
>
Oh yeah? Here is a 'fact' for you to disprove.
FACT -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> I am only asking for one item of evidence.
ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE-- The entire Justice System, including
jury, judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> Not much, is it? But then
> the last time I asked you for that, you firstly ran away leaving only
> the above mentioned cop-out, and then returned making a complete fool
> of yourself by linking to a web site that you thought contained
> medical facts pointing to Louise's guilt but which was, in fact, a
> site totally supporting her and attacking the prosecution's junk
> science.
>
HUH??? What the fuck are you mumbling about? You must have
me confused with someone who gives a fuck about your silly
crap --- I don't argue with those who claim the moon is made of
cheese, sport. It would only lend some small credence to your moronic
'theory,' to do so. Which is what you so desperately need - Someone
to 'talk to you.' All I really need is ---ONE FACT -- The
entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> So try using your own words this time, not someone else's that you
> have hastily and carelessly misinterpreted in a desperate attempt to
> hide your ignorance. And in the meantime, have another go at
> explaining how Louise Woodward could possibly be guilty of that crime
> given the following facts:
>
FACT -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
> at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
> underway for at least one week.
>
FACT ONE -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
> has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
> Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
> was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
> prosecution, were kept hidden (more on this deliberate perversion of
> justice at another time) until the trial was almost over, showed that
> this lipping was indeed present.
>
FACT TWO -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 3. New bone (periosteum) was clearly identified at the fracture site.
> This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr. DeGirolami (a
> PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be explained by
> the injury being an old one.
>
FACT THREE -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew’s
> head against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a
> 2nd storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew’s
> head did not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises;
> no cuts; no scratches.
>
FACT FOUR -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
> have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>
FACT FIVE -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
> fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
> fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
> shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
> than 2 weeks.
>
FACT SIX -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
> 7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
> weeks old.
>
FACT SEVEN -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
Yours is all 'bullshit.' Mine is FACT UMPTY UMP - The entire Justice System,
including jury, judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
FACT UMPTY UMP + 1 -- Your obsession is disgusting. You're a
very sick man. No matter how much lipstick you try to put on that
pig... she will still be a pig.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:ohkllu8gvt35ntg6s...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:01:56 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
> >2) "altar-boy shagging prick"
> >3) "a bigoted old altar-boy-shagger"
> >4) "you altar-boy-molesting dipshit."
> >5) "It might have flown right over your pointy little
> >redneck head as said head was bobbing up and down over
> >Dwight-the-Altar-Boy-From-Tampa's crotch"
> >6) "Dwight the altar-boy from Wisconsin (or was he from
> >Tampa ? Can't remember. So many young boys, so
> >little time, eh, Jed ?) "
>
> Please accept my apologies, having followed up my booking a week in
> Amsterdam at New Year last week by booking two weeks in
As if that should provide an intense interest for us. It does
not, of course, and simply demonstrates how 'important'
you view yourself here, in respect to your imaginary 'adventures'
with your Michelin Girl.
>
> You will therefore excuse me for laughing once again out loud.
>
> LOL!
>
> <PV's nationalistic paranoia snipped>
>
Now THERE is a moronic remark. I speak of the 'nationalistic'
paranoia of those of 'British origin,' which is rather evident here,
since the British do not have the DP, while the U.S. does, and
dirt demonstrates his 'opposite man' persona again. Reminiscent
of when I recognized that he was a racist, and he called me a
racist for 'recognizing he was a racist.' Nonetheless, I
believe that dirt has totally lost the thread here, and is referring
to another post of mine. Since what he snipped was a reference to
FDP's most disgusting insult directed to a mother who had
just had her son murdered, and FDP remarking that she was
perverse, which I felt deserved an apology. But perhaps dirt
believes it is 'nationalistic' to find something wrong with FDP
having insulted that mother in such a cruel manner.
It's strange, how dirt, when wriggling for an escape from the absurd
conclusions he reaches, finds that all common sense deserts him.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> >> and then posts a silly one sentence bit of 'mindless drivel' to PV.
>
> > to the imaginary list of Desmond's 'crimes'. Do you find
> > this necessary? I would have thought that with his recent
> > sympathetic response to you, you could have tried to
> > restrain yourself. Or is restraint beyond you?
>
> help me more than his uneducated mind would care to admit. He has
> gone down the Drewl Road so far, cowering down under the veritable
> beating that dirt and I have administered, that he has to 'attack'
> others.
>
You mean your 'Dick und Doof' (The phrase that Germans
use for Laurel and Hardy - Fat and Goofy) routine? It's
rather ironic all having D -- Dick - Doof - dirtbag - desi.
ROTFLMAO. It all goes back to my other post to John today,
which no one from 'British origin' has had the balls to address,
because it hits so close to home. You're both PATHETIC losers.
Having no life of your own, but very desperate to have 'a say.'
Unfortunately, you lack the intelligence to 'say it.'
> Very soon, he'll claim that my late father was an alcoholic ... that
> my late mother was a prostitute. He'll start talking about this
> 'sister' that I'm supposed to have, in Texas.
>
Don't try to 'blame it' on your family, sport. That's the first thing
that drunks do... blame it on someone else. And then react in
physical violence, when someone remarks on their possibly
calming down.
> The use of initialisms (quick, LDB, look it up in _The OED_ !!), only
> serve to show how badly LDB has had it over the past few months.
>
Quick, FDP...eisoptrophobia... Just don't 'look it up'... look into it.
Nor do I believe your 'word' necessarily takes on a plural sense.
It seems superfluous (Quick FDP, look it up in the OED). Seems
the 's' should go on the 'serve.' But then you didn't know that 'quote'
was a noun, either.
> The 'wife-beating' claim is laughable, as anyone who knows me, can
> verify. It's just one more nail in the LDB 'Credibility Coffin'.
ho ho ho. Like your 'address,' and the 'Baltimore County Police,'
and 'they firebombed my flat,' and 'none of the terrorists knew they
were on a suicide mission,' and your active intent to prevent archive
of your posts? For just a few of your 'credibility lapses.' The difference
between us, is I don't care about my 'credibility' here. I'm not out
to appear so 'grand and important,' as you are. It's YOUR credibility
you should worry about. Since I claim none, which is why I use a
handle. While you SHOULD hold to credibility since you've
put a name to your arguments. But instead, they all stink like
three-day-old diapers. And it's rather obvious that you are a
heavy drinker (a drunk?) by YOUR OWN admission. I'm only
trying to get you to admit you have a problem, as the first of
12 steps to your recovery.
PV
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:01:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> to the imaginary list of Desmond's 'crimes'. Do you find
> >> this necessary? I would have thought that with his recent
> >> sympathetic response to you, you could have tried to
> >> restrain yourself. Or is restraint beyond you?
>
> monitor, 'Desi got me a good 'un, the f*****g b*****d !!!' }
>
> LOL ... chalk up another one for the Rev. Des ...
>
Actually... simply another example of FDP hoping to use
SG Seminal axiom 6) Claim Victory, again. Come on, FDP,
admit it. When you get drunk you get brutal. You were drunk
when you posted to bobbyc, you were drunk when you accused
don kool of firebombing your flat, you were drunk when you
first mentioned the 'Baltimore County Police,' and you're almost
certainly drunk right now. No reason for me to worry about a drunk
getting me a 'good 'un.' Now wipe what looks like afterbirth
off your keyboard, and go back to your bottle.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
> Le 14 Aug 2002 14:03:31 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a écrit :
>
> >> it is my pleasure to announce that dirtbag is now
> >> joined in his profession by a convicted manslaughterer.
> >> Apparently they will let ANYONE become a lawyer in
> >> the U.K. (of course, we already suspected that, if dirt
> >> is 'actually' a lawyer). It seems that Louise Woodward,
> >> a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
> >> of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from
> >> Southbank University in London.......
>
> > ................and on and on the idiotic rant goes
>
>
> > Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in causing
> > the death of Matthew Eappen.
>
> Fraud', before AADP nicknamed him, 'Little Dancing Boy' ('LDB'), will
> not give a straight answer. He never has. He can't.
>
Go on, FDP. Why don't YOU 'discuss' the case with him, and
convince everyone that 'Louise' was really a 'victim of a perverse
justice system.' You two would make a great couple, and maybe
you can get him to SLURP... SLURP... SLURP up to you as well.
Not to mention the fact that Louise and Dolly would make a
'fetching' pair as the four of you strolled the streets of Paris.
That is, if the cement could handle the weight load.
> Still, I'm going to try not to read this thread ... LDB is about to
> get another hiding, and this one's gonna make the black smoke cross
> into Alabama ... :-(
>
I have your number now, FDP. It all goes back to my post to John.
Which you now demonstrate in your few words, as you relate to
imaginary 'things American.' It's not about the DP with you. It's
all about your frustration, in respect to your pitiful existence. An
expression of impotent rage against the U.S., using your sterile thinking.
Jesus... I'm actually beginning to feel 'sorry' for you. Now please,
try to control that rage that you're now feeling. It's counterproductive
to 'good mental health.'
PV
> { snip }
Just passing by
every challenge is:
> >
> The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
> process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
And I knew in advance, with absolute certainty, that you would do
precisely that. That is why I pre-empted it with this: "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.
Of course I didn't write that in the hope that it really would
persuade you not to take the cop-out option - you would have needed to
read up on the case to achieve that, which is beyond you - but to
enable me to subsequently illustrate what a complete ass you are in
not only revealing your breathtaking ignorance in your earlier post,
but also in making no attempt to prove me wrong about that ignorance.
You could have made yourself look slightly less of an idiot if you had
fallen back on your earlier cop-out of pretending to believe the
matter is beyond debate.
So juries, judges and justice systems are never wrong, according to
your logic. What a simple world you inhabit: unable to think for
yourself; incapable of studying evidence; not up to the task of
considering conflicting arguments; totally devoid of an enquiring or
investigative mind, but possessing one that cannot stretch beyond
meeting every argument with someone else's findings. No capacity to
produce your own findings. Too lazy and too stupid to work out
anything for yourself, preferring to let others do all your thinking
for you.
And those others, in this instance, are the twelve jurors who returned
the guilty verdict. The irony here is that your laziness and stupidity
surpasses even the bounds drawn above. Because you don't even know
what it was those jurors believed. You are too lazy and stupid to have
ever discovered that not one of them actually believed Louise was
guilty of what they convicted her of.
"I couldn't have faced the Eappens if we had acquitted her." (Juror,
Stephen Colwell). "We thought the judge was instructing us to convict
her." (Juror, Jody Garber). "We didn't want to let down the
Commonwealth." (Stephen Colwell again). "I think she is innocent but I
was bullied by two other jurors into finding her guilty."(Juror, Tracy
Mannix).
What makes you look even more idiotic is that I gave you those quotes
the last time we exchanged posts on this topic. And speaking of which:
> > Not much, is it? But then
> > the last time I asked you for that, you firstly ran away leaving only
> > the above mentioned cop-out, and then returned making a complete fool
> > of yourself by linking to a web site that you thought contained
> > medical facts pointing to Louise's guilt but which was, in fact, a
> > site totally supporting her and attacking the prosecution's junk
> > science.
> >
> HUH??? What the fuck are you mumbling about? You must have
> me confused with someone who gives a fuck about your silly
> crap --- I don't argue with those who claim the moon is made of
> cheese, sport.
Is your memory playing tricks, PV? Or are you deliberately trying to
obscure any memory of a blunder that no doubt caused you considerable
embarrassment at the time? Are you denying that, in response to my
challenge to produce some substance to your outbursts about Louise
Woodward's guilt, you posted the URL to an SBS resource site followed
by the words, "There lies MY argument."?
Well, did you or didn't you? Please make my day by denying it.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
> every challenge is:
>
> > >
> > The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
> > process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
>
> And I knew in advance, with absolute certainty, that you would do
> precisely that. That is why I pre-empted it with this: "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.
>
What a total moron you are. Why on earth would I wish to
discuss an issue with someone who claims 'let's discuss
the issue, but leave out the FACTS, and let me just give
you my cockeyed conspiracy opinions'? I've told you before.
When one argues with a fool, there is always the danger
that one might appear to be a fool for doing so. This is one
of those times. Like arguing with a 'holocaust denier,' or
'who won the War of 1812.' You have to be 'sick' to hold to
the opinions you hold.
> Of course I didn't write that in the hope that it really would
> persuade you not to take the cop-out option - you would have needed to
> read up on the case to achieve that, which is beyond you - but to
> enable me to subsequently illustrate what a complete ass you are in
> not only revealing your breathtaking ignorance in your earlier post,
> but also in making no attempt to prove me wrong about that ignorance.
> You could have made yourself look slightly less of an idiot if you had
> fallen back on your earlier cop-out of pretending to believe the
> matter is beyond debate.
>
been done. She was convicted. That's a FACT. It seems that I
am always showing how others can make these absurd conclusions
without realizing a basic fact of logic. There is the FACT of her
conviction. You propound that the conviction was wrong. You would
hope that I find it necessary to PROVE to you that this conviction
was RIGHT. But I DO NOT. I have to PROVE NOTHING. You,
as the propounder of your absurd 'conspiracy theory' have to
prove EVERYTHING. My proof rests on exactly what I've stated
over and over. But with you, as the propounder of your silly 'conspiracy
theory,' the presumption is ALWAYS IN THE NEGATIVE. It is
called semper praesumitur pro negante - the presumption is
ALWAYS in the negative. the person who advances the
proposition as being true, has the obligation of proving it to be
true. The position from which one must always start is that the
proposition is, to start with, false and must be proven to be true.
You CANNOT dismiss the proof of the conviction. I have to prove
NOTHING because of the proof of the conviction. It would be
absurd for me to 'argue' as to the truth of such a conviction
because it EXISTS. Because it would simply lend credence
to what you necessarily have to prove, while I have to prove
NOTHING. Yet you would try to require me to 'prove' something
that EXISTS. Perhaps asking me to 'prove' the sun comes up
in the East. If you argue it does not come up in the East, it
remains YOUR responsibility to PROVE it, not mine to show
it comes up in the East. And in any case, I really don't give a
fuck what you 'think' you might prove. Anymore than I would
care what a 'holocaust denier' might 'think' they might prove.
She was, and is GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY. Or did I already
say that?
> So juries, judges and justice systems are never wrong, according to
> your logic.
Wrong or right is not what is necessary to argue. EXISTENCE
and non-existence are FACTS. She was found GUILTY. That
MAKES her GUILTY. Jesus... but you're stupid.
> What a simple world you inhabit: unable to think for
> yourself; incapable of studying evidence; not up to the task of
> considering conflicting arguments; totally devoid of an enquiring or
> investigative mind, but possessing one that cannot stretch beyond
> meeting every argument with someone else's findings. No capacity to
> produce your own findings. Too lazy and too stupid to work out
> anything for yourself, preferring to let others do all your thinking
> for you.
>
ROTFLMAO.. How totally pathetic you are.
> And those others, in this instance, are the twelve jurors who returned
> the guilty verdict. The irony here is that your laziness and stupidity
> surpasses even the bounds drawn above. Because you don't even know
> what it was those jurors believed. You are too lazy and stupid to have
> ever discovered that not one of them actually believed Louise was
> guilty of what they convicted her of.
>
> "I couldn't have faced the Eappens if we had acquitted her." (Juror,
> Stephen Colwell). "We thought the judge was instructing us to convict
> her." (Juror, Jody Garber). "We didn't want to let down the
> Commonwealth." (Stephen Colwell again). "I think she is innocent but I
> was bullied by two other jurors into finding her guilty."(Juror, Tracy
> Mannix).
>
> What makes you look even more idiotic is that I gave you those quotes
> the last time we exchanged posts on this topic. And speaking of which:
>
ROTFLMAO.... You are truly an obsessed little prick... aren't you?
She is and was GUILTY... GUILTY... GUILTY. Get over it. She's
a murderer, who actually got away with it, truth be told.
> > > Not much, is it? But then
> > > the last time I asked you for that, you firstly ran away leaving only
> > > the above mentioned cop-out, and then returned making a complete fool
> > > of yourself by linking to a web site that you thought contained
> > > medical facts pointing to Louise's guilt but which was, in fact, a
> > > site totally supporting her and attacking the prosecution's junk
> > > science.
> > >
> > HUH??? What the fuck are you mumbling about? You must have
> > me confused with someone who gives a fuck about your silly
> > crap --- I don't argue with those who claim the moon is made of
> > cheese, sport.
>
> Is your memory playing tricks, PV? Or are you deliberately trying to
> obscure any memory of a blunder that no doubt caused you considerable
> embarrassment at the time? Are you denying that, in response to my
> challenge to produce some substance to your outbursts about Louise
> Woodward's guilt, you posted the URL to an SBS resource site followed
> by the words, "There lies MY argument."?
>
> Well, did you or didn't you? Please make my day by denying it.
You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
Why don't you 'argue' with THEM, you moron? Because I repeat,
you have me confused with someone who gives a fuck about your
'conspiracy' theories, and hopeless obsession with a fat, ignorant
pig. Why don't you try to find a non-murderer to obsess over?
She was GUILTY..GUILTY... GUILTY.
PV
Just passing by
> >
> You propound that the conviction was wrong. You would
> hope that I find it necessary to PROVE to you that this conviction
> was RIGHT. But I DO NOT. I have to PROVE NOTHING.
As I have said in another thread, you don't have to prove the
conviction was right, but you do, if I am not to be proved right about
your laziness and idiocy, have to prove that you know - from the
evidence, not simply from the verdict - WHY the conviction was right.
Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
Woodward, but about YOU.
>
> I have to prove
> NOTHING because of the proof of the conviction. It would be
> absurd for me to 'argue' as to the truth of such a conviction
> because it EXISTS. Because it would simply lend credence
> to what you necessarily have to prove, while I have to prove
> NOTHING. Yet you would try to require me to 'prove' something
> that EXISTS. Perhaps asking me to 'prove' the sun comes up
> in the East. If you argue it does not come up in the East, it
> remains YOUR responsibility to PROVE it, not mine to show
> it comes up in the East
>
A false analogy. You don't have to prove that she was convicted
because nobody disputes that. I am asking you to prove that you know
WHY she was convicted, and you can only do that by citing from the
evidence, not simply repeating, over and over, what the verdict was.
As I said above: this is not about her, but about you.
>
> You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
the opposite is true. You obviously didn't bother reading anything you
found there or you would have known that. So again you prove me right
about your laziness.
Specifically, the part of the site you link to is the trial
transcripts. But did you read them? No. You preferred to continue your
rants in total ignorance of facts you could have used in an attempt to
back the rants up. Because you are lazy.
>
> Why don't you 'argue' with THEM, you moron?
>
Because there is nothing, in relation to the Woodward case, that I
disagree with them on. And if you weren't so lazy and stupid you would
have known that because you would have bothered to read some of the
content on that site.
dirtdog
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Thu, 15 Aug 2002 04:48:43 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> FACT ONE -- The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due
>> process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY. Of course, you would
>> deny that FACT.
>
>Such a disappointing post. Even from someone whose stupidity, whose
>ignorance of basic notions of English grammar and punctuation, law,
>and geography are legendary on usenet ... the above is a bitter
>disappointment. I enjoy making a fool of you when you try to respond
>to my posts with declarations of victory, copy-and-paste of words that
>you don't understand, and pseudo-intellectualism. I enjoy watching you
>squirm, but in this particular case, you had the opportunity to redeem
>yourself.
>
>'Just Passing By' tries to elicit a response ... an intelligent response,
>concerning the evidence against Louise Woodward. Your answer is what ?
>'The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due process found her
>GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.'
>
>So she was found guilty. Big deal. Guess what, dimbulb : Anthony Porter
>was found 'guilty', too ..
As were the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Three, to
name but 13 who would all now be dead if the UK carried out the same
practices as PV's bitter little country. PV's ridiculous claims that a
conviction is proof of a person being guilty of any particular crime
is as nonsensical as his other howlers such as his misconceptions on
law, criminology and grammar.
Even I shook my head in disbelief at how incredibly _fuckwitted_ PV's
post was - underlining perfectly the blithering lunatic that you and I
have turned him into, Desmond.
One would expect such content free nonsense when PV is engaging one of
us - he now knows beyond any doubt that it is pointless, since he will
never emerge with the upper hand. In the face of a serious and well
thought out post from a relative newbie, PV had the opportunity to
show he could still cut the mustard as a debater.
Like you said, he failed. Quite miserably.
If I were PV, I should be hanging my head in shame.
<spanking of PV snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
by) wrote:
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<zj_69.301095$XH.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
<snipped>
>>
>> You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
>> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
>
>That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
>On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
>thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
>the opposite is true.
Ho ho ho.
PV has a superb habit of doing this, JPB.
Don't criticise him for it, though. You must learn to enjoy the fun
that it will bring as PV subsequently tries to show how his own source
doesn't really contradict his own position.
Ask him about 'Rhodes' and an article called 'Diminished
Responsibility (A Partial Defence)'. Watch the capitals count increase
tenfold as he flecks his monitor with spit in rage.
Just wait until you first notice him make a statement which directly
contradicts something which he has said _himself_ previously. That'll
be even better.
I have a feeling that you're going to have a hoot!
w00f
dirtdog
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:52:12 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
>>>> You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
>>>> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
>
>>>That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
>>>On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
>>>thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
>>>the opposite is true.
>
>> Ho ho ho.
>>
>> PV has a superb habit of doing this, JPB.
>>
>> Don't criticise him for it, though. You must learn to enjoy the fun
>> that it will bring as PV subsequently tries to show how his own source
>> doesn't really contradict his own position.
>
>I'm still waiting for him to deny the existence of pixies, after I
>provided 156,000 URLs ... sorry, URL's, that 'proved' that they
>exist ...
Fuck me, Louise [sic]
156,000 proofs [sic] proving that pixie's [sic] exi'st [sic]. That
i's [sic] 'some [sic] going, De'smond [sic].
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> >>> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
>
> >>That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
> >>On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
> >>thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
> >>the opposite is true.
>
> > Ho ho ho.
> >
> > PV has a superb habit of doing this, JPB.
> >
> > Don't criticise him for it, though. You must learn to enjoy the fun
> > that it will bring as PV subsequently tries to show how his own source
> > doesn't really contradict his own position.
>
> provided 156,000 URLs ... sorry, URL's, that 'proved' that they
> exist ...
>
of 'pixies'? If you mean the 'word' itself, since 'pixie' in the OED is
PIXIE -- "a. In local folk-lore a name for a supposed supernatural being
akin to a fairy."
I never denied the 'word' exists. But you denied the word 'outted'
exists, although I enclosed it in single-quotation marks every time
I used it. And its existence as a 'word,' just as the 'word' pixie is
quite readily proven.
Now if you mean a living, breathing 'pixie,' then it's not me that needs
a mental examination. Since I never claimed there was a living,
breathing, 'outted.'
> > Ask him about 'Rhodes' and an article called 'Diminished
> > Responsibility (A Partial Defence)'. Watch the capitals count increase
> > tenfold as he flecks his monitor with spit in rage.
>
> Ask him about AADP's 'hollowed [sic] halls' ... or about his recent
> 'vacation' (sic) in 'Newfound' (sic), where he visited the 'embassy'
> (sic) of New South Wales, to use their Internet connection to e-mail
> the 'select few', to remind them to 'pillory' me because they thought
> of the name 'Dolly' for my wife, before he did ... just before billywank
> asked him where he 'had hid' (sic) his supply of 'pick [sic] shit' ... and
> how this was really 'hari-kiri' (sic), even if his reply 'were' (sic)
> to say that 'others were posting to others' (sic), or was it a post
> that I 'sent' (sic) to him ... but whatever you do, don't 'complication'
> (sic) this for him, as everyone knows that no executed murderer can
> 'join [his] life [sic] as they are all dead'.
>
And simply let's ask you about how 'quote' is not a noun. According to
you. While all the other above, is simply bullshit.
Or how you managed to emotionally savage a mother who had just
had her son murdered.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:12pqlug0o8k14o9op...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Aug 2002 13:05:52 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
> by) wrote:
>
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<zj_69.301095$XH.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>
> >>
> >> You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
> >> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
> >
> >That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
> >On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
> >thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
> >the opposite is true.
>
> Ho ho ho.
>
> PV has a superb habit of doing this, JPB.
>
Whipping the ass of others?... quite true... Your crimson butt will
attest to that.
> Don't criticise him for it, though. You must learn to enjoy the fun
> that it will bring as PV subsequently tries to show how his own source
> doesn't really contradict his own position.
>
My source is the FACT.
> Ask him about 'Rhodes' and an article called 'Diminished
> Responsibility (A Partial Defence)'. Watch the capitals count increase
> tenfold as he flecks his monitor with spit in rage.
>
One certainly knows who has covered their monitor in spittle,
having been thoroughly thrashed by a 'layperson' to the
law, having reduced you to claiming those who oppose
your simplistic views are 'wannabees.' I have often pictured you
with a forbidding and terrible complexion to your face, white mixed
with rough blotches fiery red, unsteady in posture, and trembling
with rage. An addled mind confused by the consumption of too
many drugs over too long a time.
> Just wait until you first notice him make a statement which directly
> contradicts something which he has said _himself_ previously. That'll
> be even better.
>
As you contradicted your own 'education' by remarking that it needed
a (sic) following it, when making a reference to it, Louise?
> I have a feeling that you're going to have a hoot!
>
Having been shown to be nothing more than possessed of a
'retracted penis,' in respect to your inferiority complex, you are
no longer of interest to me, Louise. You have even stopped being a
marginally effective troll, and are now just a pathetic, and empty
husk of what was never a substantial core to begin with.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:50:16 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> <PV's nationalistic paranoia snipped>
>
> > Now THERE is a moronic remark. I speak of the 'nationalistic'
> > paranoia of those of 'British origin,'
>
> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland. *snigger*
>
I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough. The OED
refers to 'Celtic Britain, esp. of Ireland.' Certainly, you cannot claim
your connection to the British Isles is not one, that is almost slavish
in nature. Second only to your absurd hope that you could possibly
be French. It would seem you are discontent with the hand that
nature dealt you... and I can well understand why.
<snip pathetic whine>
PV
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:i3rqlu40b186alaun...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:50:33 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
> <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>
> >Le Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:52:12 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
> >
> >>>> You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
> >>>> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
> >
> >>>That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
> >>>On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
> >>>thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
> >>>the opposite is true.
> >
> >> Ho ho ho.
> >>
> >> PV has a superb habit of doing this, JPB.
> >>
> >> Don't criticise him for it, though. You must learn to enjoy the fun
> >> that it will bring as PV subsequently tries to show how his own source
> >> doesn't really contradict his own position.
> >
> >I'm still waiting for him to deny the existence of pixies, after I
> >provided 156,000 URLs ... sorry, URL's, that 'proved' that they
> >exist ...
>
>
> 156,000 proofs [sic] proving that pixie's [sic] exi'st [sic]. That
> i's [sic] 'some [sic] going, De'smond [sic].
>
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:0eoqlu8evcdvssfee...@4ax.com...
has addled your wits. A conviction IS proof of a person being guilty
of a particular crime, just as a finding of not guilty is proof of a person
being not guilty of a particular crime. There is NOTHING to be gained
by presuming that anyone's SUBJECTIVE opinion can outweigh
FACT. If you're looking for 'certainty' you will only find it in the
dictionary... since it doesn't exist in things related to human acts.
I will no more 'debate' the 'proof' of someone found guilty, than
I would ask you to 'debate' the 'proof' of someone found 'not guilty.'
Because in both cases, the PROOF has already been established.
> Even I shook my head in disbelief at how incredibly _****witted_ PV's
> post was - underlining perfectly the blithering lunatic that you and I
> have turned him into, Desmond.
>
Oh, come on, Louise. Quit sucking up to FDP. You know that you've
already ADMITTED that your 'education' (sic), DEMANDS that a (sic)
be placed after any reference to it. I do believe that since then you've
been positively ashamed to even mention it again. And now that the
'Great White Whale' has achieved the SAME 'education' (sic), it must
be embarrassing for you to even think that she graduated with a higher
grade-point average than you did.
> One would expect such content free nonsense when PV is engaging one of
> us - he now knows beyond any doubt that it is pointless, since he will
> never emerge with the upper hand. In the face of a serious and well
> thought out post from a relative newbie, PV had the opportunity to
> show he could still cut the mustard as a debater.
>
You presume I should 'debate' the guilt of Louise 'the baby killer'
Woodward?? Don't be absurd. That would be as silly as you trying
to debate 'mitigating circumstances' reduce the degree of the crime.
Both her guilt, and the fact that a 'mitigating circumstance'
can reduce the degree of the crime are PROVEN facts. Beyond
any but a subjective doubt. Which doesn't mean squat in the face
of PROOF.
<pathetic whine clipped>
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > You propound that the conviction was wrong. You would
> > hope that I find it necessary to PROVE to you that this conviction
> > was RIGHT. But I DO NOT. I have to PROVE NOTHING.
>
> As I have said in another thread, you don't have to prove the
> conviction was right, but you do, if I am not to be proved right about
> your laziness and idiocy, have to prove that you know - from the
> evidence, not simply from the verdict - WHY the conviction was right.
>
I should be able to ask YOU to PROVE an acquittal in U.S. Justice.
If I assume any of them are actually guilty. The evidence is IN THE
VERDICT, you moron.
> Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
> Woodward, but about YOU.
>
I don't see you speaking of anyone else. And certainly I don't have to
PROVE she was and is guilty. You must prove she wasn't. So get real.
The argument you would offer is EXPRESSLY about Louise Woodward,
since it is not necessary for me to PROVE a conviction which is a fact.
> >
> > I have to prove
> > NOTHING because of the proof of the conviction. It would be
> > absurd for me to 'argue' as to the truth of such a conviction
> > because it EXISTS. Because it would simply lend credence
> > to what you necessarily have to prove, while I have to prove
> > NOTHING. Yet you would try to require me to 'prove' something
> > that EXISTS. Perhaps asking me to 'prove' the sun comes up
> > in the East. If you argue it does not come up in the East, it
> > remains YOUR responsibility to PROVE it, not mine to show
> > it comes up in the East
> >
>
> A false analogy. You don't have to prove that she was convicted
> because nobody disputes that. I am asking you to prove that you know
> WHY she was convicted, and you can only do that by citing from the
> evidence, not simply repeating, over and over, what the verdict was.
> As I said above: this is not about her, but about you.
>
A false analogy?? Are you presuming that a fundamental principle
of logic is a 'false analogy'? What are you raving about? She was
convicted because the jury, all judges and EVERYONE in the judicial
process confirmed that conviction. That's WHY she was convicted.
What's the matter with you? Any belief that your subjective view can
make that REALITY change into an UNREALITY borders on a belief in the
mystic. Why should I have to PROVE what is a fact? It's a totally
insane concept. If you wish to PROVE she was NOT GUILTY, I need
to do nothing, because she WAS proven guilty. You certainly can't
presume to rewrite reality or even the Justice System.
> >
> > You mean the URL that totally destroyed your argument??
> > http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
>
> That's the one. But why do you say it totally destroyed my argument?
> On the contrary: it totally supports my argument. You posted that URL
> thinking it was to a site that supported the conviction, when in fact
> the opposite is true. You obviously didn't bother reading anything you
> found there or you would have known that. So again you prove me right
> about your laziness.
>
You see it.. and you still deny seeing it. And I'm supposed
to 'argue' with 'logic' such as that? Sorry, sport... you'll have to find
another outlet for your paedomorphic obsession.
> Specifically, the part of the site you link to is the trial
> transcripts. But did you read them? No. You preferred to continue your
> rants in total ignorance of facts you could have used in an attempt to
> back the rants up. Because you are lazy.
>
Actually, you're the lazy one, since you presume I have to PROVE
what is a FACT. Further, it is because I am totally disinterested in
your subjective views. She was PROVEN guilty... she was CONVICTED.
It is not my 'responsibility' to 'defend' that objective proof, or that conviction.
And the trial transcripts CONFIRMED that guilt. So I can hardly see
how you can say they support YOUR argument. Because if they DID,
the judgment would have been overturned.
> >
> > Why don't you 'argue' with THEM, you moron?
> >
>
> Because there is nothing, in relation to the Woodward case, that I
> disagree with them on. And if you weren't so lazy and stupid you would
> have known that because you would have bothered to read some of the
> content on that site.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you disagree with NOTHING, that means
you AGREE with everything. And if you agree with EVERYTHING,
you AGREE with the conviction.
Now I'll tell you quite clearly. I will no longer discuss this with you,
because you are functioning from an irrational and illogical position.
As I stated... FACT -- The entire Justice System, including jury,
judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.
Why would I possibly wish to 'argue' with someone who denies
fact, and would presume his subjective view holds greater weight
than FACT. Any further argument would presume that 'I' must
defend this proof, and would only lend credence to your silly claims.
She was a murderer who actually 'got away with it,' to a great
extent. You should be thankful for that small victory, and not
try to make the Virgin Mary out of the sloppy, fat, ignorant twit.
Best that you cast off your vain pride, and any empty boast of
victory you might presume. And recognize the humiliation you
should feel if you presume you can possibly argue against fact.
This is not a case of YOUR subjective view of her presumed
innocence, or MYsubjective view of her certain guilt. Since all
of that is only subjective. It is about objective FACT. The FACT
that she was convicted, which provides the most certain PROOF.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:41:01 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
>
> > Actually... simply another example of
>
> cover Georgia, and is threatening trade on the Mississipi.
>
Haven't seen you remark again on your STUPID claim that 'quote'
is NOT a noun. No comment, I presume.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 15 Aug 2002 04:48:43 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY. Of course, you would
> > deny that FACT.
>
> ignorance of basic notions of English grammar and punctuation, law,
> and geography are legendary on usenet ...
<belly laugh on>
hilarious... that from the person who said "I certainly wouldn't call anything
'a direct quote [sic]', as 'quote' is not a noun." While the OED calls
'quote' a noun--
From the OED -- QUOTE n. 2.a. A quotation.
and dictionary.com calls 'quote' a noun
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=quote
and yourdictionary.com calls 'quote' a noun.
http://yourdictionary.com/
And bartleby.com calls 'quote' a noun.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/18/Q0041800.html
> the above is a bitter
> disappointment. I enjoy making a fool of you when you try to respond
> to my posts with declarations of victory, copy-and-paste of words that
> you don't understand, and pseudo-intellectualism. I enjoy watching you
> squirm, but in this particular case, you had the opportunity to redeem
> yourself.
>
It seems as if you're the one 'claiming victory' right here where you
claim I do. How hypocritical is that? And speaking of an opportunity
to 'redeem' yourself --- You had that chance in respect to issuing an
apology for emotionally destroying a mother who had just had her
son murdered. A mother who came here for some understanding
in respect to that act which had forever shattered her life. And to who
you callously remarked that she was perverse for trying to find such
an understanding, and that her son's murderer was the real victim.
You missed that chance, as you've missed all your chances to
'redeem' yourself. Of course you consider ALL murderers as victims.
Unless they are not caught, of course. Then they become your
'folk-heroes.'
> 'Just Passing By' tries to elicit a response ... an intelligent response,
> concerning the evidence against Louise Woodward. Your answer is what ?
> 'The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due process found her
> GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.'
>
The evidence against Louise Woodward IS the GUILTY...GUILTY...GUILTY.
What the hell is the matter with you? Are you trying to deny the
verdict? Would you claim someone is GUILTY who has been found
'not guilty'? Would you agree that if I argued they WERE guilty, that
YOU would need to PROVE they were 'not guilty,' when in fact they
were FOUND 'not guilty'? Quite clearly, the onus would be TOTALLY
on me, to 'prove' such a silly claim. Similarly, the onus is TOTALLY
on someone to prove innocence of those found guilty. I don't need
to PROVE anything, since the work has already been done for me.
Your 'common sense' (sic), your 'logic' (sic), and your 'ethics' (sic),
are totally non-existent.
> So she was found guilty. Big deal.
Well.. it is a rather 'big deal.' In fact it's the ONLY deal.
> Guess what, dimbulb : Anthony Porter
> was found 'guilty', too ... and guess what ... he was not-guilty. All
> of these people were 'found guilty' ... and not one of them really was
> 'GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY'.
>
> url:http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/Innocentlist.html
>
HO DE FUCKING HO. deathpenaltyinfo.org???? How about
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cozden/dezhbakhsh_01_01_cover.html
http://www.garylavergne.com/mcduffvictims.htm
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/archives.html
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
http://web.cis.smu.edu/~deathpen/victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.pm/
> You were asked to provide some evidence against Louise Woodward. Had
> you provided at least one piece of evidence, to show that you knew more
> of the case than what you read in _USA Today_, you would have perhaps
> regained some of your dented credibility. You have shown that you
> truly are a man of almost blinding arrogance and stupidity. No doubt you
> believe that you have 'kicked some ass' (sic) today. You have ... your
> own.
>
I have nothing to 'prove.' To claim that I do, violates every principle
of logic, and common sense. It presumes that YOU would need to
'prove' every verdict of 'not guilty.' It's the most absurd logic
imaginable. And if it were anyone other than you making such
a statement, I would be appalled. As it is... everyone will remark...
'oh... it's just that hypocrite, desi.... again.'
PV
> { snip }
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:19:16 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland. *snigger*
>
> > I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
> > if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough.
>
>
> LDB has now defined the Celts and the Brits as having similar roots ...
> where _will_ his ignorance stop ??!! What next, LDB ? 'The South
> Africans are really of Chinese origin' ..?
>
<belly laugh on>
Umm... there is certainly a deep 'genealogical' connection between the
Irish, the Welsh, the Scots, and the present population of the U.K. proper.
One needs only look at
http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html
http://orb.rhodes.edu/encyclop/early/origins/rom_celt/celtic.html
http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes.htm
http://www.britannia.com/history/ebk/
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/8771/elmete.html
It is as close as connecting an Apache Indian to a Sioux Indian.
Or a Russian Jew to an American Jew. Although not of the same
'tribe' the genealogical connection is quite clear.
> 'ROTFMAO !!' (sic)
>
You seem to be simply repeating yourself.
> { snip LDB embarrassing himself by equating 'Britain' and 'British
> Isles' ... }
>
Well, the phrase 'British Isles,' seems most certainly to reflect the
WORD 'British,' regardless of whatever you might say. Just as
'Germany,' reflects the word 'German,' although 'German' stock
is hardly contained ONLY in Germany. The British Isles, as stated
in the OED is "A geographical term for the islands comprising
Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including
the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." So when I refer to 'British
origin,' I refer to those from the 'British Isles.'
Previously, I believed you held a modicum of ability in the
English language, but apparently I was wrong. It appears you are
totally 'lost' without your OED being available to you.
BTW -- Figured out what a 'quote' is yet? And how a 'dead
person' can still HAVE a 'memory.'
<belly laugh off>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:19:15 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> provided 156,000 URLs ... sorry, URL's, that 'proved' that they
> >> exist ...
>
> > SLURP... SLURP... SLURP... Why would I deny the existence
> > of 'pixies'? If you mean the 'word' itself, since 'pixie' in the OED is
> >
> > PIXIE -- "a. In local folk-lore a name for a supposed supernatural being
> > akin to a fairy."
>
>
<belly laugh on>
The simplistic 'insult' from 'flopping drunken puppet' who is trying to
jiggle in a dozen different directions at once, succeeding thereby
merely in standing still, while making an animal noise, similar to
that made by a goat, who has mistakenly taken a bite from a
sharp-edged tin can.
> Another subtle use of quotation marks ... sorry, 'quotes' (sic) ... goes
> flying over the top of LDB's little head ...
>
Oh... a 'quote' is quite certainly correct. And you've been directly
shown to have a rather fatal flaw in your English, if you expect
words that can form verbs, cannot be nouns as well, in another
use.
> > I never denied the 'word' exists. But you denied the word 'outted'
> > exists,
>
> 'Outted' is a mis-spelling * of 'outed', you idiot. Now wipe the
> spittle off of your screen, and stop making me laugh ...
>
Looks as if you're becoming rather hysterical here, FDP. 'outted'
is not MEANT to be 'outed,' but is a 'slang' expression of having
been 'exposed' (dating from being 'exposed' as homosexual).
Quite the same as 'outed.' But 'slang' in intent. See
http://www.benegesserit.com/outted.htm
Even the formidable 'The Register,' in the U.K., has recognized
the 'word' See.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/26026.html
Further, there is certain evidence of the existence of the word, in that
a book, with the exact name 'Outted,' written by Melanie
Coetsee, and published by Hats Off Books, is currently
available for purchase through Wal-Mart
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?cat=18786&dept=3920&product_id=1183886&path=0%3A3920%3A18786%3A18804%3A21332
And also at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158736025X/qid%3D1029608580/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-7933676-3772062
> out /at/ v. [OE utian = OFris. utia, OHG uon. Perh. re-formed in ME.]
> { snip unrelated definitions }
> Publicly reveal or expose the homosexuality of (a well-known
> person), esp. in order to promote a homosexual cause; gen. expose,
> publicly reveal. L20.
> { then follows quotations ... }
> 1a E. FITZGERALD My pictures..are now got back to the Room they
> were outed from. E. WAUGH They had outed Asquith quite easily. b
> I. GURNEY Stars are routed And street lamps outed. 2 TENNYSON: O
> drunken ribaldry! Out, beast!..begone! 3 S. MIDDLETON As soon as
> she'd outed the words, she began to cry. 4 W. WESTALL 'Murder will
> out' They say so, because they have no idea how often murders
> don't out
>
Now it's my turn... ROTFFLMAO. Try understanding that 'outted' comes
from a 'slang' term of 'outta,' such as 'get outta here.' You will find that
in the OED --
OUTA -- "a representation of a colloq. or vulgar pronunciation of OUT OF
prep. phr. orig. U.S. Cf. OUTER, OUTTA."
> > although I enclosed it in single-quotation marks every time
> > I used it.
>
> ROTFFLMAO !!!!!
>
Indeed... you have simply demonstrated the insane nationalistic
fervor which seems to dominate all your silly 'arguments' (sic)
regarding the English language. Which quite properly, even in
the OED, is broken into English English, British English and
United States English. All of which you will find defined as
separate in the OED. I'm sure you'll be happy to get back to
the safety you find hiding behind that instrument, since you've
been made to look like such a fool without it.
> { snip LDB's utter confusion about what pixies are ... LOL !!!! }
>
Actually, I am simply quoting what your 'supreme arbiter' has
defined 'pixie' to be.
> * or 'misspelling', as I'm still waiting for Oxford to get back to me.
>
Apparently you are a bit 'hard of hearing,' as well. Since I've already
provided information on that.
<belly laugh off>
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:43:09 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >>Such a disappointing post. Even from someone whose stupidity, whose
> >>ignorance of basic notions of English grammar and punctuation, law,
> >>and geography are legendary on usenet ... the above is a bitter
> >>disappointment. I enjoy making a fool of you when you try to respond
> >>to my posts with declarations of victory, copy-and-paste of words that
> >>you don't understand, and pseudo-intellectualism. I enjoy watching you
> >>squirm, but in this particular case, you had the opportunity to redeem
> >>yourself.
> >>
> >>'Just Passing By' tries to elicit a response ... an intelligent response,
> >>concerning the evidence against Louise Woodward. Your answer is what ?
> >>'The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due process found her
> >>GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.'
>
>
> > Even I shook my head in disbelief at how incredibly _****witted_ PV's
> > post was - underlining perfectly the blithering lunatic that you and I
> > have turned him into, Desmond.
>
> It was something that had to be done, lest some of the lurkers here,
> or his personal arse-licker, should somehow be fooled into thinking
> that his words represented anything other than the blind rage of an
> aging has-been who hates the world for having denied him the 'education'
> that he thinks he deserved.
>
SG Seminal axiom 6) at work again. FDP (Flopping drunken
puppet) is apparently 'hitting the bottle' rather hard again. Poor FDP..
his words have no more 'bounce,' than a boiled potato. And only
elicits YAWN...YAWNER... YAWNEST.
> As I said before, it was a dirty job trawling through his hate-filled
> vitriol on AADP, but someone had to do it. Something like the Men In
> Black of AADP, we have been successful in his total downfall, to the
> extent where all of his posts are almost Drewl-like explosions of
> impotent rage, alterations of others' posts, emotional blackmail
> directed at his arse-licker, and abuse and threats directed at the
> rest of us.
>
Speaking of 'hate-filled vitriol,' how about the obscene raving you
posted to a mother who had just had her son murdered? Come
on, FDP, admit it. When you get drunk you get brutal. You were drunk
when you posted to bobbyc, you were drunk when you accused
don kool of firebombing your flat, you were drunk when you
first mentioned the 'Baltimore County Police,' and you're almost
certainly drunk right now. No reason for me to worry about a drunk
claiming to have proved anything. Now wipe what looks like afterbirth
off your keyboard, and go back to your bottle.
> As you say, no one on this newsgroup will _ever_ take him seriously
> again. Ever. Yet just as we would have been humble in defeat, had
> things gone the other way, so we must be magnanimous in victory.
>
ROTFLMAO... SLURP...SLURP... SLURP.
<belly laugh on>
Have you figured out what 'quote' is yet? You looked pretty stupid
with that one.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:19:16 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> To discuss those of 'British origin', I assume that you would have
>>> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland. *snigger*
>
>> I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
>> if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!
>
>LDB has now defined the Celts and the Brits as having similar roots ...
>where _will_ his ignorance stop ??!! What next, LDB ? 'The South
>Africans are really of Chinese origin' ..?
>
>'ROTFMAO !!' (sic)
>
>{ snip LDB embarrassing himself by equating 'Britain' and 'British
> Isles' ... }
----------HEADERS----------------
From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Kindly utilise the tweezers to extract the bullet from your foot,
FW (WAS:Re: from PV to the FAKE PV)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:18:04 +0000
Organization: None
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <slrnalsmos.a76.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
References: <TO_49.136593$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<jcn9lu009v7ghnpu1...@4ax.com>
<mhg59.144347$s8.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<pdmcluc3llckoc1s3...@4ax.com>
<LNG59.159503$s8.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<slrnalio7e.95a.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
<vsm69.280611$XH.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<Jbo69.1538$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
<UGy69.182850$s8.34...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<ohkllu8gvt35ntg6s...@4ax.com>
<IaI69.190086$s8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<slrnalqn93.55c.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
<o1l79.318447$XH.70...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1029593951 45742357 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)
Xref: news alt.activism.death-penalty:268606
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.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:19:16 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> To discuss those of 'British origin', I assume that you would have
>>> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland. *snigger*
>
>> I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
>> if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!
>
>LDB has now defined the Celts and the Brits as having similar roots ...
>where _will_ his ignorance stop ??!! What next, LDB ? 'The South
>Africans are really of Chinese origin' ..?
>
>'ROTFMAO !!' (sic)
>
>{ snip LDB embarrassing himself by equating 'Britain' and 'British
> Isles' ... }
----------Headers--------------------
Path:
news.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-
198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:43:09 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Such a disappointing post. Even from someone whose stupidity, whose
>>>ignorance of basic notions of English grammar and punctuation, law,
>>>and geography are legendary on usenet ... the above is a bitter
>>>disappointment. I enjoy making a fool of you when you try to respond
>>>to my posts with declarations of victory, copy-and-paste of words that
>>>you don't understand, and pseudo-intellectualism. I enjoy watching you
>>>squirm, but in this particular case, you had the opportunity to redeem
>>>yourself.
>>>
>>>'Just Passing By' tries to elicit a response ... an intelligent response,
>>>concerning the evidence against Louise Woodward. Your answer is what ?
>>>'The entire Justice System, including jury, judges and due process found her
>>>GUILTY.. GUILTY... GUILTY.'
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Even I shook my head in disbelief at how incredibly _fuckwitted_ PV's
>> post was - underlining perfectly the blithering lunatic that you and I
>> have turned him into, Desmond.
>
>Yet I take no pleasure in having destroyed him to such an extent, dirt.
>It was something that had to be done, lest some of the lurkers here,
>or his personal arse-licker, should somehow be fooled into thinking
>that his words represented anything other than the blind rage of an
>aging has-been who hates the world for having denied him the 'education'
>that he thinks he deserved.
>
>As I said before, it was a dirty job trawling through his hate-filled
>vitriol on AADP, but someone had to do it. Something like the Men In
>Black of AADP, we have been successful in his total downfall, to the
>extent where all of his posts are almost Drewl-like explosions of
>impotent rage, alterations of others' posts, emotional blackmail
>directed at his arse-licker, and abuse and threats directed at the
>rest of us.
>
>As you say, no one on this newsgroup will _ever_ take him seriously
>again. Ever. Yet just as we would have been humble in defeat, had
>things gone the other way, so we must be magnanimous in victory.
-----------Headers---------------------------
From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Kindly utilise the tweezers to extract the bullet from your foot,
FW (WAS:Re: from PV to the FAKE PV)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:08:08 +0000
Organization: None
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <slrnals846.9is.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
References: <5hm2lu0qbbk909o5e...@4ax.com>
<2qd49.19303$U44.1061047@newsfep2-gui>
<05r2lukqqflpij48g...@4ax.com>
<w0j49.226166$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<jrp8lu0jgpp69gpta...@4ax.com>
<TO_49.136593$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com>
<LoG69.188964$s8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<slrnalqmjg.55c.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
<0eoqlu8evcdvssfee...@4ax.com>
Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1029578957 46582727 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)
Xref: news alt.activism.death-penalty:268599
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:19:15 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> I'm still waiting for him to deny the existence of pixies, after I
>>> provided 156,000 URLs ... sorry, URL's, that 'proved' that they
>>> exist ...
>
>> SLURP... SLURP... SLURP... Why would I deny the existence
>> of 'pixies'? If you mean the 'word' itself, since 'pixie' in the OED is
>>
>> PIXIE -- "a. In local folk-lore a name for a supposed supernatural being
>> akin to a fairy."
>
>*guffaw*
>
>Another subtle use of quotation marks ... sorry, 'quotes' (sic) ... goes
>flying over the top of LDB's little head ...
>
>> I never denied the 'word' exists. But you denied the word 'outted'
>> exists,
>
>'Outted' is a mis-spelling * of 'outed', you idiot. Now wipe the
>spittle off of your screen, and stop making me laugh ...
>
> out /at/ v. [OE utian = OFris. utia, OHG uon. Perh. re-formed in ME.]
> { snip unrelated definitions }
> Publicly reveal or expose the homosexuality of (a well-known
> person), esp. in order to promote a homosexual cause; gen. expose,
> publicly reveal. L20.
> { then follows quotations ... }
> 1a E. FITZGERALD My pictures..are now got back to the Room they
> were outed from. E. WAUGH They had outed Asquith quite easily. b
> I. GURNEY Stars are routed And street lamps outed. 2 TENNYSON: O
> drunken ribaldry! Out, beast!..begone! 3 S. MIDDLETON As soon as
> she'd outed the words, she began to cry. 4 W. WESTALL 'Murder will
> out' They say so, because they have no idea how often murders
> don't out
>
>> although I enclosed it in single-quotation marks every time
>> I used it.
>
>ROTFFLMAO !!!!!
>
>{ snip LDB's utter confusion about what pixies are ... LOL !!!! }
>
>* or 'misspelling', as I'm still waiting for Oxford to get back to me.
-----------HEADERS-----------------
From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Kindly utilise the tweezers to extract the bullet from your foot,
FW (WAS:Re: from PV to the FAKE PV)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:23:57 +0000
Organization: None
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <slrnalsn3s.a76.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
References: <2qd49.19303$U44.1061047@newsfep2-gui>
<05r2lukqqflpij48g...@4ax.com>
<w0j49.226166$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<jrp8lu0jgpp69gpta...@4ax.com>
<TO_49.136593$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com>
<LoG69.188964$s8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com>
<zj_69.301095$XH.68...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com>
<12pqlug0o8k14o9op...@4ax.com>
<slrnalqpcn.5e2.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
<n1l79.318445$XH.70...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@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 1029594318 46910193 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)
Xref: news alt.activism.death-penalty:268609
Just passing by
> >
> That is the most absurd claim I have ever heard. It presumes that
> I should be able to ask YOU to PROVE an acquittal in U.S. Justice.
> If I assume any of them are actually guilty. The evidence is IN THE
> VERDICT, you moron.
No it isn't; it is in the transcripts. The verdict is not the evidence
any more than the sentence is the evidence. How come you know so
little?
>
> > Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
> > Woodward, but about YOU.
> >
> Of course it's about Louise.
No, it is about you.
> She is the one you are obsessing about.
> I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
< And certainly I don't have to
> PROVE she was and is guilty.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. But if you
continually fail to prove you know anything - beyond the verdict -
about the case, people can draw their own conclusions about what kind
of idiot repeatedly rants & raves about a case he knows nothing of.
> You must prove she wasn't. So get real.
I can do that. I can show that it is 100% scientifically impossible
for her to have done what she was convicted of.
> The argument you would offer is EXPRESSLY about Louise Woodward,
> since it is not necessary for me to PROVE a conviction which is a fact.
>
Why do you keep stating the obvious? Of course it is a fact that she
was convicted. But what about the facts, from the evidence, that led
to that conviction? That is what the question is about. Why are you
running away from that? I'll tell you why: because you know that this
is a question about you - about your ignorance, your laziness and your
stupidity.
> >
> A false analogy?? Are you presuming that a fundamental principle
> of logic is a 'false analogy'?
I'll tell you why it was a false analogy. It would have been a true
analogy if I were asking you to prove that LW was convicted, as you
wrongly keep stating. But that is not what you are being asked to
prove. Nor are you being asked to prove that she is guilty, as you are
also falsely stating. What you are being asked to prove is that you
know the slightest thing about the evidence that convicted her. It's
about you, not her.
And you know this. You know I am not asking you to prove she was
convicted or that she is guilty. You are PRETENDING to believe that in
an effort to obfuscate the issue, shift attention from the challenge
and enable you to avoid meeting that challenge. You don't really
believe what you are pretending to believe. You are certainly stupid,
but not that stupid. This is an act you are putting on.
>
> Now I'll tell you quite clearly. I will no longer discuss this with you,
> because you are functioning from an irrational and illogical position.
Which actually translates as: "I am getting out of this argument
because I have been exposed as a lazy, ignorant fool, and the longer
it goes on the lazier, more ignorant and more foolish I am looking."
> This is not a case of YOUR subjective view of her presumed
> innocence, or MYsubjective view of her certain guilt.
That's right, it isn't. It is about my view of your ignorance of the
case you love to rant about, your laziness in refusing to learn
anything to back up the rants, and your stupidity in believing any
thinking person could ever be convinced by your transparent act of
pretending to believe the challenge is to prove LW's guilt or the
reality of her conviction.
> And the trial transcripts CONFIRMED that guilt.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Does this mean you have read the
transcripts? So now show me where in the transcripts Louise Woodward's
guilt is proved. If you try to cop out by pointing only to the part
where the jury verdict is delivered, you will make yourself look a
cretin on a level even I have not yet accused you of reaching. The
evidence, from the transcripts, that proves Louise Woodward's guilt,
please.
> So I can hardly see
> how you can say they support YOUR argument. Because if they DID,
> the judgment would have been overturned.
>
So why wasn't it overturned? 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? If ever there was an open and shut case, it is the one
against officers Hugh Downing and Eric Braceland. This pair swore
under oath that when they arrived at the house and asked Louise to
tell them where the baby was, she completely ignored them and walked
away, leaving them to search around the house themselves, losing vital
minutes in tending to that desperately ill baby. She denied it and
insisted that she had immediately told them where Matthew was before
leading them to the room in question.
So who was lying? The answer is Downing and Braceland. The proof? What
those two crooks didn't know - until it was too late - was that the
telephone on which Louise had called 911 (999 in UK) was still
connected to the emergency operator and the whole thing was still
being recorded. On that tape, Louise could clearly be heard answering
the door to the two crooked cops an immediately shouting: "In here,
he's in here."
And there is equally damning proof of perjury against the other two
corrupt police officers, Sgt William Byrne and Sgt Jim McCarthy
(details if you want them), but, again, no charges.
Nor has anyone ever been charged with the evidence tampering - which
included deliberately hiding, burying and destroying exculpatory
medical evidence - even though the proof of this is indisputably
established and well documented.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > That is the most absurd claim I have ever heard. It presumes that
> > I should be able to ask YOU to PROVE an acquittal in U.S. Justice.
> > If I assume any of them are actually guilty. The evidence is IN THE
> > VERDICT, you moron.
>
> No it isn't; it is in the transcripts. The verdict is not the evidence
> any more than the sentence is the evidence. How come you know so
> little?
>
man's face red. Giving the impression of truth to a lie. And proving
yourself quite hysterical in the process.
> >
> > > Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
> > > Woodward, but about YOU.
> > >
> > Of course it's about Louise.
>
> No, it is about you.
>
No... it's about YOU... and your obsession with the 'Great White Whale.'
> > She is the one you are obsessing about.
> > I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
>
> Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
>
Ah.. but SHE was the one found GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY.
> < And certainly I don't have to
> > PROVE she was and is guilty.
>
> You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. But if you
> continually fail to prove you know anything - beyond the verdict -
> about the case, people can draw their own conclusions about what kind
> of idiot repeatedly rants & raves about a case he knows nothing of.
>
The verdict is good enough for everyone but you. Do you suppose
that could POSSIBLY make YOU right??
> > You must prove she wasn't. So get real.
>
> I can do that. I can show that it is 100% scientifically impossible
> for her to have done what she was convicted of.
>
Sure you can, sport... sure you can. But since no one but her and
the child were present together for some length of time, you cannot
prove ANYTHING is 'scientifically impossible.'
> > The argument you would offer is EXPRESSLY about Louise Woodward,
> > since it is not necessary for me to PROVE a conviction which is a fact.
> >
>
> Why do you keep stating the obvious?
Ummm.. because it IS the obvious. Something you'd wish to ignore.
But of course... why look for the 'obvious'... when one can distort the
'obvious' in an obtuse manner, as you 'obviously' intend to do.
> Of course it is a fact that she
> was convicted. But what about the facts, from the evidence, that led
> to that conviction? That is what the question is about. Why are you
> running away from that? I'll tell you why: because you know that this
> is a question about you - about your ignorance, your laziness and your
> stupidity.
>
ho ho ho.. SG Seminal axioms 1) 'Personal Flame' and 6) 'Claim victory'
at work again.
> > >
> > A false analogy?? Are you presuming that a fundamental principle
> > of logic is a 'false analogy'?
>
> I'll tell you why it was a false analogy. It would have been a true
> analogy if I were asking you to prove that LW was convicted, as you
> wrongly keep stating. But that is not what you are being asked to
> prove. Nor are you being asked to prove that she is guilty, as you are
> also falsely stating. What you are being asked to prove is that you
> know the slightest thing about the evidence that convicted her. It's
> about you, not her.
>
No.. it's about YOU, sport. And your obsession with the 'Great
White Whale.' Where you would presume I must 'prove' what you
will then contend is not proof, yet most certainly IS. I will not
give you the opportunity to try and moronically and hysterically,
in a totally biased manner, disassemble using the most
absurd claims possible, what has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.
Probably by claiming, as almost all those from the U.K. do,
that the U.S. Justice System is 'corrupt.' The most absurd
and simple-minded expression I've seen. It is hypocritical,
biased, and totally naive to form a view on proof of innocence
using such a flimsy platform.
> And you know this. You know I am not asking you to prove she was
> convicted or that she is guilty. You are PRETENDING to believe that in
> an effort to obfuscate the issue, shift attention from the challenge
> and enable you to avoid meeting that challenge. You don't really
> believe what you are pretending to believe. You are certainly stupid,
> but not that stupid. This is an act you are putting on.
>
I'm 'pretending' to believe she was convicted and she is guilty?
Hardly. Those are already facts in evidence. You are 'pretending'
that those are not facts.
> > Now I'll tell you quite clearly. I will no longer discuss this with you,
> > because you are functioning from an irrational and illogical position.
>
> Which actually translates as: "I am getting out of this argument
> because I have been exposed as a lazy, ignorant fool, and the longer
> it goes on the lazier, more ignorant and more foolish I am looking."
>
Ah... SG Seminal axioms 1) and 6) again. Sorry, sport, I'll not
let you try and put lipstick on that pig. You'll have to do it all
by yourself.
> > This is not a case of YOUR subjective view of her presumed
> > innocence, or MYsubjective view of her certain guilt.
>
> That's right, it isn't. It is about my view of your ignorance of the
> case you love to rant about, your laziness in refusing to learn
> anything to back up the rants, and your stupidity in believing any
> thinking person could ever be convinced by your transparent act of
> pretending to believe the challenge is to prove LW's guilt or the
> reality of her conviction.
>
SG Seminal axioms 1) and 6) yet again. Hardly a 'convincing'
argument.
> > And the trial transcripts CONFIRMED that guilt.
>
> Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Does this mean you have read the
> transcripts? So now show me where in the transcripts Louise Woodward's
> guilt is proved. If you try to cop out by pointing only to the part
> where the jury verdict is delivered, you will make yourself look a
> cretin on a level even I have not yet accused you of reaching. The
> evidence, from the transcripts, that proves Louise Woodward's guilt,
> please.
>
You still don't understand. I don't NEED to 'show you.' The
transcripts show you. If you wish to argue with THEM, be my
guest. If anyone is stupid in this dialog, it is certainly you, seeming
to lack any capacity to understand what is even the underlying
principle here. Which is you are the propounder of your ridiculous
claim and ALL the burden falls on you. This issue is, of course,
the finding of guilt of the 'Great White Whale,' which you presume
was INCORRECT. I have no obligation to PROVE it was correct.
You have the entire burden. I have only the joy of watching you
make a fool of yourself while doing so. Yet you would expect
me to jump into your kiddy-pool of ignorance and play along
with you. How you cannot see how dumb that would be of me,
to EVEN attempt that, simply demonstrates how little you
understand here. Your argument is slack, soft and artificial,
yet you believe I should 'play along.'
> > So I can hardly see
> > how you can say they support YOUR argument. Because if they DID,
> > the judgment would have been overturned.
> >
>
> So why wasn't it overturned? Because the state of Massachusetts is
> utterly riddled with corruption from top to bottom.
have any PROOF of that, sport? Since the presumption is always
in the negative. Didn't think so.. so it would seem you are simply
shouting hysterical slogans. And therein lies the reason I would
not expect to hold a meaningful dialog with you regarding what is
already a proven fact. Look at your words, you moron. It's exactly
what I could EXPECT if I 'argued' the evidence. You have already
'decided' that it is NOT the 'Great White Whale' who is 'guilty,' but
a corrupt Justice System. A hysterical, soap-box oration of all
that's 'wrong' (sic) with the evidence (system), while providing
nothing of substance, yet expecting me to provide a forum for
your hysteria. No thanks. Since I find the only 'corruption' here,
to be your corruption of FACT.
> 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? If ever there was an open and shut case, it is the one
> against officers Hugh Downing and Eric Braceland. This pair swore
> under oath that when they arrived at the house and asked Louise to
> tell them where the baby was, she completely ignored them and walked
> away, leaving them to search around the house themselves, losing vital
> minutes in tending to that desperately ill baby. She denied it and
> insisted that she had immediately told them where Matthew was before
> leading them to the room in question.
>
yada, yada, yada. I love that neat little touch of 'incontrovertible
proof of perjury.' Certainly what we can assume is an 'unbiased'
argument.
> So who was lying? The answer is Downing and Braceland. The proof? What
> those two crooks didn't know - until it was too late - was that the
> telephone on which Louise had called 911 (999 in UK) was still
> connected to the emergency operator and the whole thing was still
> being recorded. On that tape, Louise could clearly be heard answering
> the door to the two crooked cops an immediately shouting: "In here,
> he's in here."
>
yada, yada, yada. See above.
> And there is equally damning proof of perjury against the other two
> corrupt police officers, Sgt William Byrne and Sgt Jim McCarthy
> (details if you want them), but, again, no charges.
>
yada, yada, yada. See above.
> Nor has anyone ever been charged with the evidence tampering - which
> included deliberately hiding, burying and destroying exculpatory
> medical evidence - even though the proof of this is indisputably
> established and well documented.
>
And a big yada, yada, yada. That's because there was none. All just
proving the reason it would be senseless to 'debate' someone having
such twisted views of the truth. See above.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:05:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >> To discuss those of 'British origin', I assume that you would have
> >> >> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland. *snigger*
>
> >> > I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
> >> > if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough.
>
> >> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> LDB has now defined the Celts and the Brits as having similar roots ...
> >> where _will_ his ignorance stop ??!! What next, LDB ? 'The South
> >> Africans are really of Chinese origin' ..?
>
> > Irish, the Welsh, the Scots, and the present population of the U.K. proper.
> > One needs only look at
>
>
> ROTFLMAO !! Truly ROTFLMAO !! Or 'ROTFMAO!!' (sic), if you prefer.
>
> Each time we see the long list of URLs that you post, in a vain
> attempt to cover up yet another logical, grammatical, philosophical
> or jurisprudential gaffe that you've made in your obsessive need to
> 'get one over' on me or on dirt, we're reminded once again of how your
> education stopped at the age of fifteen. If your Internet connection
> ever goes down, you'd be struck dumb. What do you do at dinner parties,
> take a laptop in with you, and when the conversation turns to topics
> other than wheat farming in your native Russia, you fire up google, and
> use the search results to appear erudite ?
>
One sees that FDP took great care to snip those URLs. Fortunately,
they still are --
http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html
http://orb.rhodes.edu/encyclop/early/origins/rom_celt/celtic.html
http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes.htm
http://www.britannia.com/history/ebk/
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/8771/elmete.html
> You're quite possibly _the_ most stupid person I've ever 'met' on
> Usenet.
> You go beyond even Drewl's legendary levels of idiocy. When
> he had been thoroughly spanked, he usually had the sense to snip the
> entire post of his 'better', respond with, 'Off-topic foreign nonsense
> snipped', and run off with his tail between his legs.
>
yawn..yawner...yawnest. An insult from you is sweet anodyne to
my ears, considering the source. I would rather be insulted by you,
then praised by the Pope, since a lesser connection to YOU is a
greater connection to the rest of our species.
> Yet you keep coming back for more. Your nose is bloody, your arse
> is so red that you can't sit down, your feet have had all but the
> little toes blown off by your 'own goals' ... and yet you keep coming
> back, like the dumb dog that's had a lobotomy, and yet who will continue
> to come back to be beaten at its master's side.
>
> But remind us all again of how the Irish, are really British ... I haven't
> had such a chuckle in years ...
>
Both are of 'British origin,' as shown by the OED when going to
BRITISH, a. (n.) --- "c. British Isles: a geographical term for the
islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore
islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."
> { snip }
>
> >> 'ROTFMAO !!' (sic)
>
> > You seem to be simply repeating yourself.
>
> Still struggling with those split infinitives, I see ... was that
> lesson before 'The Gerund', or after ..?
>
Pathetic pedantry, FDP. Nevertheless..I would suppose you still claim
that 'quote' is NOT a noun. Or that a dead person can still have a
'memory'? You've been as silent as the grave about that, haven't
you, FDP? You allowed your pedantry to override your common
sense. oops.. that's right... you don't HAVE any 'common sense.'
> { snip LDB not realising that 'being under British rule', does not mean
> being 'British' ... }
>
Not ONCE have I used the word 'rule' in this thread! Not ONCE!!
Now one of the URL's I've mentioned may have done so, but I
am not responsible for THEIR particular wording. Thus, as usual,
FDP is a proven liar.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<Desmond taking the piss out of PV regarding the 'outted incident'>
>>
>Looks as if you're becoming rather hysterical here, FDP. 'outted'
>is not MEANT to be 'outed,' but is a 'slang' expression of having
>been 'exposed' (dating from being 'exposed' as homosexual).
>Quite the same as 'outed.' But 'slang' in intent. See
>http://www.benegesserit.com/outted.htm
LMAO!
Outted [sic] is slang for, erm, outed?
>
>Even the formidable 'The Register,' in the U.K., has recognized
>the 'word' See.
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/26026.html
Wat you actually mean is that the website above has made the same
mistake as you.
This, perhaps, lessens your humiliation, but certainly doesn't make
you right.
<further proof that PV is not the only one to have spelt 'outed'
incorrectly snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
by) wrote:
<to silly PV>
> The verdict is not the evidence
>any more than the sentence is the evidence.
Which is the truism so fucking _patently_ obvious that it is
astounding that even PV can't grasp it.
> How come you know so
>little?
Because he's a fuckwit.
However, it is to be expected.
PV, you see, is largely uneducated. He makes a brave attempt, but as
he has never been tutored in any kind of academic discipline, the
research he does undertake often leads him to quite bizarre and
nonsensical conclusions which would not have been reached had he
learned to crawl before he attempted to run.
His mistaking a verdict - a conclusion drawn from evidence - for the
evidence itself is most most indicative of a person who really, to be
brutal, hasn't got a sodding clue.
It can be most amusing. The same personality trait has, in the past,
lead us to chuckle heartily as PV eschews established criminological
doctrines such as 'incapacitation/protectionism' in favour of his
self-contrived rhetorical penal justification of 'society
self-defense' [sic]. We all also had a hoot when he swore blind that
the Geneva Convention did not apply in cases of armed conflict unless
the warring parties recognised each other as legitimate governments.
<snip>
<of a nonsensical paragraph by PV claiming victory>
>Which actually translates as: "I am getting out of this argument
>because I have been exposed as a lazy, ignorant fool, and the longer
>it goes on the lazier, more ignorant and more foolish I am looking."
Hmm. I think you're wrong there.
No matter how ignorant and foolish he looks, PV will _never_ withdraw
from his being in receipt of a spanking (for that is what you are
administering to him here).
He _needs_ to be spanked, like a moth _needs_ to fly towards a light.
<snipped>
w00f
Just passing by
> >
> > No it isn't; it is in the transcripts. The verdict is not the evidence
> > any more than the sentence is the evidence. How come you know so
> > little?
> >
> How come you know NOTHING? You are trying to paint a dead
> man's face red. Giving the impression of truth to a lie. And proving
> yourself quite hysterical in the process.
Has it ever occurred to you that dealing directly with the material
you are responding to rather than just throwing in a few lines of
meaningless vitriol that would be no less relevant if you selected any
post from any thread from any newsgroup at random, and aimlessly
pasted them anywhere in the middle, your replies might have more
impact? Apart from the first sentence of your above reply, there is
nothing that even remotely relates in any way to my words preceding
it.
> > >
> > > > Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
> > > > Woodward, but about YOU.
> > > >
> > > Of course it's about Louise.
> >
> > No, it is about you.
> >
> No... it's about YOU... and your obsession with the 'Great White Whale.'
>
So in the space of just one posting, as is so perfectly illustrated
above, you have changed your mind from this being about Louise, to it
being about me. Are you always that inconsistent?
Or were you simply led by my saying it was about you into firing back
a rather childish and ill thought out tit-for-tat line? Are you always
that easily led?
> > > She is the one you are obsessing about.
> > > I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
> >
> > Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
> >
> Ah.. but SHE was the one found GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY.
>
How very imaginative that response was.
> >
> The verdict is good enough for everyone but you. Do you suppose
> that could POSSIBLY make YOU right??
Everyone, PV?
> > > You must prove she wasn't. So get real.
> >
> > I can do that. I can show that it is 100% scientifically impossible
> > for her to have done what she was convicted of.
> >
>
> Sure you can, sport... sure you can. But since no one but her and
> the child were present together for some length of time, you cannot
> prove ANYTHING is 'scientifically impossible.'
Yes I can, and, if you had been paying attention, you would know that
I already have done earlier in these exchanges. The seven facts I
posted prove that the injuries were several weeks old which renders
the prosecution case impossible. You didn't read those seven facts,
but instead just pasted your previous favourite inanity (the latest
being "yada, yada, yada") after each one.
> It is hypocritical,
> biased, and totally naive to form a view on proof of innocence
> using such a flimsy platform.
Such a "flimsy platform" as 100% scientific impossibility of guilt?
> > > Now I'll tell you quite clearly. I will no longer discuss this with you,
> > > because you are functioning from an irrational and illogical position.
> >
> > Which actually translates as: "I am getting out of this argument
> > because I have been exposed as a lazy, ignorant fool, and the longer
> > it goes on the lazier, more ignorant and more foolish I am looking."
> >
> Ah... SG Seminal axioms 1) and 6) again. Sorry, sport, I'll not
> let you try and put lipstick on that pig. You'll have to do it all
> by yourself.
What was that about no longer discussing this?
> > And you know this. You know I am not asking you to prove she was
> > convicted or that she is guilty. You are PRETENDING to believe that in
> > an effort to obfuscate the issue, shift attention from the challenge
> > and enable you to avoid meeting that challenge. You don't really
> > believe what you are pretending to believe. You are certainly stupid,
> > but not that stupid. This is an act you are putting on.
> >
> I'm 'pretending' to believe she was convicted and she is guilty?
> Hardly.
No, you are pretending not to understand that the challenge is to
prove that you have ever even looked at the transcripts, let alone
familiarised yourself with them sufficiently to justify your rants and
your claim that they are your evidence. And you are still doing it.
> You still don't understand. I don't NEED to 'show you.' The
> transcripts show you.
But they don't show YOU, because you have never even opened them, have
you? So how do you know what is in them?
I have read and re-read the transcripts from beginning to end and I
know there is nothing whatsoever in them that points to Louise
Woodward's guilt. Why do you think I am so confident as to guarantee
that whatever you produced from them purporting to be inculpatory, I
would show to be empty, meaningless and thoroughly disproved?
And if you interpret the above as meaning that the dice are loaded
against you, I put up my hands and say, yes, you are right, they are.
Just as they were loaded against Louise Woodward when, after almost
nine months of the local population being 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 if you doubt the impact of all those media lies, then consider
that before the trial began - before a single word of evidence had
been heard from either side - 20 eligible jurors, from whom the final
12 would be chosen, were asked if they had formed any opinion about
the guilt or innocence of the defendant. 18 said they believed she was
guilty, and the other 2 said they believed she could be innocent. That
is 90% whose minds had been made up before the trial even started.
You didn't know about that, did you, PV? So what is your reply to it?
No, let me guess: it will be either "The entire Justice System,
including jury, judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY...
GUILTY" or "yada, yada, yada".
yours_most_truly
<snipped>
> You didn't know about that, did you, PV? So what is your reply to it?
> No, let me guess: it will be either "The entire Justice System,
> including jury, judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY...
> GUILTY" or "yada, yada, yada."
He's still responding with that sound effect to anything he can't
handle? That's the sound Elmer Fudd's head makes as it whips back and
forth after being smacked with something hard (Clang!).
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:01:29 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Wat you actually mean is that the website above has made the same
> > mistake as you.
> >
> > This, perhaps, lessens your humiliation, but certainly doesn't make
> > you right.
>
> mis-spell * the name of 'Down's Syndrome'.
>
You will find that in the current on-line version of the OED, the
name 'Down' in reference to the syndrome has now been included.
Apparently the OED is finally beginning to catch up with the rest
of the world.
> Ask him how 'Le Syndrome de Down', shows beyond a doubt that in
> English, an apostrophe shouldn't be used in the possessive case ...
>
> *snigger*
>
> Football back to you, dirt ...
>
> * Still waiting for Oxford to get back to me
>
<belly laugh on>
Wait for them to tell you that 'quote' isn't a noun as well. you imbecile.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:05:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip LDB trying to type whilst standing in front of his keyboard ... }
>
> > Have you figured out what 'quote' is yet?
>
> of words said. I gather that some semi-literate idiots also use it as
> a noun, and that _The OED_ has reflected this incorrect usage, just as
> it has done so with 'portentious' ...
>
> Why do you ask ?
>
<belly laugh on>
Because you claimed it was the 'supreme arbiter.' That's why I asked.
And because I wished to show you for the 'supreme asshole' you are.
And the OED did that for me. Along with every other dictionary in
the English language.
-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE, n.
1. A (marginal) reference; a note. Obs.
1600 TOURNEUR Trans. Metamorph. Author to Book 2, O were Thy
margents cliffes of itching lust, Or quotes to chalke out men the way
to sin. 1611 COTGR., Quote, a quote, or quoting; a marke, or note
vpon an article.
2. a. A quotation. Also quote mark = b.
1885 Pall Mall G. 23 Jan. 6/1 The 'interviewer' (..has not the time
come for leaving out the quote marks?) 1888 Ibid. 12 Dec. 11/2
Stodgy 'quotes' from the ancients? 1922 T. S. ELIOT Let. ? Jan.
in E. Pound Lett. (1951) 236 Do you mean not use the Conrad
quote or simply not put Conrad's name to it? 1950 G. B. STERN
Ten Days of Christmas i. 27 The title must be a quote. 1959
Times Lit. Suppl. 23 Jan. 45/4 The blurb..and 'quotes' selected
from the American Press inaccurately suggest brashness. 1968
Listener 25 July 108/2 Don't ask me questions, since I have no
wish to figure as the father of all the quotes in your stories.
1978 Guardian Weekly 15 Oct. 7/3 A quote from Dayan is
painted on one of the twisted gun doors: The Bar-Lev line looks
like a piece of cheese with a hole in it.'
b. A quotation mark.
1888 JACOBI Printers' Vocab. 109. 1891 Scot. Leader 2 Apr. 6
The portion of this quotation which we have put within quotes.
1895 Nation (N.Y.) 14 Mar. 191 Lodge's "Americanism"..will get
the "double quotes" every time. 1920 WODEHOUSE Coming of
Bill I. ii. 24 Below the signature, in what printers call 'quotes', a
line.. 'Bear the torch and do not falter.' 1937 Daily Express 4
Feb. 6/3 New use for 'quotes' ('inverted commas') came to light
at the Scottish Literary luncheon in London yesterday. 1955 T.
H. PEAR Eng. Social Differences iii. 90 The upper class fashion
of speaking in 'quotes' 'I don't mind if I do' (in a pronounced
Cockney accent). 1969 'J. MORRIS' Fever Grass ii. 24 He'd have
witnesses if I put him in the dock. Witnesses in quotes, I mean.
1976 New Yorker 16 Feb. 37/1 Freezes over close quote,
paragraph.
3. = QUOTATION 6.
1959 Daily Mail 8 June 2/3 'Quotes' for readers. The following list
of prices is a selection from readers' requests for quotation of
some of their shares which do not fluctuate sufficiently to be
quoted daily. 1965 E. GUNDREY Foot in Door xii. 91 She was
shown a long list of things that needed doing..and was given a
quote for 'about £28'. 1970 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 25 Sept. 4/4
The Duke price was consistently lower than other quotes. 1976
J. DRUMMOND Funeral Urn iv. 14 Do the work, will I?.. I'll give
you a quote before I get stuck in. 1980 Daily Tel. 3 Jan. 15/6
Yesterday..he was appointed chairman of construction
company Tebbitt, which has a market value of £1·3 million. 'It
is a small start, but I needed a vehicle with a quote and Tebbitt
is exactly right.'
---------------------------------------------------------
ho ho ho... What a fuckwit!!!
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:j2vvlu0p13ir002et...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:05:08 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <Desmond taking the piss out of PV regarding the 'outted incident'>
>
> >>
> >Looks as if you're becoming rather hysterical here, FDP. 'outted'
> >is not MEANT to be 'outed,' but is a 'slang' expression of having
> >been 'exposed' (dating from being 'exposed' as homosexual).
> >Quite the same as 'outed.' But 'slang' in intent. See
> >http://www.benegesserit.com/outted.htm
>
> LMAO!
>
> Outted [sic] is slang for, erm, outed?
>
will find in the OED.
OUTTA -- 'colloq. contraction of OUT OF prep.phr. orig. and chiefly
U.S. Cf. OUTA.
1937 C. HIMES Black on Black (1973) 142 You keep outta dis,
yellow niggah. 1958 KEITH & BERGMAN (song-title) Outta
my mind. Ibid., And I came out-ta my spin, That dizzy spin I
was in, Don't ask me, 'Where have I been?' Been out-ta my
mind! 1967 Boston Sunday Herald 14 May (Comic Section),
Outta the way, Barrey boy. 1971 B. BRANDON (title) Outta sight,
Luther. 1973 Black World Jan. 65/1 Tears was dripping down
the Grand Worthy Matron's face, making a mess outta all her
powder and rouge. 1977 Ripped & Torn VI. 2/2 Is this a last
ditch attempt by me to make some money outta this thing?
My God... you people are ignorant. And you claim the language
as YOURS???? ROTFLMAO.
> >
> >Even the formidable 'The Register,' in the U.K., has recognized
> >the 'word' See.
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/26026.html
>
> Wat you actually mean is that the website above has made the same
> mistake as you.
>
Hardly... only 'wannabees' presume that 'the Register' could make
such a mistake.
> This, perhaps, lessens your humiliation, but certainly doesn't make
> you right.
>
But it does, 'Louuise' (sic)... it certainly does.
> <further proof that PV is not the only one to have spelt 'outed'
> incorrectly snipped>
>
Actually, further proof that it is recognized as 'slang.'
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:9c00muomevs0d6uin...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Aug 2002 19:00:23 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
> by) wrote:
>
> <to silly PV>
>
> > The verdict is not the evidence
> >any more than the sentence is the evidence.
>
> astounding that even PV can't grasp it.
>
not some claim that ---
1) The police committed perjury.
2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt.
3) Louise was singled out because she was British.
4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only
concerned with elections.
5) The mother actually committed the crime.
6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by
DA Thomas Reilly and Dr. Eli Newberger
7) All the doctors are crooks.
8 )All the journalists are corrupt.
9) The jury pool was polluted.
10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White
Whale.'
Although you, JPB and FDP 'wish' it were, Louise. Isn't it strange
how all those with a 'retracted penis' hope to 'SLURP... SLURP...
SLURP.. up to each other?
> > How come you know so
> >little?
>
> Because he's a ****wit.
>
> However, it is to be expected.
>
> PV, you see, is largely uneducated. He makes a brave attempt, but as
> he has never been tutored in any kind of academic discipline, the
> research he does undertake often leads him to quite bizarre and
> nonsensical conclusions which would not have been reached had he
> learned to crawl before he attempted to run.
>
ROTFLMAO.. This from the guy who recognized his 'education' (sic),
demanded that a (sic) be placed after it, whenever it was mentioned.
> His mistaking a verdict - a conclusion drawn from evidence - for the
> evidence itself is most most indicative of a person who really, to be
> brutal, hasn't got a sodding clue.
>
I suppose that would mean we should draw a conclusion from
'non-evidence'? That would certainly support the contention of
JPB. Since his argument is based on 'non-evidence.'
> It can be most amusing. The same personality trait has, in the past,
> lead us to chuckle heartily as PV eschews established criminological
> doctrines such as 'incapacitation/protectionism' in favour of his
> self-contrived rhetorical penal justification of 'society
> self-defense' [sic]. We all also had a hoot when he swore blind that
> the Geneva Convention did not apply in cases of armed conflict unless
> the warring parties recognised each other as legitimate governments.
ROTFLMAO... The small-minded backwoods lawyer. Of low mental
capacity and mean of spirit. Yet proud to act as the servile tool of
men worse then himself (FDP), but apparently those he prostrates
himself before in humble acceptance that they are stronger and more
able. Ready to do any work, his slavery leaders set before him, and
to act as their 'attorney' in arguing in their favor, with stifling mendacity,
moral callousness and mental obliquity (look it up, stupid). Of course,
his 'backwoods lawyer' doesn't have a clue about a simple concept
called 'mitigating circumstances.'
<pathetic drool clipped>
PV
> w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > > No it isn't; it is in the transcripts. The verdict is not the evidence
> > > any more than the sentence is the evidence. How come you know so
> > > little?
> > >
> > How come you know NOTHING? You are trying to paint a dead
> > man's face red. Giving the impression of truth to a lie. And proving
> > yourself quite hysterical in the process.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that dealing directly with the material
> you are responding to rather than just throwing in a few lines of
> meaningless vitriol that would be no less relevant if you selected any
> post from any thread from any newsgroup at random, and aimlessly
> pasted them anywhere in the middle, your replies might have more
> impact? Apart from the first sentence of your above reply, there is
> nothing that even remotely relates in any way to my words preceding
> it.
>
drool you've provided in the dozens of obsessive entries you've made into
the most absurd groups immaginable. In every case you have had
NOTHING to say except --
1) The police committed perjury.
2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt.
3) Louise was singled out because she was British.
4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only
concerned with elections.
5) The mother actually committed the crime.
6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by
DA Thomas Reilly and Dr. Eli Newberger
7) All the doctors are crooks.
8 )All the journalists are corrupt.
9) The jury pool was polluted.
10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White
Whale.'
> > > >
> > > > > Can you see what I am getting at here, PV? This is not about Louise
> > > > > Woodward, but about YOU.
> > > > >
> > > > Of course it's about Louise.
> > >
> > > No, it is about you.
> > >
> > No... it's about YOU... and your obsession with the 'Great White Whale.'
> >
>
> So in the space of just one posting, as is so perfectly illustrated
> above, you have changed your mind from this being about Louise, to it
> being about me. Are you always that inconsistent?
>
It is about you, because you are obsessing over a clear finding of
guilt of the crime of manslaughter, and cannot accept that because
you presumable have a stiff dick for her. Shown by the tenor of ALL
your posts to these groups --
alt.activism.death-penalty
alt.true-crime
alt.suicide.holiday
ott.singles
ott.personals
alt.feminism
england.politics.europe
uk.politics.misc
alt.politics.british
soc.culture.indian
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
alt.politics.usa.republican
alt.politics.media
alt.politics.usa.congress
alt.politics.democrats.d
alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
alt.startrek
alt.babylon5.uk
talk.atheism
rec.games.go
soc.men
misc.health.alternative
alt.tv.dark_shadows
rec.sport.cricket
alt.tv.cell-block-h
alt.gathering.rainbow
alt.politics.bush
alt.conspiracy.jfk
> Or were you simply led by my saying it was about you into firing back
> a rather childish and ill thought out tit-for-tat line? Are you always
> that easily led?
>
When confronting ignorance I have this great flaw to remark on
it at some length.
>
> > > > She is the one you are obsessing about.
> > > > I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
> > >
> > > Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
> > >
> > Ah.. but SHE was the one found GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY.
> >
>
> How very imaginative that response was.
>
Ah... but unlike your argument... filled with the TRUTH. There is
a difference between 'hysteria' and the 'truth' you know.
>
> > >
> > The verdict is good enough for everyone but you. Do you suppose
> > that could POSSIBLY make YOU right??
>
> Everyone, PV?
>
Everyone that matters, sport. That excludes EVERYONE functioning
from outside the Justice System that convicted her.
> > > > You must prove she wasn't. So get real.
> > >
> > > I can do that. I can show that it is 100% scientifically impossible
> > > for her to have done what she was convicted of.
> > >
> >
> > Sure you can, sport... sure you can. But since no one but her and
> > the child were present together for some length of time, you cannot
> > prove ANYTHING is 'scientifically impossible.'
>
> Yes I can, and, if you had been paying attention, you would know that
> I already have done earlier in these exchanges. The seven facts I
> posted prove that the injuries were several weeks old which renders
> the prosecution case impossible. You didn't read those seven facts,
> but instead just pasted your previous favourite inanity (the latest
> being "yada, yada, yada") after each one.
>
ROTFLMAO... I've grown very tired of you... so here you go --
Massachusetts v. Woodward
State Supreme Court Decision on Louise Woodward Case
NOTICE: This slip opinion is subject to formal revision and will
be superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the
Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial
Court, Room 1407, Boston, MA 02108; (617) 557-1030.
SJC-07635
COMMONWEALTH vs. LOUISE WOODWARD
(and a companion case).
Middlesex. March 9, 1998. - June 16, 1998.
Present: Wilkins, C.J., Abrams, Lynch, Greaney, Fried,
Marshall, & Ireland, JJ.
Homicide. Practice, Criminal. Instructions to jury, Lesser included
offense, Verdict, Indictment, Dismissal, Required finding, Sentence,
Double jeopardy, Disclosure of evidence. Malice. Jury and Jurors.
Judge. Evidence. Exculpatory, Failure to produce evidence,
Judicial notice. Constitutional Law, Double jeopardy, Sentence.
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department
on March 5, 1997.
The case was tried before Hiller B. Zobel, J.
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the
county of Suffolk on November 25, 1997.
The case was reported by Abrams, J., and the parties' respective
cross appeals were consolidated with that report and entered in
this court by her.
Harvey A. Silverglate & Andrew Good (Barry C. Scheck, of New
York, & Elaine Whitfield Sharp, with them) for the defendant.
Sabita Singh, Assistant District Attorney (Gerald T. Leone, Assistant
District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth
MARSHALL, J. On the afternoon of February 4, 1997, an eight month
old child, Matthew Eappen, was rushed to Children's Hospital in
Boston with a severe head injury. Despite emergency treatment,
Matthew's condition deteriorated, and he died on February 9, 1997.
On March 5, 1997, a Middlesex County grand jury returned an
indictment against the defendant, Louise Woodward, for the murder
of Matthew. She subsequently was ordered held without bail. Woodward
had worked as an au pair for the Eappen family since November, 1996.
Matthew was in Woodward's sole care from the morning of February 4,
on the departure of Matthew's mother for work, until he was taken to
the hospital.
Trial on the murder charge against Woodward commenced on October
6, 1997. After a three-week trial, the judge gave the jury instructions
on murder in the first and second degrees. At Woodward's request and
over the Commonwealth's objection, the judge did not instruct the jury
on manslaughter. On October 30, 1997, the jury returned a guilty
verdict of murder in the second degree. On the following day, the judge
imposed the statutorily mandated term of life in prison.
On November 10, 1997, after hearing argument on Woodward's motion
for postjudgment relief, the judge reduced the jury's verdict from murder
to involuntary manslaughter, acting pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25
(b) (2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979), and vacated the life sentence. He
denied Woodward's request for a required finding of not guilty or for
a new trial. In a hearing that same afternoon after release of his
memorandum and order reducing the verdict and vacating Woodward's
sentence, the judge imposed a sentence of 279 days for Woodward's
manslaughter conviction, that sentence being deemed served by
Woodward while incarcerated awaiting trial and while awaiting action
on her postconviction motion.
The Commonwealth and Woodward filed cross appeals. The
Commonwealth then sought relief before a single justice, pursuant
to G. L. c. 211, § 3. The single justice reserved and reported the
case without decision to the full court, and ordered the parties'
respective cross appeals be consolidated with that reservation
and report and entered in this court. The Commonwealth here
seeks reinstatement of the jury's verdict of murder in the second
degree. In the alternative, the Commonwealth asks that we exercise
our general superintendence power, G. L. c. 211, § 3, and resentence
Woodward ourselves or remand the case to the Superior Court for
reconsideration of Woodward's rule 25 (b) (2) motion or for
resentencing by another judge. Woodward appeals from the judge's
refusal to dismiss the indictment and his denial of her motion for
a required finding of not guilty. She also raises a number of other
claimed trial errors, but waives them if we should uphold the judge's
reduction of the verdict from murder to involuntary manslaughter,
and the sentence he imposed.
I. The Commonwealth's Appeal
The Commonwealth argues that the judge abused his discretion in
reducing the jury's verdict from murder to a manslaughter conviction.
It points out that he should not have declined the Commonwealth's
request for a manslaughter instruction. It argues that these errors,
in combination, impaired the integrity of the justice system and
require that, pursuant to our extraordinary power of superintendence
over the lower courts, we vacate the judge's postverdict order and
restore the jury's verdict of murder in the second degree and the
resulting mandated life sentence.
1 The Jury Instructions: . The Commonwealth presented evidence
that the cause of Matthew's death was severe head trauma inflicted
on February 4, 1997, while he was in the sole custody of Woodward.
The Commonwealth sought jury instructions on murder in the first
degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, murder in the
second degree, and on the lesser included offense of involuntary
manslaughter. Woodward objected to the last request, and asked
that the jury be limited to considering the offense of murder. The
judge acceded to her request. This was error. We have stated
repeatedly that, "[w]hen the evidence permits a finding of a lesser
included offense, a judge must, upon request, instruct the jury on
the possibility of conviction of the lesser crime." Commonwealth v.
Gould, 413 Mass. 707, 715 (1992). See Commonwealth v. Hobbs,
385 Mass. 863, 871 (1982);Commonwealth v. Richmond, 379 Mass.
557, 562 (1980); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 352 Mass. 387, 392
(1967). We have never limited this rule to requests made by the
defendant, nor have we ever held that the Commonwealth is not
entitled, evidence permitting, to such an instruction on request.
This issue has arisen on appeal most often in cases in which the
defendant requested an instruction on a lesser included offense. In
the only case of which we are aware concerning the Commonwealth's
request for a lesser included instruction, which presented the converse
of the question here, we affirmed a judge's allowance of the request
over the defendant's objection. Commonwealth v. Thayer, 418 Mass.
130, 132-133 (1994). See Commonwealth v. Matos, 36 Mass. App.
Ct. 958, 962 (1994) (defendant does not have absolute right to make
tactical decisions that determine which theories of criminal liability
are submitted to jury); Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 27 Mass. App.
Ct. 655, 660 (1989) (test to determine if instruction on lesser included
offense required does not depend on whether defendant or
Commonwealth objects, but rather whether evidence supports such
instruction). Here, a disputed element -- malice -- distinguishes
murder, the greater offense, from manslaughter, the lesser offense,
and an instruction should have been given. Consideration of lower
court denials of prosecutors' requests for instructions on lesser
included offenses would not reach us except in the unlikely
procedural circumstances of this case, because the Commonwealth
has no reason to appeal from a conviction, and is barred by double
jeopardy principles from appealing from an acquittal. See Commonwealth
v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 532 (1981). Authorities elsewhere hold
overwhelmingly that the prosecution has a right to jury instructions
on lesser included offenses, on request, if the evidence so warrants,
in spite of a defendant's objection. As far as we are aware, no
jurisdiction that has considered the issue has allowed a defendant
to veto a lesser included offense instruction properly requested by
the prosecution.
Our conclusion that the Commonwealth was entitled to a
manslaughter instruction is fortified by the policy favoring instructing
juries on lesser included offenses. The doctrine serves the public
purpose of allowing the jury to convict of the offense established by
the evidence, rather than forcing them to choose between convicting
the defendant of an offense not fully established by the evidence or
acquitting, even though the defendant is guilty of some offense.
Commonwealth v. Walker, 426 Mass. 301, 305 (1997). Here, it was
peculiarly inappropriate for the judge to refuse to charge the jury on
manslaughter when, as revealed by his subsequent order reducing
the jury's verdict, in his view the evidence was not consonant with
a conviction of murder. The jury, in reaching their verdict, surely
must have concluded that the Commonwealth had proved beyond
a reasonable doubt the element of causation -- that Woodward's
acts caused Matthew's fatal injury. By refusing to accede to the
Commonwealth's request for a manslaughter instruction, the judge
impermissibly prevented the jury from considering a lesser degree
of culpability for Woodward.
The judge's error, however, did not prejudice the Commonwealth's
case against Woodward in the final analysis. The Commonwealth
concedes that the jury's verdict rendered the error harmless. See
Commonwealth v. Matos, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 962 (1994) (no
prejudice where jury instructed, over defendant's objection, on
involuntary manslaughter and defendant convicted of murder in
the second degree). If the judge had honored the Commonwealth's
request and the jury had received the manslaughter instruction but
had declined to choose that option, the judge could still have reduced
the jury's murder verdict under rule 25 (b) (2). See, e.g., Commonwealth
v. Gaulden, 383 Mass. 543, 552 (1981). Alternatively, had the jury
been given such a choice and returned a manslaughter verdict, the
trial's outcome would have yielded the same conviction of Woodward
as the judge's postverdict order.
2. Rule 25 (b) (2) reduction in verdict.. General Laws c. 278, § 11,
provides in part that "the judge may on a renewed motion for a
directed verdict of not guilty pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules
of Criminal Procedure set aside the verdict and order a new trial,
or order the entry of a finding of guilty of any offense included in the
offense charged in the indictment or complaint." Rule 25 (b) (2)
incorporates this statutory authority. The authority of the trial judge
under rule 25 (b) (2) to reduce the verdict or grant a new trial in
criminal cases is much like our authority to review so-called
capital cases -- convictions of murder in the first degree -- under
G. L. c. 278, § 33E. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 423 Mass.
506, 513 (1996); Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 383 Mass. 543,
553 & n.7 (1981).
The postconviction powers granted by the Legislature to the
courts at both trial and appellate levels reflect the evolution of
legislative policy promoting judicial responsibility to ensure that
the result in every criminal case is consonant with justice.
See Gaulden, supra 553-554 & n.7; Commonwealth v. Brown,
376 Mass. 156, 167-168 (1978); Commonwealth v. Baker, 346
Mass. 107, 109 (1963). It is clear that the responsibility may
be exercised by the trial judge, even if the evidence warrants
the jury's verdict. "[A] new trial or verdict reduction may be
proper even when the evidence can legally support the jury's
verdict." Commonwealth v. Carter, supra at 512. See
Commonwealth v. Ghee, 414 Mass. 313, 321 (1993) (reduction
in verdict not based on absence of evidence warranting jury's
finding of deliberate premeditation but because more consonant
with justice); Commonwealth v. Keough, 385 Mass. 314, 319-321
(1982) (jury's verdict of guilty of murder warranted by evidence,
but reduction to manslaughter upheld because more consonant
with justice). The judge's option to reduce a verdict offers a
means to rectify a disproportionate verdict, among other reasons,
short of granting a new trial. Gaulden, supra at 556. The judge's
power under rule 25 (b) (2), like our power under G. L. c. 278,
§ 33E, may be used to ameliorate injustice caused by the
Commonwealth, defense counsel, the jury, the judge's own
error, or, as may have occurred in this case, the interaction of
several causes. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Millyan, 399 Mass.
171, 188-189 (1987) (judge's failure to instruct on intoxication
because defendant did not so request and such instruction
was inconsistent with defense strategy was nonetheless, in
light of evidence on intoxication, appropriate justification for
judge to reduce verdict).
Because such broad postconviction authority is vested in the
trial judge, we have counseled that a judge should use this
power sparingly, Keough, supra at 321, and trial judges have
in fact used their rule 25 (b) (2) power infrequently. Since 1979,
the Commonwealth has appealed verdict reductions in only
ten cases, of which seven were affirmed.
We see no evidence of any generalized abuse of the power
vested in trial judges since the rule's adoption. Nor do we see
any other reason to modify case law that we have developed
since 1979 following legislative authorization of the rule.
In convictions of murder in the first degree, we are authorized
to review a whole case, including the evidence. G. L. c. 278,
§ 33E. In a noncapital case such as this, we do not conduct
an independent analysis when a trial judge reduces a verdict
to a lesser offense. Gaulden, supra at 557. (13) Our review of
a trial judge's exercise of his authority under rule 25 (b) (2) is
more constrained: "In assessing a trial judge's decision to
reduce a verdict under [that rule], 'we consider only whether
the judge abused his discretion or committed an error of law.'"
Commonwealth v. Mikllyan, supra at 188, quoting Gaulden, supra.
"We defer to the trial judge because he has the advantage of
face to face evaluation of the witnesses and the evidence at
trial. He is in a far better position than we are to make the
judgment required by the rule." Commonwealth v. Cobb, 399
Mass. 191, 192 (1987), citing Galden, supra. We have made
it clear that under rule 25 (b) (2), a judge may review all the
evidence, including the defendant's version of the facts, in
deciding whether the verdict comports with justice, even when
the evidence warranted the jury's verdict. See Ghee, supra at
321-322; Keough, supra at 319. Indeed, "the judge is not
foreclosed from considering the defendant's testimony . . . and,
if he believes it, relying on it." Keough, supra at 321. The
Commonwealth's complaint in this case, that the judge
"substituted" his view of the evidence for that of the jury, is
no reason to overrule his decision to reduce the verdict. See
Ghee, supra at 321 (Commonwealth's argument that judge erred
in reducing verdict where there was evidence supporting verdict
of murder in first degree characterized as "meritless" and
"miss[ing] the point").
We do expect a judge to state the reasons for a reduction
in verdict. Gaulden, supra at 556. In this case, the judge has
done so. After "[v]iewing the evidence broadly," in accordance
with his accurate understanding of rule 25 (b) (2) powers, the
judge gave as his first reason for the reduction that "the
circumstances in which [Woodward] 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." See Keough, supra at 320 (affirming
judge's reduction to manslaughter where judge found "that the
circumstances in which the defendant acted were characterized
by fear, confusion, and anger, and that the necessary element
of malice for second degree murder was absent"). We detect
no error of law with regard to malice in this conclusion. A fine
line distinguishes murder based on the third prong of malice
from the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
"The difference between the elements of the third prong of
malice and . . . involuntary manslaughter lies in the degree
of risk of physical harm that a reasonable person would
recognize was created by particular conduct, based on what
the defendant knew. The risk for the purposes of the third
prong of malice is that there was a plain and strong likelihood
of death. . . . The risk that will satisfy the standard for . . .
involuntary manslaughter 'involves a high degree of likelihood
that substantial harm will result to another.'" Commonwealth v.
Sires, 413 Mass. 292, 303-304 n.14 (1992), quoting Commonwealth
v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 399 (1944).
Although evidence of a single blow to a child of tender years may
be sufficient to support a jury finding of malice, Commonwealth v.
Starling, 382 Mass. 423, 426 (1981), such an inference is not
necessarily required by evidence even of repeated blows to a
young child. Commonwealth v. Vizcarrondo, ante 392, 397-398
(1998). In all the reported murder and manslaughter convictions
in Massachusetts involving the battery of young children there
was compelling evidence of multiple injuries from repeated
instances of caretaker abuse, not death caused by a single
fatal blow. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Day, 409 Mass. 719,
720-721, 723-726 (1991) (manslaughter conviction reversed on
erroneous admission of "profile" testimony); Commonweath v.
Hutchinson, 395 Mass. 568, 573-575 (1985) (murder in the
first degree affirmed). The Commonwealth did not claim that
Woodward had ever abused or injured Matthew prior to the
fatal injury. Where there was no evidence in this case of
repeated caretaker abuse, the judge did not abuse his discretion
in concluding that the jury verdict of murder was not proportionate
with convictions in other cases, including those cases resulting
in convictions of manslaughter rather than murder. See Gaulden,
supra at 556 (whether jury verdict is "markedly inconsistent" with
verdicts returned in similar cases is appropriate consideration
in deciding rule 25 [b] [2] motion).
This jury, of course, was given no option to find a lesser degree
of culpability than malice sufficient to support murder. "[W]e have
applied § 33E to reduce verdicts (or order new trials) when judges
have omitted to charge on critical themes that might have affected
juries and brought about different verdicts." Commonwealth v. King,
374 Mass. 501, 508 (1978). This judge did not charge on an issue
that might have brought a different verdict. To correct his own error,
he could conclude that a verdict of manslaughter was more
"consonant with justice" than letting the murder verdict stand.
Keough, supra 320, quoting Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 375 Mass.
409, 416 (1978).
The judge suggested an alternative basis for reaching a manslaughter
conviction, one that credited Woodward's experts, in part, on the
causation of Matthew's injury. Under this view of reconciling the
conflicting evidence on causation, Matthew had a preexisting skull
fracture and blood clot, and Woodward handled Matthew "roughly,"
which caused the clot to "rebleed," leading to his death. Weighing
the evidence in such a way would permit the jury, had they been
given the option, to find that Woodward committed a battery, fatal
because of Matthew's condition at the time, but not because of a
severe blow by Woodward, and thus without malice sufficient for
murder. We need not concur with this or any other view of the
evidence on causation in order to defer to the judge's discretion so
to weigh the evidence and reach his decision that the evidence as
a whole "comported more closely" with manslaughter than with
murder Keough, supra at 320, quoting Commonwealth v. McCarthy,
375 Mass. 409, 416 (1978).
Finally, we comment on the Commonwealth's criticism of the judge
for overstepping his role. This criticism depends on, but goes
beyond, the Commonwealth's more specific objections to the
judge's refusal of the manslaughter instruction and his verdict
reduction. Those actions, in combination, appear to the prosecution
to have manipulated the trial's outcome and marginalized the jury,
all to Woodward's benefit. The Commonwealth's argument is not
frivolous.
Jurors bring the unique perspective of laypersons, representing
the wider community's judgment of a defendant's degree of culpability,
if any, for her actions. "The importance that our system attaches to
trial by jury derives from the special confidence we repose in a 'body
of one's peers to determine guilt or innocence as a safeguard against
arbitrary law enforcement.' Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 87 (1970).
It is this safeguarding function, preferring the commonsense judgment
of a jury as a bulwark 'against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor
and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge,' that lies at the
core of our dedication to the principles of jury determination of guilt
or innocence." Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 373-374 (1972),
quoting Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968). The integrity
of the process by which we determine guilt may be jeopardized if the
special confidence that the public bestows on a jury's verdict is
undermined.
We do not penalize a defendant for the error by the judge in this
trial. See Commonwealth v. Millyan, 399 Mass. 171, 188 (1987).
We uphold this judge's reduction in verdict because, from our
reading of the transcript and our review of all other reported murder
and manslaughter convictions involving the battery of young
children, we conclude that the judge acted within his discretion in
determining that a conviction of manslaughter was more consonant
with justice than a conviction of murder.
II. The Defendant's Appeal
Woodward argues eight issues, only two of which need concern us:
if we affirm the judge's verdict reduction and sentence, she waives
all claims that seek a new trial, the appropriate relief were we to
agree with Woodward on any of her other six claims of error. We
address and reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment
or a required finding of not guilty.
1. The loss or suppression of evidence. Woodward requests the
"drastic remedy" of dismissing the indictment, Commonwealth v.
Lam Hue To, 391 Mass. 301, 314 (1984), due to the claimed
failure of the Commonwealth to provide her access to potentially
exculpatory evidence, and due to the loss of potentially exculpatory
tissue obtained during the autopsy by the medical examiner.
Woodward's defense relied substantially on a theory that Matthew
suffered from a previous head injury, incurred some weeks prior
to his death, that began to bleed again on the fateful day of his
hospitalization. The unavailable physical evidence that may have
proved useful to this theory includes: a clot of blood (fatal subdural
hematoma)); the skull fracture; two sections of dura; and subgaleal
(scalp) tissue. Our cases concerning the Commonwealth's failure
to disclose or preserve exculpatory evidence have not considered
the special circumstances attendant on a defendant's request for
access to, and the Commonwealth's responsibility for preserving,
physical evidence from a homicide victim's body. We review briefly
the circumstances of Woodward's claims.
Dr. Gerald Feigin conducted an autopsy on February 10, 1997. The
body was sent to Worcester for further radiological testing on February
11, and was released to Matthew's family on February 13. On February
11, Woodward filed a motion in the Newton Division of the District
Court Department for an "independent," second autopsy by her medical
experts. That motion was denied. A second, contemporaneous motion
that "all evidence in the possession, custody, or control of the
Commonwealth concerning this case be preserved and that no further
scientific testing be performed without first notifying [the defendant]"
was allowed in part by the judge; he ordered the Commonwealth to
preserve all evidence acquired by the medical examiner, but declined
to prohibit further testing without notice to Woodward. Woodward
challenges the motion denying a second autopsy. She also contends
that the Commonwealth suppressed exculpatory evidence when the
Commonwealth did not disclose to her the existence of a fracture
in Matthew's skull in a sufficiently timely way to enable Woodward's
expert to investigate the age of the fracture. We first address these
issues.
General Laws c. 38, § 4, authorizes the medical examiner to take
jurisdiction of a body and perform an autopsy when he is of the
opinion that a death was "due to violence." After investigation or
examination by the medical examiner's office, "the body shall be
released to the person with the proper legal authority to receive it,
including the surviving spouse, the next of kin, or any friend of the
deceased, who shall have priority in the order named." G. L. c. 38,
§ 13. While we do not interpret this statute to prohibit in all
circumstances a request such as the defendant's, the statute's silence
on this issue certainly does not support any statutorily based right
of a defendant to have access to a victim's body for an independent
autopsy. Rather, the statute's explicit acknowledgment of a legal
right of others to the body after the medical examiner completes his
duties indicates that whatever due process right a defendant may
claim must be balanced against statutory, as well as common-law
and constitutional, rights to the body of a victim's immediate family.
Another consideration also constrains a defendant's unlimited access
for purposes of a second autopsy. Autopsy procedures are inherently
destructive, making second autopsies to some extent impracticable.
The medical examiner, statutorily independent from law enforcement
agencies, is charged with the responsibility of developing objective
information as to a cause of death, and must, on request, provide a
defendant charged in a death with a copy of the autopsy report. G. L.
c. 38, § 7. We conclude that given these considerations, a defendant
should show cause and specific need in a motion for access to a
victim's body. Here, the defendant's written motion on its face did
not articulate a specific need for the second autopsy. At the hearing,
on questioning from the judge, Woodward did not claim that there
was anything wrong with the autopsy performed by the medical
examiner. She did argue that a second autopsy was needed to give
her adequate time to prepare her defense and allow an expert to
prepare testimony. Offsetting these concerns, the judge appropriately
acknowledged the interests of Matthew's family. Unlike most physical
evidence, neither the courts nor the parties, without substantial
reasons, may hold a homicide victim's body for a prolonged period of
time. Given the lack of specificity in Woodward's articulated need for
the second autopsy, it was not error for the judge to deny Woodward's
autopsy request.
Woodward also contends that the Commonwealth should have disclosed
to her the existence of a skull fracture before Matthew's body was
released for burial. Woodward's motion for an evidentiary hearing on
missing tissue is silent on the skull fracture and she did not press at
oral argument for relief on her contention that release of the skull for
burial after completion of the autopsy constituted prejudicial loss or
destruction of evidence. Unlike her claim on the lost dura tissue, she
did not seek preclusion of Commonwealth testimony on the skull fracture,
much less the drastic remedy of exhumation that she now proposes to us.
Woodward has not established her claim of prosecutorial misconduct
in the Commonwealth's failure to inform her of the skull fracture until her
murder arraignment hearing on February 13, 1997. There is nothing that
we can detect to suggest that the Commonwealth had considered what
forensic pathology evidence was critical for either the prosecution or
the defense before the arraignment. In any event, we need not resolve
this issue where it was not "fairly raised" below. Commonwealth v. Garcia,
409 Mass. 675, 678-679 (1991), and cases cited. These same
considerations apply to her claims concerning the failure of Dr. Feigin
to preserve any of the tissue evidencing hemorrhage in the scalp close
to the fracture site: they were not "fairly raised" below.
Woodward also claims relief from the loss of potentially exculpatory
evidence obtained during the autopsy. We focus on the "missing"
sections of dura. When Dr. Jan Leestma, an expert for Woodward,
examined the dura, he discovered that sections of the dura were missing.
The judge held a pretrial hearing on this issue, Dr. DeGirolami, the
Commonwealth's neuropathologist, testified that he had not been
informed by the medical examiner's office or anyone else of the physical
evidence preservation order. Following this hearing, the judge made a
finding that the tissue had been lost, but that the loss was not an act
committed in bad faith in an attempt to suppress evidence. He ruled
that the loss did not justify dismissal of the case because it was not
"so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally
unfair." Commonwealth v. Henderson, 411 Mass. 309, 311 (1991),
quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 61 (Stevens, J., concurring).
We find no error in the judge's ruling.
The Commonwealth's obligation to preserve exculpatory evidence
"grows out of [its] duty to disclose 'evidence favorable to an accused
upon request . . . where the evidence is material either to guilt or
to punishment.'" Commonwealth v. Sasville, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 15,
19 (1993), quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1984). A
defendant is entitled to relief "for the Commonwealth's failure to
preserve [evidence] if [she] establishes a 'reasonable possibility,
based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile imagination,' that
access to the [evidence] would have produced evidence favorable
to [her] cause." Commonwealth v. Neal, 392 Mass. 1, 12 (1984),
quoting State v. Michener, 25 Or. App. 523, 532 (1976). We have
no doubt that Woodward met the threshold showing that there was
a "reasonable possibility" that the missing evidence would be
favorable to her.
"[W]hen potentially exculpatory evidence is lost or destroyed, a
balancing test is employed to determine the appropriateness and
extent of remedial action. The courts must weigh the culpability of
the Commonwealth, the materiality of the evidence and the potential
prejudice to the defendant. . . . Our test does not require the
Commonwealth to prove good faith or earnest efforts to preserve the
evidence." Commonwealth v. Olszewski, 401 Mass. 749, 755 (1988),
S.C., 416 Mass. 707 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 835 (1994),
quoting Commonwealth v. Willie, 400 Mass. 427, 432 (1987). On
the first prong of this test, evaluation of the Commonwealth's culpability
for loss of potentially exculpatory evidence, had Dr. DeGirolami been
made aware of the judicial order on evidence preservation, he could
have ensured conscientious compliance to the extent feasible, in
one way or another. Dr. DeGirolami is not at fault for any loss. But
the failure to communicate to Dr. DeGirolami the importance of
preserving tissue obtained from the body, in light of the very specific
court order, is a failure of duty amounting to negligence by the medical
examiner.
We recognize that the prosecutor's responsibility for the negligence
of the medical examiner's office is more attenuated than its responsibility
for loss or suppression of evidence by law enforcement personnel. "Ordinarily
the prosecutor's obligation to disclose information is limited to that in the
possession of the prosecutor or police." Commonwealth v. Donahue, 396
Mass. 590, 596 (1986), quoting Commonwealth v. Liebman, 379 Mass.
671, 675 (1980), S.C., 388 Mass. 483 (1983). But "[t]he prosecuting
attorney's obligations . . . extend to material and information in the
possession or control of members of his staff and of any others who
have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who
either regularly report or with reference to the particular case have reported
to his office." Commonwealth v. St. Germain, 381 Mass. 256, 261-262 n.8
(1980), quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to
Discovery and Procedure Before Trial 2.1(d) (Approved Draft 1970). The
medical examiner is such a person. The Legislature contemplated
coordination of efforts between the medical examiner and the district
attorney in investigation of deaths where criminal violence appears to
have taken place. See G. L. c. 38, §§ 1, 4, 5. Particularly in light of the
court order, the medical examiner, a Commonwealth agent, was
accountable for preserving the dura tissue samples.
On the second prong of the test -- materiality of the lost evidence -- we
conclude that the missing right side section of dura was material to
Woodward's theory of the cause of Matthew's death. As for the third
prong of the test -- the prejudice to the defendant from the loss of
evidence -- we are not persuaded that the degree of prejudice is so
great as to warrant dismissal of the indictment. The jury heard an
abundance of evidentiary detail on, and medical opinion endorsing,
Woodward's theory from Dr. Leestma, based on his examination of
sections of dura covering areas other than that over the fatal hematoma.
The jury also heard from Woodward's other expert medical witnesses,
relying on a significant amount of other medical and autopsy data,
who gave opinions endorsing Woodward's theory of the cause of death.
The lost right side section of dura was an important piece of potentially
exculpatory evidence, but may well have been cumulative of other forensic
evidence marshaled by Woodward's experts. The loss of evidence in this
case was not so overwhelmingly prejudicial as in other cases in which
lost evidence was uniquely critical. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Henderson, supra at 311 (police officer's writing of victim's description
of assailant lost); Commonwealth v. Olszewski, supra at 752-753
(numerous items lost from crime scene, victim's autopsy, and victim's
vehicle); Commonwealth v. Gliniewicz, 398 Mass. 744, 748 (1986)
(pieces of boots, showing minute traces of blood linking defendant to
murder, destroyed during serological testing); Commonwealth v.
Sasville, supra at 18, 29 (fetal tissue from rape complainant's abortion,
available for genetic marker testing as evidence of identity of rapist,
destroyed at Commonwealth's direction). Of these cases, we affirmed
dismissal of an indictment in Henderson, supra at 310. The Appeals
Court in Sasville, ruling that the culpability of the Commonwealth
"amounted to a rare case of gross negligence and, in fact, comes
perilously close to supporting an inference of bad faith," reversed
the judgment below and ordered the indictment dismissed. Sasville,
supra at 24, 29. In Olszewski, supra at 750, and in Gliniewicz, supra
at 745, we did not order dismissal of the indictments, but remanded
for new trials. Neither the Commonwealth's culpability nor the
prejudice to the defendant is as great here as in those cases.
We agree with the judge that the loss of the dura evidence did not
justify dismissal of the indictment against Woodward. "Absent
egregious misconduct or at least a serious threat of prejudice, the
remedy of dismissal infringes too severely on the public interest in
bringing guilty persons to justice." Commonwealth v. Cinelli, 389
Mass. 197, 210, cert. denied. 464 U.S. 860 (1983). In light of Woodward's
request that we not remand for retrial, we need not reach the question
whether the judge's failure to exclude testimony presented by the
Commonwealth relevant to the missing dura tissue would be ground
for reversing the manslaughter conviction and remanding for retrial.
For similar reasons we conclude that the medical examiner's
negligence in failing to produce in a timely way the two closer, more
sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture and the prejudice
from their belated availability to Woodward were not so great as to
justify dismissing the indictment. In response to the admittedly belated
delivery of the photographs to Woodward, she requested only that
she be allowed to recall two of her experts, relief that the judge
granted in part. Her expert testified that the photographs provided
important confirming evidence that the skull fracture was weeks old.
In his ruling on Woodward's posttrial motion, the judge noted that this
testimony was "the last word on the photographs and the conclusions
to be drawn from them," and correctly determined that Woodward had
not been prejudiced by the late disclosure.
2. Conclusiveness of scientific evidence on healing. Woodward also
asks that we reverse her conviction and remand for a required finding
of not guilty. We consider this request in two ways: as a request for
review of the judge's denial of her motion for a required finding of not
guilty and, as Woodward urged in oral argument, a claim that her
expert's testimony at trial -- evidence of healing processes -- unrebutted
by the Commonwealth, conclusively establishes that Matthew's fatal
injury occurred weeks before the day of his hospitalization and precludes
a guilty verdict.
Our standard of review on motions for a required finding of not guilty is,
considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
"whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Cordle, 412
Mass. 172, 175 (1992). As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict
the jury had to conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case
beyond a reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense,
"spurned as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from
a corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal is
unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth presented
its own qualified experts, including many of the treating physicians, who
concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused on the day of his
hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively cross-examined
Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as we must, in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge did not err in
denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996).
Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of and
conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding of
periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding "alone,"
she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks old. Woodward
did not ask the judge to take judicial notice of this "conclusive" scientific
evidence. She did, however, argue that the judge consider this issue as
grounds for her postverdict motion for a required finding of not guilty.
Because the claim for judicial notice was not seasonably raised below,
we need not reach it here. We decline, in any event, either on review
of the judge's denial of a required finding of not guilty, or based on taking
judicial notice ourselves of scientific evidence of the age of Matthew's
head injury, to set aside Woodward's conviction. She cites us no other
similar case in which a lower court judge, much less an appellate court,
has so credited such evidence.
III. The Sentence
Because we decline to grant the principal relief requested by the
Commonwealth -- reinstatement of the jury verdict -- we consider the
Commonwealth's request that we set aside the sentence imposed,
and resentence Woodward ourselves or remand the case to the Superior
Court for resentencing by another judge. The Commonwealth seeks to
avail itself of these remedies under G. L. c. 211, § 3, our general
superintendence power. The relief requested has no precedent. It is
settled law that the task of imposing the sentence on a defendant
convicted of a crime rests with a judge in the trial court. It is not our
role to enter an order modifying or adjusting a sentence. If a sentence
is unlawful, we set aside the imposed sentence and remand the case
to the trial judge for appropriate resentencing. See Commonwealth v.
Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 804 (1984); Commonwealth v. Franks, 365
Mass. 74, 81-82 (1974). The Commonwealth, in its request for one
form of alternative relief -- that we take it upon ourselves to resentence
Woodward -- provides no reason why we should depart from this
well-settled principle.
As a second form of alternative relief, the Commonwealth asks that
we remand the case for resentencing of Woodward by another judge
in the Superior Court. That relief is also not available to the Commonwealth
for multiple reasons that the dissent ignores. To begin with, our review
of criminal sentences is limited. "We recognize that it is not within the
power of this court to review an otherwise lawful sentence. This authority
is delegated to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court . . . ."
Commonwealth v. Coleman, supra. See also Commonwealth v.Franks,
supra at 81 (1974) (lawful sentence is one "which is within the limits of
the applicable statutory provisions").
Our review of a defendant's sentence at the request of the Commonwealth
is exceedingly rare. We have allowed such appeals and remanded for
resentencing only in the procedural circumstances when a judge has
granted a defendant's post-sentencing motion, pursuant to Mass. R.
Crim. P. 29, 378 Mass. 899 (1979), to revise or revoke a sentence
originally imposed, and the Commonwealth has sought reimposition
of the original sentence. See Commonwealth v. Barclay, 424 Mass.
377, 379-380 (1997); Commonwealth v. Cowan, 422 Mass. 546, 547
(1996); Commonwealth v. Amirault, 415 Mass. 112, 115 (1993).
We have found statutory authority for Commonwealth appeals in that
line of cases by broadening our construction of G. L. c. 278, § 28E
(Appeals by Commonwealth). Amirault, supra at 113-115. That
statute, Section 28E, until amended by St. 1979, c. 344, § 45,
and construed in Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 534
(1981) (upholding Commonwealth's right to appeal from a postverdict
finding of not guilty pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 [b] [1], 378
Mass. 896 [1979]), and in Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 383 Mass.
543, 550 (1981) (upholding Commonwealth's right to appeal from
verdict reduction pursuant to rule 25 [b] [2]), had been interpreted
to authorize the Commonwealth's appeals only from pretrial motions.
See Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 375 Mass. 409, 413 (1978). In
Therrien, supra at 535, we sounded a note of caution that double
jeopardy principles require that the allowance of certain posttrial
defense motions "must be treated as terminating the criminal
prosecution without any right to appeal." General Laws c. 278,
§ 28E, of course, provides no basis on which the Commonwealth
can appeal from a sentence that has not been revised or revoked
at the request of a defendant, and there is no rule of criminal
procedure that permits the Commonwealth to take such an
appeal.
We may not vacate a sentence such as we have here, that was
within statutory limits, because it appears too lenient or too harsh.
We do not vacate a sentence unless we have been able to identify
clear legal error in the sentence, and certainly not because of a
"sense of unease that permeated the proceedings." Post at . When
asked to remand cases to increase defendants' sentences, our
jurisprudence confines us to cases of clear and identifiable error
in the sentence itself, for the most substantial reason -- our
fundamental common-law traditions and constitutional principles
of double jeopardy.
Under the common law, as recognized by our cases for more than
one century, a trial judge, and a trial judge only, could increase a
defendant's sentence if, and only if "no action had been taken under
the original sentences, such as delivering [the defendants] to the
house of correction to commence their terms," in other words "so
long as it remained unexecuted . . . ." District Attorney for the N. Dist.
v. Superior Court, 342 Mass. 119, 121, 123 (1961) (clarifying
common-law rule to allow reduction of a defendant's sentence after
execution), relying on Commonwealth v. Weymouth, 2 Allen 144, 147
(1861). A common-law rule is not absolute, and this rule has been
qualified by statutory developments. See Commonwealth v. Therrien,
383 Mass. 529, 532 (1981); Fine v. Commonwealth, 312 Mass. 252,
255-256 (1942). It nonetheless has been important in constitutional
interpretation of double jeopardy principles.
In Federal criminal cases, constitutional double jeopardy principles
limit the prosecution's right to appeal sentences to those cases
explicitly authorized by statute; such statutes limit the scope of
and narrowly focus such prosecution appeals. United States v.
DiFranceso, supra, 449 U.S. 117, 136 (1980); United States v.
Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 84-85 (1978). States risk offending the double
jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, see Benton v. Maryland,
395 U.S. 784, 795-796 (1969), if State appellate courts, absent
explicit and properly limited statutory authority, review otherwise
lawful sentences appealed by prosecutors. See Pennsylvania v.
Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28, 30-31 (1985); DiFrancesco, supra at
138-139. "It is clear from DiFrancesco and Goldhammer that when
a sentence is increased in a second proceeding 'the application
of the double jeopardy clause . . . turns on the extent and
legitimacy of a defendant's expectation of finality in that sentence.
If a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality, then an
increase in that sentence is prohibited . . . .'" Jones v. Thomas,
491 U.S. 376, 394 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting), quoting United States
v. Fogel, 829 F.2d 77, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1987). DiFrancesco, supra, makes
clear that the "extent" of a defendant's expectation of finality is
limited only when a statute specifically authorizes prosecution
appeals of sentences. Our authority under G. L. c. 211, § 3, contains
no explicit statutory authority to review sentences at the request of
the Commonwealth, and no other statute otherwise authorizes review
in these circumstances.
The "legitimacy" of a defendant's expectation of finality in a sentence
is, of course, undercut when a sentence is unlawful. Contrary to the
dissent's characterization, the Commonwealth makes no claim that
the sentence imposed on Woodward is unlawful. The Commonwealth
concedes that the sentence imposed falls within the broad range of
punishment established by statute for a manslaughter conviction. See
G. L. c. 265, § 13. Pressed several times at oral argument, the
Commonwealth refused, perhaps out of respect for our jurisprudence
on sentencing, to argue for consideration of the lawfulness of the
sentence on any ground independent from its claim of error on the
judge's postverdict reduction of Woodward's crime to manslaughter.
In the procedural posture of this appeal, the only legitimate way to arrive
at an increase in Woodward's sentence is to conclude that error
prejudicially infected the judge's decision to reduce the verdict, reinstate
the original conviction of murder in the second degree, and remand
the case to the Superior Court for imposition of the statutorily mandated
sentence. But, the dissent finds no error in the judge's postverdict
reduction of Woodward's crime to manslaughter.
The dissent suggests that the sentence should be reconsidered because
it is "tainted by legal error." Post at . Remanding on such a basis to
increase a sentence would mark a dramatic departure from our case
law and the constitutional principles relevant to increasing sentences
on the Commonwealth's appeal. We have never vacated a sentence
for the procedural "taints" identified by the dissent: an expedited
sentencing hearing and the possible resulting unavailability of the
victim's family to provide a second set of victim impact statements,
time constraints on yet further prosecution argument, or the failure of
the record to reflect factors and sentencing goals considered by the
judge in deciding Woodward's sentence. Sentencing proceedings
not infrequently have some or all of these features, as the dissent
recognizes.Post at n.2. Here, the Commonwealth acceded to the
hearing as scheduled, as the dissent also recognizes, did not ask
for a continuance for its own sake or in order for Matthew's family
to be in attendance, and articulated sufficient reasons for the sentence
that it recommended. The Commonwealth's time to prepare for
argument on sentencing was not limited to the hours between the
morning release of the judge's order reducing the verdict and the
sentencing hearing scheduled for that afternoon. It had ample
opportunity to prepare during the six-day interim between the hearing
on the posttrial motion and the release of the judge's order, when
the only remaining matter to be addressed was resentencing, in the
event that the Commonwealth lost on Woodward's posttrial motion.
Nor can one conclude from the expedited sentencing hearing that
the judge had failed to deliberate fully his sentencing decision in
light of the abundant information available to him concerning the
defendant and the victim's family before and during the course of this
most amply explored case. We also do not draw any adverse
conclusion from the sparseness of the record of the sentencing
decision: we do not require a judge to give reasons for a sentence.
See Commonwealth v. Banker, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 976, 979 (1986).
None of the alleged flaws in the sentencing proceeding vitiates the
sentence singly. Only by the addition of something ineffable to the
sum of these alleged flaws does the dissent suggest impropriety of
the sentence, but that ineffable something is not identified.
The dissent also intimates that, because Woodward asked that the
jury not receive a manslaughter instruction, the sentence for
manslaughter imposed by the judge is inappropriate. We do not
limit a judge's postverdict discretion to correct injustice because it
may have been brought about due to a defendant's trial strategy,
unsuccessful in hindsight. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Millyan,
399 Mass. 171, 188-189 (1987) (failure of defendant to request
intoxication instruction because it was inconsistent with trial
strategy did not preclude verdict reduction, in light of evidence
of intoxication); Commonwealth v. Franks, 365 Mass. 74, 82 (1974)
(failure of defendant to except to judge's charge to jury does not
preclude court from vacating sentence imposed for crime not
committed).
Finally, we have criticized the judge for his error in acceding to
Woodward's request not to give a manslaughter instruction. His
ruling did have a basis in our cases, for we have declined to penalize
defendants who adopt an "all-or-nothing" strategy. His ruling does
not suggest, nor does the dissent imply, that the judge committed
a legal error purposefully to favor Woodward. There is no complaint
about his day-to-day handling of this lengthy and complex trial.
The Commonwealth's only argument that conceivably could be
interpreted as grounds for revisiting Woodward's sentence is that,
in reducing Woodward's verdict and sentence, the judge must have
found that Woodward had committed "no crime," and that the judge
"converted" her conviction of murder to an "acquittal." That interpretation
of the judge's actions is not convincing. We have noted that the judge
on a rule 25 (b) (2) motion need not draw the same conclusions from
the evidence as did the jury. See Commonwealth v. Keough, 385
Mass. 314, 319-320 (1982); Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 383 Mass.
543, 555 (1981). But this judge, in reducing this jury's verdict to
manslaughter, must have accepted the jury's finding that Woodward's
actions caused Matthew Eappen's death; he had the option to,
but did not, order the entry of a finding of not guilty. Mass. R. Crim.
P. 25 (b) (2). Having had the opportunity to view all the witnesses
face-to-face, including Woodward who testified, he concluded that
Woodward was guilty of a most serious crime -- for manslaughter
is such a crime. We do not view the judgment against Woodward
as a light matter. She stands guilty of causing an infant's violent
death. The outcome of this criminal trial most assuredly was not
an "acquittal."
The dissent claims that this case is exceptional. It is not. Judges
do reduce jury verdicts to some lesser degree of crime. The law
permits them to do so. Judges regularly sentence defendants to
time served. The law permits them to do it. What would be
exceptional is the disposition urged by the dissent. Whatever the
scope of our powers, it does not allow us to act on the basis of
impressions and characterizations that have no correlate in acknowledged
rules or doctrines. It is the essence of the rule of law that exceptions
that burden defendants not be made unless justified by some rule or
principle that we would be willing to follow in other cases.
Because the sentence imposed by the judge is lawful, we decline
to remand the case for consideration of an increase in the defendant's
sentence. The conviction of manslaughter, together with the sentence
imposed, shall stand. The cases are remanded to the county court for
entry of an order denying the Commonwealth's petition for G. L. c.
211, § 3, relief and the defendant's motion to dismiss the Commonwealth's
petition, and affirming the actions of the Superior Court judge in reducing
the conviction of the defendant and sentencing her to time served.
So Ordered.
GREANEY, J. (dissenting in part, with whom Abrams and Ireland,
JJ., join). I conclude that we should vacate the sentence imposed
and have Woodward resentenced by another Superior Court judge.
This case presents circumstances unique to our rule 25 (b) (2)
jurisprudence. Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979).
In no other case has the trial judge denied a request by the
Commonwealth for an obviously necessary lesser included
offense instruction at the request of the defendant, and subsequently
reduced a verdict returned by the jury on the greater offense to the
lesser offense which the jury had been precluded from considering.
The court correctly points out that the judge's failure to instruct on
manslaughter was error. The judge improperly acquiesced in Woodward's
counseled position that such an instruction should not be given, and he
did so in reliance on case law that did not support that position.This
error created the basis for the judge's subsequent reduction of
Woodward's conviction to manslaughter.
What further sets this case apart from most, if not all, others is
that this chain of events was set in motion by Woodward, who,
after examination in open court, and with the assistance and
advice of her lawyers, knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the
choices that would be given to the jury. Woodward pressed for
those choices despite having full knowledge that her strategic
decision might be rejected by the jury. Woodward's tactics, with
the judge's approbation, transformed the trial from a search for the
truth to a high stakes game of chance. In a phrase, Woodward
brought the result on herself. There is much force in the Commonwealth's
argument that the judge's actions appear "to have manipulated the
trial's outcome and marginalized the jury, all to Woodward's benefit."
Ante at . To their credit, the jury steeled themselves to their duty
and returned a verdict finding Woodward guilty of the unlawful and
intentional killing of an eight month old child.
The judge's error created a deep structural flaw in the trial, resulting
in a sense of unease that permeated the proceedings that followed,
and which was exacerbated by the nature of the sentencing
proceedings following the verdict reduction. It is this singular
series of events from which the Commonwealth's concerns about
the propriety of Woodward's sentence arise.
As the court states, ante at , the Commonwealth concedes that
the sentence imposed falls within the range of punishment prescribed
in G. L. c. 265, § 13, for a manslaughter conviction. Contrary to the
court's reading of the record, however, the Commonwealth indeed
argues that the sentence imposed on Woodward is nonetheless
unlawful, basing its claim on the sentence being "inextricably
intertwined" with the judge's "unlawful reduction in verdict." While
the court concludes that, despite the instruction error, the judge
acted within his discretion on Woodward's rule 25 (b) (2) motion
in reducing the verdict to manslaughter, there are significant concerns
raised by the sentencing procedures employed in this case, and by
the particular sentence imposed, that the sentence should be
considered independently from the verdict reduction. The Commonwealth
also urges our review of the sentence pursuant to our authority under
G. L. c. 211, § 3, "to set aside a sentence imposed contrary to law."
See Commonwealth v. Cowan, 422 Mass. 546, 547 (1996) (affirming
single justice of this court who vacated an improper sentence,
stating "[i]t is well within this court's general superintendence power
to correct a sentence that has been imposed contrary to law").
Thus, the legality of Woodward's sentence was adequately raised
by the Commonwealth, and the concerns now addressed are inherent
in its request that this court review the sentence.
In view of the procedural posture of this case -- the uniqueness of
which the judge was well aware -- I am particularly troubled by the
dispatch with which the judge scheduled the sentencing hearing on
the same afternoon that he released his postverdict order reducing
Woodward's conviction, and by the cursory hearing that he then
conducted, which was followed almost immediately by the time-served
sentence.
My review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing suggests that
the Commonwealth was not adequately prepared on such short
notice to make a forceful argument on the appropriate sentence
for Woodward's manslaughter conviction.The short notice also
prevented Matthew's parents from attending the hearing. While
the Commonwealth noted this fact, it acceded to the judge's
suggestion that he consider the victim impact statements the
Eappens had made previously. These procedures contravene
the pertinent provisions of G. L. c. 258B, § 3, that family members
are entitled to be present at all court proceedings related to the
offense committed against the victim, § 3 (b), and to be heard
through an oral and written victim impact statement at sentencing
about the effects of the crime on them, and as to a recommended
sentence, § 3 (p). I question whether the statute permitted the judge
to proceed so expeditiously with sentencing where the record does
not reflect whether the Eappens chose not to be present at the
hearing, or because he provided so little notice of the hearing (despite
having said at the conclusion of the postverdict motions hearing that
he would provide "ample notice" if further proceedings were required),
they were effectively precluded from attending. As a result, not only
might the judge's expediency have deprived the Eappens of their
statutory right, but the judge did not have the benefit of their thoughts
in determining Woodward's sentence on the manslaughter conviction,
which may well have differed from those expressed in their earlier
statements. In any event, the haste with which the sentencing hearing
was conducted, followed by the hurried disposition at the conclusion
of the hearing, left little time for the judge to give proper consideration
to the Eappens' earlier victim impact statements.
Moreover, it is not apparent from the record of the sentencing hearing
what factors and characteristics the judge considered in deciding
Woodward's sentence. We have said that "[the] sentence should
reflect the judge's careful assessment of several goals: punishment,
deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation." Commonwealth
v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. 88, 92 (1993). The transcript shows, in this
regard, that the judge merely stated that "[t]he same considerations
that informed my decision to lower the verdict apply here," and that
"[i]t is in my judgment time to bring the judicial part of this extraordinary
matter to a compassionate conclusion. Taking all of the circumstances
into account . . . ." These statements, combined with the cursory
quality of the hearing and the haste in sentencing, suggest a rush to
end the judicial proceedings and a failure to assess carefully all of the
goals of sentencing in Woodward's case. In his memorandum reducing
the verdict, the judge does not address the sentencing goals recognized
in Goodwin, nor does he consider imposing on Woodward any
appropriate terms of probation, despite his own conclusion that she
was responsible for the death of a young child who was entrusted to
her care.
In addition, the judge states in his memorandum that he "may not,
however, take into account the feelings of those [who Matthew's]
death has affected." While this is an appropriate statement for
purposes of reducing the verdict, it nonetheless further suggests he
may have failed properly to consider for purposes of sentencing
the impact of Woodward's crime on Matthew's family.
The Commonwealth argues in its brief that "[t]he combination of
the judge's actions created the appearance, and must have given
the public the distinct impression, that the [judge] was manipulating
the outcome of the trial and engineering an acquittal." We have
said that, "[b]ecause the role of the sentencing court is, by nature,
'judgmental,' . . . a judge 'must maintain a stance of scrupulous
impartiality and not permit [himself or herself] to become identified
with the interests of either the prosecutor or the defense counsel.'"
Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 809 (1984), quoting
Commentary, III ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing
Alternatives and Procedures, standard 18-6.9, at 496 (2d ed.
Supp. 1982). We also have said that criminal proceedings must
have "the appearance of fairness and impartiality necessary to
our judicial system. '[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice.'"
(Footnote omitted.) Commonwealth v. Howard, 367 Mass. 569, 572
(1975), quoting Offett v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954).
Here, it appears that the judge identified himself with Woodward's
cause, compromising the public's confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of our courts.
The combination of these circumstances leads me to conclude that
Woodward's sentence is tainted by legal error and thus was not lawfully
imposed. Accordingly, "justice [would] best be served if [Woodward were]
sentenced again," Commonwealth v. Franks, 369 Mass. 608, 610
(1976), by another judge, "based solely on relevant criteria of sentencing."
Commonwealth v. Coleman, supra at 810-811 n.15. A new sentencing
judge, after appropriate study, reflection, and an opportunity for the parties
to be heard, might impose the same period of incarceration as was
imposed by the judge here, or might increase Woodward's penalty. I
would recommend that a judge, in resentencing Woodward, consider
imposing a suitable period of probation that makes her subject to
appropriate conditions, including the following two special conditions:
First, as a felon convicted of a grave act of child abuse, Woodward
should not in the future be entrusted with the care of the children of
others, whether for remuneration or otherwise.
Second, Woodward and her representatives or assignees should be
prohibited from engaging in any activity generating any profit or financial
benefit relating to the publication or dissemination by any form of media of
facts or circumstances relating to her crime, her experience in the
judicial system, or anything else associated with the tragic event for
which she stands convicted. See Commonwealth v. Power, 420 Mass.
410 (1995) (upholding a similar special condition of probation with respect
to Katherine A. Power, a felon convicted of manslaughter, whose story
drew national media attention).
These measures comprise an appropriate remedy that would rectify
any harm caused by the legal error, engender confidence in the
fairness and impartiality of our judicial system, maintain the dignity
and integrity of our courts, and bring rightful closure to this difficult
case.
______________________
Footnotes to majority opinion:
1. On October 27, 1997, before the case was sent to the jury, the
Commonwealth challenged pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, the judge's
refusal to give a manslaughter instruction before a single justice of
this court, who denied the Commonwealth's requested relief without
a hearing.
2. The Commonwealth sought a stay, pending appeal, of the judge's
order reducing the jury verdict of murder in the second degree to
manslaughter and of Woodward's time-served sentence imposed
by the judge, and an order reinstating the jury verdict of murder in
the second degree. In the alternative, the Commonwealth sought to
vacate the posttrial order and sentence, and a new ruling on
Woodward's motion to reduce the jury verdict or an order remanding
Woodward's motion to reduce the jury verdict to the Superior Court
for a hearing and determination by another judge.
3. The Commonwealth may not now, postconviction, challenge the
judge's jury instructions. As noted above, note 1, supra, prior to the
conviction the Commonwealth appealed to a single justice for
interlocutory relief from the judge's decision to decline a manslaughter
instruction. The Commonwealth did not appeal from the single justice's
order denying relief. See S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).
We therefore address here the Commonwealth's claimed error in the
jury instructions only on the grounds of the Commonwealth's over-all
argument that the judge abused his discretion in refusing an instruction
on manslaughter and then reducing Woodward's conviction to
manslaughter.
4. The Commonwealth presented evidence, contested by Woodward,
that the head injury resulted from a contemporaneous combination of
violent shaking of the child's body and a forceful slamming of his head
against a fixed, hard object.
5. "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought,
or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted
commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life
[felony-murder] is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not
appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree." G. L.
c. 265, § 1.
6. The dissent claims that this case is set apart from most because of
Woodward's strategy of "knowingly and voluntarily [agreeing] to the
choices that would be given to the jury." Post at . We have never said
that a defendant's gamble on an "all-or-nothing" strategy creates a
structural flaw" in the trial. To the contrary, cases hold that in certain
circumstances a defendant may make such a choice. See Commonwealth
v. Roberts, 407 Mass. 731, 737 (1990); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 35 Mass.
App. Ct. 788, 791-792 (1994). On other occasions, we have said that
such a strategy is "irrelevant" to whether a judge should charge on a
lesser included offense. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass. 716,
725 n.8 (1995).
7. The Roberts case, supra, does not stand for the proposition, as the
judge seemed to believe, that the defendant has an unqualified right to
elect, evidence permitting, whether or not the jury receive a lesser
included instruction. In that case, the Commonwealth did not request
an instruction on the lesser included offense of larceny, and we held that
a judge is not required to charge on the lesser crime, if there is no
request. In such circumstances, we said, a judge commits no error by
respecting a defendant's strategy to submit "an all-or-nothing choice to
the jury." Id.. The judge also relied on Pagen, supra, an Appeals Court
decision, holding that a judge, confronted with a defense strategy not
to seek a manslaughter instruction, "has no duty to undercut such
a strategy by giving an instruction which the defendant on appeal
would surely argue tempted the jury to a compromise verdict adverse
to the defendant." Id. at 792. While there does not appear to have
been any request from the Commonwealth for a manslaughter instruction
in that case, we disavow dictum that may suggest that the judge must
honor, in the face of the Commonwealth's objection, the defendant's
choice not to have a manslaughter instruction.
9. Woodward argued that providing a jury with multiple options of
guilty verdicts on successively less serious crimes or degrees of
culpability may prejudice a defendant by inviting a jury to choose a
compromise verdict unwarranted by the evidence. If a lesser included
offense is not supported by the evidence, the judge should refuse to
give such an instruction. See Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 27 Mass.
App. Ct. 655, 660 (1989). A judge may also enter a finding of not
guilty, if the Commonwealth has presented insufficient evidence to
support the offense charged in the indictment. See Mass. R. Crim.
P. 25 (a), 378 Mass. 896 (1979). Because the judge has the power
to control what charges go to the jury, the risk to a defendant of a
"compromise" verdict is minimized and any potential abuse from
prosecutors "overcharging" defendants is checked. Here, the judge
considered whether the Commonwealth inappropriately prosecuted
the case on a theory of murder in the first degree, and concluded
that "[t]he evidence in this case sufficed, however thinly, to support
an indictment alleging extreme cruelty [or] atrocity," and that the
medical evidence permitted "the prosecution consistently [to]
urge[] first-degree murder" at trial. Thus, the judge apparently
determined that the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence
to submit the matter to the jury.
10. Rule 25 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure,
entitled "Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty," states in
part that "the judge may on motion set aside the verdict and order
a new trial, or order the entry of a finding of not guilty, or order the
entry of a finding of guilty of any offense included in the offense charged
in the indictment or complaint."
11. Prior to 1939, only a trial judge could order a new trial, but had
no power to reduce a jury verdict. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 278, § 33E). In
1939, the Legislature granted to this court the power to consider
the facts of a capital case, as well as the law, and authorized us to
order a new trial if justice so required. St. 1939, c. 341. In 1962, the
Legislature further authorized us to consider a defendant's degree of
guilt and order a reduction in the verdict in appropriate capital cases,
in lieu of a new trial. St. 1962, c. 453. In 1979, the Legislature granted
trial judges the power to enter a finding of guilty of any lesser included
offense in all criminal cases. G. L. c. 278, § 11, as appearing in St.
1979, c. 344, § 43A.
12. We have surveyed the opinions of this court and the Appeals
Court since the 1979 amendment to G. L. c. 278, § 11, that gave
trial judges for the first time the power to enter a finding of guilty of
any lesser included offense in all criminal cases. St. 1979, c. 344, § 43A.
We have identified only the following ten cases in which the
Commonwealth appealed from verdict reductions ordered by trial judges:
13. We would undertake an independent analysis under G. L. c. 278,
§ 33E, if a judge denied a defendant's motion for a reduction in verdict
from murder in the first degree. See Gaulden, supra at 557 n.10.
14. "Malice" is the element that distinguishes murder from manslaughter.
See Commonwealth v. Skinner, 408 Mass. 88, 93 (1990), and cases
cited. "Without malice, an unlawful killing can be no more than
manslaughter." Commonwealth v. Judge, 420 Mass. 433, 437 (1995).
"Malice as an element of murder may be proved by evidence
establishing any one of three facts beyond a reasonable doubt: if,
without justification or excuse, (1) the defendant intended to kill th
victim (the so-called first prong of malice), or (2) the defendant
intended to do the victim grievous bodily harm (the second prong),
or (3) in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonably
prudent person would have known that, according to common
experience, there was a plain and strong likelihood that death would
follow the contemplated act (the third prong).Commonwealth v. Grey,
399 Mass. 469, 470 n.1 (1987)." Commonwealth v. Sneed, 413 Mass.
387, 388 n.1 (1992). In this case, the jury received an instruction on
the third prong of malice only, and must, therefore, have returned
their verdict after finding that, in the circumstances known to
Woodward, a reasonably prudent person would have known that,
according to common experience, there was a plain and strong
likelihood that Matthew's death would follow her actions.
15. In our survey of all reported cases of fatal battery of children,
only in Commonwealth v. Starling, 382 Mass. 423, 425-427 (1981),
was there no evidence in the record of prior injuries or a pattern of
abuse, although in that case evidence of the fatal battery itself
could have warranted a finding of multiple severe blows to the child.
16. There was evidence of a healing fracture to Matthew's wrist.
There was no evidence that Woodward was responsible for this
injury, and the Commonwealth never claimed as much.
17. The dissent does not take issue with our conclusion that there
was no error in the judge's verdict reduction under rule 25 (b)(2) Post at .
18. The Commonwealth attacks the judge's reasons for reaching
manslaughter because his "unparticularized finding that the defendant
was 'a little rough' with the baby fails . . . altogether to describe an act
which has a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would
result." We do not agree that the judge made a "finding" that Woodward
was only "a little rough" in handling Matthew. Rather, in analyzing
whether Woodward acted with malice, he quoted her testimony,
letting Woodward's words speak for themselves. Her words suggest
a range of possible force with which she may have handled Matthew,
from which a jury, judge, or reviewing court could draw various
conclusions, including that her testimony minimized the amount of
force actually inflicted and that her rough handling actually was sufficient
to endanger a baby's life. In the judge's second reference, in his
analysis of alternative causation, the judge does not quote Woodward's
exact words, but suggests that Woodward "did handle [Matthew]
roughly" (emphasis in original). As for the broader thrust of the
Commonwealth's argument that "a little rough" handling fails to meet
the measure of battery sufficient to support manslaughter, such a
conclusion does not help the Commonwealth justify restoration of the
murder verdict, but rather would warrant a verdict reduction to the even
lesser included offense of assault and battery.
19. Woodward's other claims of error are that (1) the judge refused
the jury's request during deliberations to have a portion of testimony
read back to them; (2) conviction of murder based on third prong malice
without requiring a jury also to find that Woodward was subjectively
aware of the risk of death from her actions violates fundamental
common law principles of moral culpability underlying "the homicide
grading system"; (3) the judge provided a spontaneous, supplemental
jury instruction that, in contrast to earlier instructions, omitted the temporal
element of the Commonwealth's burden of proof -- the date on which the
defendant's actions caused Matthew's death; (4) the judge refused to
instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of disproving
that the homicide was accidental; (5) the judge denied Woodward's
motion to admit the results of her polygraph examination; and (6) the
judge refused to question prospective jurors as to their knowledge of
and attitudes toward one of Woodward's defense counsel because of
his prior work as defense counsel in a controversial murder trial.
20. Woodward's experts testified, in part, that a violent shaking and
impact against a flat, hard surface, causing a severe shaken-impact
injury, could not have happened because Matthew exhibited no
accompanying neck, spinal, or other bodily injury, because there
was no evidence of soft tissue subgaleal (scalp) swelling at the fracture
site commensurate with a recent violent impact even on a sensitive,
preoperative CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan, and that
there was no broken skin. In addition, the presence of serum observed
by the neurosurgeon who removed the subdural hematoma was
confirmation, she argues, of an older injury.
21. The clot was removed during the initial surgery Matthew underwent
at the Children's Hospital and was not preserved. Woodward introduced
opinion testimony that the clot could have been preserved for later
neuropathological evaluation. She does not press the issue here.
22. A two and one-half inch fracture of the skull was identified in X-rays
by treating physicians only after the emergency surgery. The fracture
was examined more fully in the autopsy. Although Dr. Gerald Feigin,
the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, removed and
preserved various tissue, a section of the skull with the fracture was
not preserved and was presumably released along with the body to
Matthew's family for burial. X-ray images of the skull fracture were
taken before, but not after, Matthew's death. One of Woodward's
medical experts, Dr. Michael Baden, testified that X-rays of the fracture
taken after death would have revealed any healing processes evidencing
the age of injury more clearly than X-rays taken before Matthew's death.
In addition, photographs were taken of the skull fracture. Although
some of these photographs were available to Woodward during
discovery, the medical examiner's office produced eighteen additional
photographs late in the trial on Friday, October 24, 1997, shortly before
the final day of testimony on Monday, October 27, 1997. Two of these
photographs were sharply focused close-ups of the fracture and
showed its edges more clearly than other previously produced evidence.
The judge allowed Dr. Baden, one of two available expert witnesses
for Woodward, to return and testify concerning these photographs.
Dr. Baden pointed out what he detected as signs of healing on the
edges of the fracture, that, in his opinion, indicated an older injury.
23. The dura is a tough, fibrous tissue lining the inside of the skull.
During neuropathological examination of preserved dura tissue after
the autopsy, a member of the neuropathological team cut out two
sections, approximately three by four centimeters each, one from
the right side of the dura immediately above the subdural hematoma
and a second from the left side of the dura. A thin slice of the section
from the right side was preserved and one slide from this slice was
provided to Woodward. Dr. Umberto DeGirolami, the neuropathologist
working with the medical examiner's office, testified in a pretrial hearing
that the remainder of the right side section and the left side section had
been discarded. At trial, Dr. DeGirolami testified that the sections had
not been discarded, that he had been able to "reconstruct" the dura and
that no pieces were missing. The neuropathologist testifying for Woodward,
Dr. Jan Leestma, after reviewing the "reconstruction," maintained that
pieces of dura were missing.
24. Dr. Feigin testified to the presence of a hemorrhage in the scalp close
to the fracture site. Dr. Baden, Woodward's expert, concluded from
preoperative and postoperative CAT scans that the hemorrhage was an
artifact of the surgery to save Matthew's life and was not present when
Matthew was admitted to the hospital.
25. Woodward proposed that her expert examine the body "under the
auspices of the Medical Examiner's Office," and did not seek to remove
the body to another location.
26. The District Court judge who ruled on these early pretrial motions
is not the Superior Court judge who tried the case.
27. To the extent that Woodward asks us to consider the Commonwealth's
opposition to her motion for a second autopsy as equivalent to suppression
of exculpatory evidence, her argument lacks merit. Moreover, we do not
share Woodward's characterization of the Commonwealth's position at the
hearing as "groundless arguments," "prejudicial conduct," and "obstructionist
tactics." Our duty in reviewing a preliminary ruling such as this is not to review
the Commonwealth's argument for evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, but
to review whether the judge acted properly in denying Woodward's autopsy
request.
28. Woodward does not claim here that her failure to conduct a second
autopsy delayed her trial preparation.
29. In hindsight, the optimal balancing and reconciliation of each party's
interests could have been accomplished by allowing Woodward's expert
to be present at the autopsy, had she requested such relief. She did not.
At Woodward's arraignment for assault and battery on February 6, 1997,
she was informed that Matthew was in critical condition with a massive
brain injury and was likely to die. Woodward made no request to have a
witness present at an anticipated autopsy at that time or in the next few
days as hope for Matthew's survival dimmed and was extinguished.
Represented by counsel, Woodward knew or should have known that an
autopsy would be ordered in a death in these circumstances and that it
was likely to take place expeditiously in the aftermath of death. Nor did
she ask, on February 11, to have a representative present at any continuing
testing by the medical examiner. We see no reason why a judge may not
order an opportunity for autopsy participation by a person charged in a
homicide in an appropriate case.
30. Nor did Woodward claim before or during the trial that the release
for burial of the scalp tissue constituted prejudicial loss of evidence by
the Commonwealth.
31. The dura, with the brain, was preserved after autopsy and not released
to the victim's family.
32. Woodward also had alleged that some brain tissue was missing. After
hearing, the judge concluded that Woodward had not established that
brain tissue had been lost or destroyed, but rather that missing brain
tissue could be attributed to natural deterioration over time and from
ordinary handling. Woodward does not challenge that finding.
33. For example, Dr. Leestma testified that the missing left side section
of the dura was of "minimal" importance for purposes of his analysis, but
that the right side section was "the bullseye of the medical problem that
was going on." Dr. Leestma further testified that the slide from the right
side section of the dura, provided by the Commonwealth from Dr.
DeGirolami's work, was prepared in a way that was difficult to interpret.
34. At the pretrial hearing on the missing tissue, the chief medical
examiner, Dr. Richard Evans, admitted that he been made aware of the
court order.
35. We agree with the judge that there was no evidence of bad faith by
the Commonwealth.
36. Contrary to Woodward's argument, the judge's decision to allow only
one expert witness of Woodward's choice to return to the stand and
testify on the photographs was not prejudicial. It is within the judge's
discretion to limit potentially cumulative testimony on the same matter.
See Commonwealth v. Durning, 406 Mass. 485, 495 (1990).
37. Dr. Leestma, a leading forensic neuropathologist and the author of
an authoritative text on forensic neuropathology, produced magnified
microscopic photographic images of a specimen from the epidural
surface of the dura, that side of the dura facing the interior of the skull,
and testified to detecting "osteoblast" cells in the periosteum taken
from a sample of the dura that he concluded came from the site of the
fracture. He testified that these were signs of healing that marked
the age of the skull fracture as "weeks" old.
38. Because both prosecution and defense experts agreed that the
fatal subdural hematoma and the fractured skull were caused by the
same event, proof that the skull fracture was weeks old is, Woodward
rgues, an "outcome-determinative issue."
39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of Dr.
Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic images
of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination is not
entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he did not know
the precise location from which he had taken the critical dura samples
and that the bone material he observed (excluding "vital reaction")
could have been an artifact of the autopsy and therefore come from a
location other than from the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity
is sufficient in itself for us to reject Woodward's request that we give
conclusive weight to Dr. Leestma's findings.
40. More frequently, but still only in rare circumstances, have we
reviewed sentences when a defendant on appeal claims that the
sentence is unlawful, a question that we have interpreted narrowly.
Our review has been limited to: the constitutionality of a sentence,
see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Therriault, 401 Mass. 237, 240 (1987);
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 910-913 (1976);
sentences imposed for crimes of which the defendant was not
convicted, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. 88, 93
(1993); Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 370 Mass. 217, 223-225 (1976);
and increased sentences following retrial wherein a judge failed to
articulate reasons to overcome a presumption of vindictiveness
against the defendant for successfully exercising his right to appeal
error in a first trial, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hyatt, 419 Mass.
815, 819-820 (1995). We have never reviewed a sentence, even at
the request of a defendant, where the claim rests on some alleged
legal error at trial, to say nothing of a sentence "tainted by legal
error." Post at .
41. The difference in the procedural circumstances of those cases
and this one is critical: those defendants had initiated review in the
trial court of the originally imposed sentences, and the Commonwealth's
appeals arose only in response to the defendants' success in gaining
reduced sentences. In this case, review of the sentence has not
been initiated by Woodward.
42. We have observed that a judge "has considerable latitude within
the framework of the applicable statute to determine the appropriate
individualized sentence." Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. 88, 92 (1993).
43. In Commonwealth v. Weymouth, 2 Allen 144, 147 (1861), we said,
"Until something was done to carry the sentence into execution, by
subjecting the prisoner to the warrant in the hands of the officer,
no right or privilege to which he was entitled was taken away or
invaded, by revoking the sentence first pronounced, and substituting
in its stead the one under which he now stands charged." See
Commonwealth v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, 323 (1877). Later, we
acknowledged that "from early times the importance of the fact that
a sentence has not been executed in whole or in part has been
recognized in cases where the power of the court to amend or set
aside and impose a new sentence has been involved." Fine v.
Commonwealth, 312 Mass. 252, 256 (1942).
44. See, e.g., G. L. c. 278, §§ 28A-28C, allowing, on a defendant's appeal,
amendment of judgment and resentencing, including an increase in
sentence. See Walsh v. Commonwealth, 358 Mass. 193, 198 (1970)
(sentence increase not double jeopardy because "[i]t is only at a
defendant's request that the Appellate Division acts"); Hicks v.
Commonwealth, 345 Mass. 89, 91 (1962), cert. denied 374 Mass.
839 (1963) (no need to consider common-law limitations on revision
of sentences by the trial judge once sentence has been imposed,
because Legislature has power to grant Appellate Division continuing
jurisdiction to revise a sentence on an appeal initiated by a defendant).
45. See United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 307 (1931) ("The
distinction that the court during the same term may amend a sentence
so as to mitigate the punishment, but not so as to increase it, is . . .
based . . . upon the ground that to increase the penalty is to subject
the defendant to double punishment for the same offense in violation
of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which
provides that no person shall 'be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb'"). See also United States v.
DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 134 (1980) ("our Double Jeopardy
Clause was drafted with the common-law protections in mind. . . . This
accounts for the established practice in the federal courts that the
sentencing judge may recall the defendant and increase his sentence,
at least (and we venture no comment on this limitation) so long as he
has not yet begun to serve that sentence"), citing United States v.
Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 340-342 (1975); Green v. United States, 355 U.S.
184, 200-201 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); Ralston v. Robinson,
454 U.S. 201, 224 (1981) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("Whether the
well-settled rule prohibiting judges from increasing the severity of a
sentence after it has become final is constitutionally mandated, it
is unquestionably the sort of rule that judges may not disregard without
express authorization from Congress").
46. Double jeopardy principles do not bar an appeal by the
Commonwealth of a reduction in verdict pursuant to rule 25 (b) (2).
See Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 383 Mass. 543, 550 (1981). See
also Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 531 (1981). There
is, of course, another way that Woodward's sentence could be
increased -- if a second trial were held. Had we ordered a new trial,
Woodward could have received a more severe sentence on a second
conviction, see North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 721-722
(1969), although we have limited the basis on which a defendant
may receive an increased sentence on retrial. See Commonwealth
v. Hyatt, 419 Mass. 815, 819-822 (1995) (requiring that judge
articulate reasons for an increased sentence on retrial, based on
information not before the first sentencing judge). Woodward,
given our resolution of the Commonwealth's appeal, does not
seek a new trial. Were we to increase her sentence, as advocated
by the dissent, we would also have to reach the merits of Woodward's
other claimed errors. One or more of these claimed errors may have
required a retrial, an outcome that, it appears, neither the
Commonwealth nor the dissenting Justices believe would be in
the interest of any party or the public.
47. The dissent makes much of a potential violation of rights of
Matthew's family, citing G. L. c. 258B, § 3. The point was never
argued by the Commonwealth. In any event, our reading of the
exchange on this point between the judge and the prosecutor
indicates that the judge was open to receiving at that time or later
any additional statements that the Eappens may have wanted to
submit, and that the prosecutor was fully empowered to represent,
as he did, the Eappens' willingness to rely on their earlier victim impact
statements for purposes of Woodward's resentencing.
48. See note 6, supra, for discussion of Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass.
716, 725 n.8 (1995); Commonwealth v. Roberts, 407 Mass. 731, 737 (1990);
Commonwealth v. Pagan, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 788, 791-792 (1994).
_____________________________
Footnotes to opinion dissenting in part:
1. Woodward's additional argument that a manslaughter instruction would
have been prejudicial because it might have invited a compromise verdict
is frivolous.
2. In his written memorandum reducing Woodward's verdict, released on
the morning of November 10, 1997, the judge directed that she be
brought before the court a few hours later, "then and there to receive
her sentence" on the manslaughter conviction. Judges, of course,
can sentence a defendant on the same day as his or her conviction,
and this often occurs. However, it is assumed that judges do so with
the informed consent of the parties, and after having considered all
factors relevant to a proper disposition.
3. Thus, there is no need to consider the exercise of our authority
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you are quite welcome to critique this evidence as much
as you like, since I feel it addresses every point you have ever
raised. Thus, any argument regarding those points has already
been adjudicated, and your argument dispatched.
> > It is hypocritical,
> > biased, and totally naive to form a view on proof of innocence
> > using such a flimsy platform.
>
> Such a "flimsy platform" as 100% scientific impossibility of guilt?
>
ROTFLMAO.. No the 'flimsy platform' of your subjective belief in
that 100% scientific impossibility.
> > > > Now I'll tell you quite clearly. I will no longer discuss this with you,
> > > > because you are functioning from an irrational and illogical position.
> > >
> > > Which actually translates as: "I am getting out of this argument
> > > because I have been exposed as a lazy, ignorant fool, and the longer
> > > it goes on the lazier, more ignorant and more foolish I am looking."
> > >
> > Ah... SG Seminal axioms 1) and 6) again. Sorry, sport, I'll not
> > let you try and put lipstick on that pig. You'll have to do it all
> > by yourself.
>
> What was that about no longer discussing this?
>
Getting a bit queasy???
> > > And you know this. You know I am not asking you to prove she was
> > > convicted or that she is guilty. You are PRETENDING to believe that in
> > > an effort to obfuscate the issue, shift attention from the challenge
> > > and enable you to avoid meeting that challenge. You don't really
> > > believe what you are pretending to believe. You are certainly stupid,
> > > but not that stupid. This is an act you are putting on.
> > >
> > I'm 'pretending' to believe she was convicted and she is guilty?
> > Hardly.
>
> No, you are pretending not to understand that the challenge is to
> prove that you have ever even looked at the transcripts, let alone
> familiarised yourself with them sufficiently to justify your rants and
> your claim that they are your evidence. And you are still doing it.
>
The 'challenge' (ho ho ho), was for me to 'prove' what has already
been proven, while you have the luxury of simply saying 'it aint'
so.'
> > You still don't understand. I don't NEED to 'show you.' The
> > transcripts show you.
>
> But they don't show YOU, because you have never even opened them, have
> you? So how do you know what is in them?
>
ROTFLMAO.
> I have read and re-read the transcripts from beginning to end and I
> know there is nothing whatsoever in them that points to Louise
> Woodward's guilt. Why do you think I am so confident as to guarantee
> that whatever you produced from them purporting to be inculpatory, I
> would show to be empty, meaningless and thoroughly disproved?
>
I believe that those far more competent than you could ever be,
have read and re-read them more times than you can imagine,
yet you and your silly 'retracted penis' compatriots are the only
ones who see them differently. It's amazing how you can believe
your 'subjective opinion,' can make it a 100% 'scientific certainty.'
> And if you interpret the above as meaning that the dice are loaded
> against you, I put up my hands and say, yes, you are right, they are.
> Just as they were loaded against Louise Woodward when, after almost
> nine months of the local population being 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.
>
See what I mean? It isn't 'evidence your after. It's a condemnation
of those things that are your subjective view. Are you presuming
your 'opinion' of the media is 100% scientific certainty? Of course,
everyone on the jury was 'brainwashed.' What a moron you are.
> And if you doubt the impact of all those media lies, then consider
> that before the trial began - before a single word of evidence had
> been heard from either side - 20 eligible jurors, from whom the final
> 12 would be chosen, were asked if they had formed any opinion about
> the guilt or innocence of the defendant. 18 said they believed she was
> guilty, and the other 2 said they believed she could be innocent. That
> is 90% whose minds had been made up before the trial even started.
>
Crapola.
> You didn't know about that, did you, PV? So what is your reply to it?
> No, let me guess: it will be either "The entire Justice System,
> including jury, judges and due process found her GUILTY.. GUILTY...
> GUILTY" or "yada, yada, yada".
>
My reply is that your argument stinks like three-day old diapers. And
has not one scintilla of 'scientific fact.' But thanks for raving. Please
address all your 'scientific evidence,' to the Massachusetts State
Supreme Court. And be sure you cross-post all your replies to
the 'star-trek' channel. ROTFLMAO. What an obsessive, pathetic,
no-life, idiot you are.
PV
incubus
> Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Ho ho ho. FW is a ****wit.
>
> > Potty mouth... Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked
> > so badly, he assumes another persona and creates childish one-line
> > 'idiot-speak.'
>
> Whenever LDB feels depressed about having been spanked so badly, he
> copies and pastes a one-paragraph text file on his 'desktop'.
this post header is funny. I doubt you could remove a bullet from your foot
with tweezers :-)
incubus
> Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:05:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> To discuss those of 'British origin', I assume that you would have
> >> >> to know what constitutes Britain. Hint ... it's not Ireland.
*snigger*
>
> >> > I consider all those of Celtic origin to have the same roots, and
> >> > if I refer to those roots as 'British' roots. it's just tough.
>
> >> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> LDB has now defined the Celts and the Brits as having similar roots ...
> >> where _will_ his ignorance stop ??!! What next, LDB ? 'The South
> >> Africans are really of Chinese origin' ..?
>
> > Irish, the Welsh, the Scots, and the present population of the U.K.
proper.
> > One needs only look at
>
>
> ROTFLMAO !! Truly ROTFLMAO !! Or 'ROTFMAO!!' (sic), if you prefer.
>
> Each time we see the long list of URLs that you post, in a vain
> attempt to cover up yet another logical, grammatical, philosophical
> or jurisprudential gaffe that you've made in your obsessive need to
> 'get one over' on me or on dirt, we're reminded once again of how your
> education stopped at the age of fifteen. If your Internet connection
> ever goes down, you'd be struck dumb. What do you do at dinner parties,
> take a laptop in with you, and when the conversation turns to topics
> other than wheat farming in your native Russia, you fire up google, and
> use the search results to appear erudite ?
>
> Usenet. You go beyond even Drewl's legendary levels of idiocy. When
> he had been thoroughly spanked, he usually had the sense to snip the
> entire post of his 'better', respond with, 'Off-topic foreign nonsense
>
> Yet you keep coming back for more. Your nose is bloody, your arse
> is so red that you can't sit down, your feet have had all but the
> little toes blown off by your 'own goals' ... and yet you keep coming
> back, like the dumb dog that's had a lobotomy, and yet who will continue
> to come back to be beaten at its master's side.
>
> But remind us all again of how the Irish, are really British ... I haven't
> had such a chuckle in years ...
>
>
oh behave Desi. PV. The Scottish and Irish are Celt in origin. The English
were Germanic but have turned into a largely mixed gene pool over that late
millennia. The welsh are... The welsh are.. erm from somewhere
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<pathetic and extremely off key attempt to squirm snipped>
> You keep outta dis,
>yellow niggah
By your own hysterical standards, PV, this makes you an evil racist,
sorry, EVIL RACIST
<thoroughly shameful inability to admit his own mistakes snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<juvenile ad homina snipped>
>>
>ROTFLMAO... I've grown very tired of you... so here you go --
>
<lengthy judgement cluelessly reproduced in its entirety snipped>
Which, of course, proves you have still not read it.
JPB raises specific criticisms of the prosecution. Each of these could
have been individually addresse, or even rebutted by you in an
interesting manner, quoting from the judgement where appropriate.
In true PV fashion, you have not done this, and have chosen instead to
quote over 1000 lines of text, most of which is wholly irrelevant to
the issues raised by JPB. You have done this presumably with your
usual intention of baffling the casual observer with a sandstorm of
verbosity in the hope that it makes you appear learned and
intelligent.
Alas, your aim in in vain, for your reputation now precedes you.
<more boring and pointless ad homina snipped>
> ROTFLMAO. What an obsessive, pathetic,
>no-life, idiot you are.
Which, of course, is trait with which you of all people should
empathise with
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:9c00muomevs0d6uin...@4ax.com...
<rote cutting and pasting snipped>
>
>> His mistaking a verdict - a conclusion drawn from evidence - for the
>> evidence itself is most most indicative of a person who really, to be
>> brutal, hasn't got a sodding clue.
>>
>I suppose that would mean we should draw a conclusion from
>'non-evidence'? That would certainly support the contention of
>JPB. Since his argument is based on 'non-evidence.'
As St George quite correctly stated, 'Silence, PV'.
Your reply above is, as always, wholly removed from the text it
purports to comment upon.
I have pulled you up (quite correctly) on mistaking a verdict for
evidence.
A verdict is not evidence. It is a conclusion drawn most usually on
dissemination of evidence.
You have made this error and should now simply admit it, offer your
apologies and move along.
<further rejection of established doctrines in favour of
self-constructed rhetoric snipped>
w00f
incubus
> Le Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:27:26 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> But remind us all again of how the Irish, are really British ... I
haven't
> >> had such a chuckle in years ...
>
English
> > were Germanic but have turned into a largely mixed gene pool over that
late
> > millennia. The welsh are... The welsh are.. erm from somewhere
>
> apparently doesn't.
I know Desi. It was him I was telling
>He thinks that the Irish are of 'British origin'.
There is nobody left of the 'British origin' apparently there are some bones
somewhere
>
> I also know that over the centuries, there has been much mixing of blood
> between the two countries, to the point where many on both sides of the
> Irish Sea, trace their roots to one or the other of the two countries.
Britain is a conrinent not a country ;-P. Seriously though i am living proof
of your above point. I was born, i live and i will probably die in England
but my father is Irish and from the republic too so i am technicaly only 50%
from the British Isles though apparently northern ireland isn't British but
is part of the British Isles so i am told. I don't entirely understand it
myself
>
> To claim that this makes the Irish 'of British origin', is as mindless
> as claiming that the South Africans are really Australians ... only
> LDB could be so stupid,
stupid? no. people forget that all that time ago the world's land was
squashed into one big un (ooer) i think
>but then as he has so much trouble with using
> verbs as nouns, with the use of apostrophes ... sorry, apostrophe's ...
i think your former was correct actually. I drop them myself. I know i
should use them but i forget too or i can't be arsed or something like that
> with abstract verbs ... with the use of quotation marks ... and with
> murderers 'joining his life' ... one shouldn't be too surprised to
discover
> yet another area where his ignorance shines like a beacon, to remind us
all
> of how fortunate we are not to be him.
any punctuation he forget to use is purely academic. As long as we can
understand him then it makes no bloody difference to me
>
> --
> Des On The Road |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
Just passing by
> >
> Because your argument makes no sense, sport. I have looked at the
> drool you've provided in the dozens of obsessive entries you've made into
> the most absurd groups immaginable. In every case you have had
> NOTHING to say except --
>
> 1) The police committed perjury.
> 2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt.
> 3) Louise was singled out because she was British.
> 4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only
> concerned with elections.
> 5) The mother actually committed the crime.
> 6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by
> DA Thomas Reilly and Dr. Eli Newberger
> 7) All the doctors are crooks.
> 8 )All the journalists are corrupt.
> 9) The jury pool was polluted.
> 10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White
> Whale.'
>
Then, as with the transcripts, you haven't really read the posts you
refer to. So I will correct that list, just for you.
"1) The police committed perjury." Yes I have said that many times,
and proved it, so no argument there.
"2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt." Not the ordinary
people, but a remarkably high number of those in positions of power,
particularly in the area of criminal justice. Tom Reilly is probably
the most corrupt politician in America.
"3) Louise was singled out because she was British." Only partly true.
She was initially singled out because Dr Eli Newberger, who started
the frame-up ball rolling, desperately wanted to prevent his friend
Deborah Eappen from falling under any suspicion. So he, using his
considerable persuasive powers, convinced the not very bright DA that
the medical evidence indicated that Matthew's injuries were only hours
old. By the time DA Reilly discovered that he had been duped by
Newberger, it was too late - he had already publicly committed
himself, and his election strategy, to pledging the head of this Brit
to a local population which, because of the Northern Ireland troubles,
probably includes among it the largest anti-British community anywhere
in the world.
"4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only concerned
with elections." As with number 1, no argument there. But don't take
my word for that; look at what Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
said:
"Let's place the blame where it squarely belongs. It squarely belongs
on the shoulders of Tom Reilly, who was an ambitious politician
running for Attorney General, who charged this young woman with first
degree murder as if she were a Mafia hitwoman."
"5) The mother actually committed the crime." I have never said that.
You are lying. What I have done is post examples of her extraordinary
behaviour, including deliberately misleading the doctors who were
battling to save her son's life and deliberately withholding from them
information that might have helped them save him. I have posted
details of a number of inexplicable proven lies she told to several
people on the day Matthew was rushed to hospital. And I have
speculated that if not for Newberger's deliberate deception, she would
have been the police's number one suspect.
"6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by DA Thomas Reilly
and Dr. Eli Newberger." Yes, that is exactly what I have said. In
fact, I think that is a verbatim quote, isn't it?
"7) All the doctors are crooks." Another lie of yours. I have never
said that
"8 ) All the journalists are corrupt." Still lying, I see. I have
named two corrupt journalists - Anne Scadding and Eileen McNamara -
and referred to other unnamed ones. I have never said that "all" of
them are corrupt.
"9) The jury pool was polluted." Which of course it was, as I
demonstrated in my previous post here.
"10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White Whale.' "
I don't think I really need to deal with that one.
Are you sure that is all there are? I'm sure I have discussed this
case in more newsgroups than that. Go back and do another search to
see if you have missed any.
> > Or were you simply led by my saying it was about you into firing back
> > a rather childish and ill thought out tit-for-tat line? Are you always
> > that easily led?
> >
> When confronting ignorance I have this great flaw to remark on
> it at some length.
>
Can you please explain the correlation between my words and your
"reply"? There is absolutely no link whatsoever.
> >
> > > > > She is the one you are obsessing about.
> > > > > I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
> > > >
> > > > Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
> > > >
> > > Ah.. but SHE was the one found GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY.
> > >
> >
> > How very imaginative that response was.
> >
> Ah... but unlike your argument... filled with the TRUTH. There is
> a difference between 'hysteria' and the 'truth' you know.
>
And again, I see no conceivable link there. Is this really the best
you can do?
Then you pasted the entire SJC ruling, but, very significantly, made
not one single direct reference to any part of it. And we know why,
don't we? Because you haven't actually read it - any of it! You don't
even know what it says.
If you had read and understood it, you would have extracted parts of
it and directly put them up against specific claims I have made here.
You would have said things like, for example: "Your claim that the
existence of periosteum at the site of the fracture is indicative of
an old and healing injury, was specifically addressed by the judges
who suggested that the periosteum might have been an autopsy artefact
and therefore may have originated elsewhere."
Don't you think that would have looked a little better than "yada,
yada, yada"?
But as you are too lazy to read even what you are pasting into your
own post, "yada, yada, yada" is probably the best you will ever
manage.
> Now, you are quite welcome to critique this evidence as much
> as you like, since I feel it addresses every point you have ever
> raised. Thus, any argument regarding those points has already
> been adjudicated, and your argument dispatched.
Oh, you feel it "addresses every point" do you? Even though you
haven't actually read it?
OK, if you want to move this discussion on to a debate about that
document and its merits, I am happy to do that. But first you will
have to read it. When you have done that, give me your view of this
extract, in which the SJC refused to rule against the prosecution
preventing the defence from attending the autopsy and then blocking a
second autopsy:
"Autopsy procedures are inherently destructive, making second
autopsies to some extent impracticable."
Second autopsies are routinely carried out all over the world. I am
not aware of this "inherently destructive" argument ever being put
forward in a single criminal case that could have given the SJC a
precedent for refusing to rule in the defence's favour. But - and here
is the interesting fact - that was precisely the bogus reason the
prosecution gave for preventing Louise's team from gaining any access
to the evidence they (the prosecution) had full access to.
So it seems that the SJC's ruling, far from representing their own,
independently considered position arrived at by studying other cases,
was worded almost exactly the same as the prosecution's original
tactical manoeuvre. So who really wrote that? Was it the SJC judges,
or did the prosecution actually write it for them?
And astonishingly, the SJC acknowledged that the medical examiner had
destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF
A COURT ORDER SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDING HIM FROM DOING SO, and yet chose
to simply ignore this monstrous perversion of justice. The SJC state
that this destruction, "in light of the very specific court order, is
a failure of duty amounting to negligence by the medical examiner."
And they add: We have no doubt that Woodward met the threshold showing
that there was a "reasonable possibility" that the missing evidence
would be favorable to her. "
So that should have been the end of it. What more evidence do these
clowns need to throw out that utterly fraudulent conviction?
But there is more - lots more - in that SJC ruling that I can
demonstrate to have contributed to one of the most obvious
miscarriages of justice there has ever been. But for now I have a
question for you, followed by what I believe is the true answer:
Why did you paste the entire SJC ruling here, rather than simply post
a link to it, which is what most people would do with such a huge
amount of text?
I think you did that to fill out what was an otherwise rather empty
post in a long line of other empty, unimaginative posts you have
contributed to this thread, that have exposed your breathtaking
ignorance on a topic you have something of a passion for ranting
about. I think you pasted that entire ruling so that you could hide
behind it.
So now give your answer for why you chose the paste rather than link
option.
Cerberus
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Dbz69.3307$0U4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Jbo69.1538$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > > > Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> > > a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > { snip }
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Ho ho ho. FW is a ****wit.
> >
>
> And so it goes on and on and on. What bores you and he
> are - 'a curse on both your houses.'
And a pox as well, (no pun intended with bores (sic) ) Boars, bores and
boors, u choose
WooF w00f WooF
>
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > Because your argument makes no sense, sport. I have looked at the
> > drool you've provided in the dozens of obsessive entries you've made into
> > the most absurd groups immaginable. In every case you have had
> > NOTHING to say except --
> >
> > 1) The police committed perjury.
> > 2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt.
> > 3) Louise was singled out because she was British.
> > 4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only
> > concerned with elections.
> > 5) The mother actually committed the crime.
> > 6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by
> > DA Thomas Reilly and Dr. Eli Newberger
> > 7) All the doctors are crooks.
> > 8 )All the journalists are corrupt.
> > 9) The jury pool was polluted.
> > 10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White
> > Whale.'
> >
>
> Then, as with the transcripts, you haven't really read the posts you
> refer to. So I will correct that list, just for you.
>
> "1) The police committed perjury." Yes I have said that many times,
> and proved it, so no argument there.
>
it 'true.' Have any police been convicted of that crime in this case?
Oh, wait.. I forgot... the cover-up is in, and the Massachusetts
police had it in for the 'Great White Whale.'
> "2) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is corrupt." Not the ordinary
> people, but a remarkably high number of those in positions of power,
> particularly in the area of criminal justice. Tom Reilly is probably
> the most corrupt politician in America.
>
As I said... 'subjective' valuation' without a bit of 'proof.'
> "3) Louise was singled out because she was British." Only partly true.
> She was initially singled out because Dr Eli Newberger, who started
> the frame-up ball rolling, desperately wanted to prevent his friend
> Deborah Eappen from falling under any suspicion. So he, using his
> considerable persuasive powers, convinced the not very bright DA that
> the medical evidence indicated that Matthew's injuries were only hours
> old. By the time DA Reilly discovered that he had been duped by
> Newberger, it was too late - he had already publicly committed
> himself, and his election strategy, to pledging the head of this Brit
> to a local population which, because of the Northern Ireland troubles,
> probably includes among it the largest anti-British community anywhere
> in the world.
>
Again, a 'subjective evaluation' without a bit of 'proof.'
> "4) The prosecution wasn't looking for the 'truth.' Only concerned
> with elections." As with number 1, no argument there. But don't take
> my word for that; look at what Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
> said:
>
> "Let's place the blame where it squarely belongs. It squarely belongs
> on the shoulders of Tom Reilly, who was an ambitious politician
> running for Attorney General, who charged this young woman with first
> degree murder as if she were a Mafia hitwoman."
>
Again, 'subjective evaluation' without a bit of 'proof.' God... what
a feeble argument you present if you expect anyone to believe
you are offering 'proof.'
> "5) The mother actually committed the crime." I have never said that.
> You are lying. What I have done is post examples of her extraordinary
> behaviour, including deliberately misleading the doctors who were
> battling to save her son's life and deliberately withholding from them
> information that might have helped them save him. I have posted
> details of a number of inexplicable proven lies she told to several
> people on the day Matthew was rushed to hospital. And I have
> speculated that if not for Newberger's deliberate deception, she would
> have been the police's number one suspect.
>
Same thing, sport. You claim she is 'culpable' in some sort of
a conspiracy of 'lies.' Obviously just your 'subjective valuation'
without a bit of 'proof.'
> "6) Louise was framed by a group of criminals led by DA Thomas Reilly
> and Dr. Eli Newberger." Yes, that is exactly what I have said. In
> fact, I think that is a verbatim quote, isn't it?
>
It might well be. And it is no more 'proof' than any of your other
'verbatim quotes.' But then, your buddy FDP says that 'quote'
is not a noun.
> "7) All the doctors are crooks." Another lie of yours. I have never
> said that
>
Oh, you've certainly implied it. The 'only' doctors you will
accept are those for the defense, and then we have your
quote -- "Dr. Eli Newberger, the principal architect of the
framing of Louise Woodward." I believe that is calling his
a 'crook.'
> "8 ) All the journalists are corrupt." Still lying, I see. I have
> named two corrupt journalists - Anne Scadding and Eileen McNamara -
> and referred to other unnamed ones. I have never said that "all" of
> them are corrupt.
>
Sure, sure, sure. Unfortunately NONE of that constitutes 'proof'
of the innocence of Louise, and is simply your hysterical claim.
> "9) The jury pool was polluted." Which of course it was, as I
> demonstrated in my previous post here.
>
No. You 'demonstrated' nothing. You've simply voiced an
'opinion.' Yet again.
> "10) Everyone should go to jail except the poor 'Great White Whale.' "
> I don't think I really need to deal with that one.
>
Certainly not, since your implication in this argument rather
shows that such is EXACTLY your feeling.
That was well enough to make my point. That you are a hysterical,
and obsessed idiot, who would post to a startrek, a babylon5, a
dark_shadows, and a games group in 'defense' of the 'Great White
Whale,' about says all that needs to be said.
> > > Or were you simply led by my saying it was about you into firing back
> > > a rather childish and ill thought out tit-for-tat line? Are you always
> > > that easily led?
> > >
> > When confronting ignorance I have this great flaw to remark on
> > it at some length.
> >
>
> Can you please explain the correlation between my words and your
> "reply"? There is absolutely no link whatsoever.
>
I have made my statement. I have no obligation to bring you to an
understanding.
> > >
> > > > > > She is the one you are obsessing about.
> > > > > > I don't see you speaking of anyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes you do, PV. You see me speaking of you.
> > > > >
> > > > Ah.. but SHE was the one found GUILTY... GUILTY.. GUILTY.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How very imaginative that response was.
> > >
> > Ah... but unlike your argument... filled with the TRUTH. There is
> > a difference between 'hysteria' and the 'truth' you know.
> >
>
> And again, I see no conceivable link there. Is this really the best
> you can do?
>
Actually, in the face of your argument, 'less is better.' Giving you
more, simply gives you more that you can argue corrupted the
process.
> Then you pasted the entire SJC ruling, but, very significantly, made
> not one single direct reference to any part of it. And we know why,
> don't we? Because you haven't actually read it - any of it! You don't
> even know what it says.
>
Because the ruling ADDRESSES every one of your silly subjective
'proofs' that you would offer, and shoots down every one of them.
> If you had read and understood it, you would have extracted parts of
> it and directly put them up against specific claims I have made here.
> You would have said things like, for example: "Your claim that the
> existence of periosteum at the site of the fracture is indicative of
> an old and healing injury, was specifically addressed by the judges
> who suggested that the periosteum might have been an autopsy artefact
> and therefore may have originated elsewhere."
>
You seem to be able to read English. Match them up yourself.
> Don't you think that would have looked a little better than "yada,
> yada, yada"?
>
As I said... your 'argument' deserves no better.
> But as you are too lazy to read even what you are pasting into your
> own post, "yada, yada, yada" is probably the best you will ever
> manage.
>
You bitched that I didn't give you enough. Now you bitch that
I gave you more than you can handle. Tough, sport.
> > Now, you are quite welcome to critique this evidence as much
> > as you like, since I feel it addresses every point you have ever
> > raised. Thus, any argument regarding those points has already
> > been adjudicated, and your argument dispatched.
>
> Oh, you feel it "addresses every point" do you? Even though you
> haven't actually read it?
>
> OK, if you want to move this discussion on to a debate about that
> document and its merits, I am happy to do that. But first you will
> have to read it. When you have done that, give me your view of this
> extract, in which the SJC refused to rule against the prosecution
> preventing the defence from attending the autopsy and then blocking a
> second autopsy:
>
Why would I have to do that? Are YOU incapable of reading
that document?
> "Autopsy procedures are inherently destructive, making second
> autopsies to some extent impracticable."
>
And??? Is your 'proof' in an apparent common medical
understanding??
> Second autopsies are routinely carried out all over the world. I am
> not aware of this "inherently destructive" argument ever being put
> forward in a single criminal case that could have given the SJC a
> precedent for refusing to rule in the defence's favour. But - and here
> is the interesting fact - that was precisely the bogus reason the
> prosecution gave for preventing Louise's team from gaining any access
> to the evidence they (the prosecution) had full access to.
>
What nonsense. Of course second autopsies are often completely
worthless. Organs are extracted and weighed. Especially when
speaking of brain tissue, which certainly involves a destructive
process in a first autopsy. There is no doubt that second autopsies
are done quite often. Even done on those dead for some years,
after exhuming the corpse. But they are inherently less evidentiary
then the first, unless it is recognized that the first did not test for
a substance of some sort absorbed into the body. Or certain
evidence from the first autopsy had not been obtained.
> So it seems that the SJC's ruling, far from representing their own,
> independently considered position arrived at by studying other cases,
> was worded almost exactly the same as the prosecution's original
> tactical manoeuvre. So who really wrote that? Was it the SJC judges,
> or did the prosecution actually write it for them?
>
Here we go again. Now the Massachusetts Supreme Court
is CORRUPT as well, and the prosecution writes their findings
for them. God..you are stupid, if you expect anyone to swallow
that garbage.
> And astonishingly, the SJC acknowledged that the medical examiner had
> destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF
> A COURT ORDER SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDING HIM FROM DOING SO, and yet chose
> to simply ignore this monstrous perversion of justice. The SJC state
> that this destruction, "in light of the very specific court order, is
> a failure of duty amounting to negligence by the medical examiner."
> And they add: We have no doubt that Woodward met the threshold showing
> that there was a "reasonable possibility" that the missing evidence
> would be favorable to her. "
All of that was fully considered, and resolved thusly -- "the prejudice
to the defendant from the loss of evidence -- we are not persuaded
that the degree of prejudice is so great as to warrant dismissal of
the indictment. The jury heard an abundance of evidentiary detail on,
and medical opinion endorsing, Woodward's theory from Dr.
Leestma, based on his examination of sections of dura covering
areas other than that over the fatal hematoma. The jury also heard
from Woodward's other expert medical witnesses, relying on a
significant amount of other medical and autopsy data, who gave
opinions endorsing Woodward's theory of the cause of death. The
lost right side section of dura was an important piece of potentially
exculpatory evidence, but may well have been cumulative of other
forensic evidence marshaled by Woodward's experts. The loss of
evidence in this case was not so overwhelmingly prejudicial as in
other cases in which lost evidence was uniquely critical.
> So that should have been the end of it. What more evidence do these
> clowns need to throw out that utterly fraudulent conviction?
>
When the loss of 'evidence' is deemed not to be prejudicial to
the defendant, and that loss was fully explained to the jury and
the defense argues that loss, your point is moot. And the Supreme
Court ruled as such.
> But there is more - lots more - in that SJC ruling that I can
> demonstrate to have contributed to one of the most obvious
> miscarriages of justice there has ever been. But for now I have a
> question for you, followed by what I believe is the true answer:
>
ROTFLMAO.
> Why did you paste the entire SJC ruling here, rather than simply post
> a link to it, which is what most people would do with such a huge
> amount of text?
>
Because you seemed to believe I was not providing 'enough' information.
I do notice that you clipped out one particular part, which you claim
'proves' your point, but neglected to mention that the Supreme Court
directly addressed that point.
> I think you did that to fill out what was an otherwise rather empty
> post in a long line of other empty, unimaginative posts you have
> contributed to this thread, that have exposed your breathtaking
> ignorance on a topic you have something of a passion for ranting
> about. I think you pasted that entire ruling so that you could hide
> behind it.
>
> So now give your answer for why you chose the paste rather than link
> option.
I had already given the link a number of times, but you foolishly kept
claiming I hadn't read it. Every point you have brought up, was
addressed by the Supreme Court, and nothing in their finding
would presume that Louise Woodward was innocent. It is simply
your imagination run rampant. And you keep asking ME for
answers, while providing none of your own. Answer HOW the
Supreme Court could uphold a verdict in the face of the 'overwhelming'
(ho ho ho) evidence you present? Your argument rests ENTIRELY
on innuendo and claims of corruption at every level, which is totally
biased from YOUR POV. And now you even claim that Supreme
Court ruling are written by the prosecution.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:m8g2mu8j2mao1pn73...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:43 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <pathetic and extremely off key attempt to squirm snipped>
>
> > You keep outta dis,
> >yellow niggah
>
> By your own hysterical standards, PV, this makes you an evil racist,
> sorry, EVIL RACIST
>
work the word can well be used. And its use in the OED is quite
that way. Your argument would presume that I find works such as
'Cold Mountain, or 'Jacob's Ladder,' to be racist. Instead they are two
of the finest literary works of the last 10 years in respect to the Civil War
and racism in the U.S., and both use that word, and even worse words
extensively. Quite unlike you, who only uses that word to do nothing
but insult an entire race in a specific and genuine INTENT to do just that.
PV
> <thoroughly shameful inability to admit his own mistakes snipped>
>
You're blind, my boy. And hysterically so. And I pity you, that you
cannot recognize 'actual racism,' since you demonstrate it so often.
Even now.
PV
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:06:48 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
> >> You keep outta dis,
> >>yellow niggah
>
> > By your own hysterical standards, PV, this makes you an evil racist,
> > sorry, EVIL RACIST
>
> his rubbish goes ... and I hadn't noticed what he wrote. Pity ... I
> was denying myself another little 'gem' ...
So, now your 'supreme arbiter' is 'racist'?? You two are a real
'work of ignorance.'
>
> He's equating 'outta', which is a contraction of 'out' and 'of', to
> 'outed', which is the past tense and participle of the verb 'to out' ?
>
No, clumsy... I am comparing 'outta' with 'outted,' both having
two t's. Both are of colloquial U.S. usage.
> LOL ... he's becoming a veritable cripple, what with hardly any toes left,
> and a 'bratislva' that's so scorched that he can't sit down ...
>
Have you figured out that 'quote' is a noun, yet, FDP? Come on,
I just love to hear it when you 'deny' it is.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:t2h2mu4emflvt8lo4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:50 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:9c00muomevs0d6uin...@4ax.com...
>
> <rote cutting and pasting snipped>
>
> >
> >> His mistaking a verdict - a conclusion drawn from evidence - for the
> >> evidence itself is most most indicative of a person who really, to be
> >> brutal, hasn't got a sodding clue.
> >>
> >I suppose that would mean we should draw a conclusion from
> >'non-evidence'? That would certainly support the contention of
> >JPB. Since his argument is based on 'non-evidence.'
>
> As St George quite correctly stated, 'Silence, PV'.
>
the 'new' thing from those across the Atlantic is to tell
Americans to 'shut up,' about their OWN Justice System
(and DP as well).
<pitiful whine and total confusion of Louise clipped>
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:2hg2mugjfq07uehau...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:50 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <juvenile ad homina snipped>
>
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO... I've grown very tired of you... so here you go --
> >
> <lengthy judgement cluelessly reproduced in its entirety snipped>
>
> Which, of course, proves you have still not read it.
>
> JPB raises specific criticisms of the prosecution. Each of these could
> have been individually addresse, or even rebutted by you in an
> interesting manner, quoting from the judgement where appropriate.
>
What more could be asked for? The ONLY thing 'more' that could be
asked for, is to provide a SUBJECTIVE argument, (such as the
ONLY argument held by JPB), when the OBJECTIVE argument has
been reconciled. All that is left for JPB, is to claim fraud, lies,
purjury, corruption, a frame-up, others are crooks, or something
was polluted in the process; in his hysterical claims of innocence
of the 'Great White Whale,' your 'classically educated' equal.
There is NOTHING of substance in JPB's argument. It is
innuendo and false claims. Why should I lend credence to such
horseshit?
And if you think any rational person believes that you and FDP,
having taken the side of JPB, represent any sort of 'unbiased'
viewpoint, your mother must have (Louise style), dropped you
on your head as a baby,
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:43 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Outted [sic] is slang for, erm, outed?
>
> > No, 'outted' is slang for 'outta,' as in 'get outta here.'
>
>
> <wipes tears of laughter from cheeks ...>
>
> 'outta' is a contraction of 'out of'. 'outed' (not 'outted' (sic)), is
> the past tense and participle of 'to out'.
>
> LOL ... there goes another toe ...
>
What a hysterically silly piece of crap. 'outed' has NOTHING
to do with 'outta.' The SUBJECT is 'outted,' which is a
U.S. slang modification of 'outta,' BOTH having the double
t, As in 'out of the closet.' = 'Outta the closet.' = 'Outted.'
> { snip remainder of LDB selectively using 'quotes' (sic) in which
> incorrect or informal language is used, as 'proof' ... }
BTW - Still haven't figured out 'quote' yet?? ROTFLMAO. You
REALLY showed how stupid you are there. Perhaps English is not
YOUR mother-tongue. 'Quote' is BOTH a noun and a verb, moron.
And I will not let you forget it.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:50 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > The verdict is not the evidence
> >> >any more than the sentence is the evidence.
>
> >> Which is the truism so ****ing _patently_ obvious that it is
> >> astounding that even PV can't grasp it.
>
> > Now, now.. potty mouth... the verdict is BASED on the evidence,
>
> and you provided the verdict.
>
> You are so stupid ... LOL ...
>
> { snip LDB being spanked yet again ... }
>
Unfortunately even if desi caught himself telling the truth, he'd
lie just to 'keep in practice.' Certainly we can expect nothing rational
to come from him in any case. So this is just another of his
'irrational' comments. Since the verdict RELIES on the evidence.
And the complete finding in respect to ALL the evidence is
contained in that verdict. But over 100KB of evidence is still
not enough for the 'axis of morons,' Louise, FDP, and JPB.
PV
> --
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:slrnam2qeb.l49.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:43 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>>
>> { snip }
>>
>> >> Outted [sic] is slang for, erm, outed?
>>
>> > No, 'outted' is slang for 'outta,' as in 'get outta here.'
>>
>> ROTFLMAO !!!
>>
>> <wipes tears of laughter from cheeks ...>
>>
>> 'outta' is a contraction of 'out of'. 'outed' (not 'outted' (sic)), is
>> the past tense and participle of 'to out'.
>>
>> LOL ... there goes another toe ...
>>
>What a hysterically silly piece of crap. 'outed' has NOTHING
>to do with 'outta.' The SUBJECT is 'outted,' which is a
>U.S. slang modification of 'outta,' BOTH having the double
>t, As in 'out of the closet.' = 'Outta the closet.' = 'Outted.'
Ho ho ho
Once more
Ho ho ho
You silly, desperate, unable to accept defeat old fuckwit.
Your silly mistake regarding the spelling of 'outed' is just that, a
silly mistake.
The word 'outted' has _zero_ legitimacy. It is a quite common mistake,
but simply an incorrect spelling.
Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'outta', a mere
abbreviation of 'out of'.
On the other hand, the word 'utilise' _is_ a real, proper and quite
legitimate word.
Ho ho ho. PV is a fuckwit.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:m8g2mu8j2mao1pn73...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:09:43 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>> <pathetic and extremely off key attempt to squirm snipped>
>>
>> > You keep outta dis,
>> >yellow niggah
>>
>> By your own hysterical standards, PV, this makes you an evil racist,
>> sorry, EVIL RACIST
>>
>No... you're the racist, Louise. I've always claimed that in a professional
>work the word can well be used.
Tee hee.
So it is perfectly acceptable for a right wing author to insist that
'niggers fuck kids', so long as he sells his work and makes a profit?
LMAO!
Make no mistake, PV, you're a fuckwit.
<snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:59 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> As St George quite correctly stated, 'Silence, PV'.
>
> > And as I told St George... Fuck you, Louise. It seems like
> > the 'new' thing from those across the Atlantic is to tell
> > Americans to 'shut up,' about their OWN Justice System
> > (and DP as well).
>
> wipe the seme^H^H^Hsaliva from his screen ... points his finger at
> the monitor, and screams, 'dirt got me again !!'
>
<belly laugh on> Actually you're the one raging hysterically.
Clearly I would never tell you to 'shut up' (in fact, I wouldn't dream
of it, since you shoot yourself in the foot so effectively when
you 'open' your mouth). You must be the most stupid man in
the world if you believe telling me to 'be silent,' can be seen in
any way as 'winning' an argument. Thus, again I need to remark --
This is sooooo cruel of me. Driving FDP (flopping drunken puppet),
into a petulant rage -- That ruddy face, those bulging eyes, the
throbbing vein in his temple, the trembling chin on the verge of
tears of frustration, the drool - looking strangely like afterbirth -
lacing in strands across his keyboard, the fist beating futilely on
the desk, as he screams in rage -- 'That fuckin' PV... he got me
again... and again... and again.'
<belly laugh off>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> He's equating 'outta', which is a contraction of 'out' and 'of', to
> >> 'outed', which is the past tense and participle of the verb 'to out' ?
>
> > No, clumsy... I am comparing 'outta' with 'outted,' both having
> > two t's. Both are of colloquial U.S. usage.
>
>
> 'No, 'outted' is slang for 'outta,' as in 'get outta here.'
>
Exactly... 'out of the closet' = 'outta the closet.' = 'outted.'
And isn't it 'ironic' that you clipped that exact U.S.
colloquial meaning.
<pathetic whine (probably drunk again) of FDP clipped>
We really need a 'truce' here FDP. Tell you what.. you admit
you're an asshole, and I'll only mention it every second post
where you show yourself to be.