News Int. Inc. hack phone of missing (dead girl)

[Gromnir]

"unexplained, but was not thought to be suspicious"

 

How can an event with no explanation be categorised as unsuspicious?

 

 

It's not as if US courts have a good track record of convicting rich people. Look at OJ and Jackson. Murdoch's fortune would hire literally a battalion of lawyers.

 

 

wow. 2 examples? wanna bet that we can come up with more than 2 examples o' famous folks found guilty?

 

*chuckle*

 

in any event, the appropriate question is whether or not American courts is good at convicting the guilty. the thing is, they ain't.

 

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

walsh might wanna look up the origin o' that quote... might be surprised. in any event, the aforementioned words is a cornerstone o' American criminal jurisprudence, and am gonna suggest that the numbers is skewed much more in favor o' the defendant than 10:1. benjamin franklin suggested that 100:1 were more appropriate. the system is designed advantageous to the defendant. is rich folks more able to take advantage o' a system built to favor a defendant? sure they is. nevertheless, give two examples and draw a conclusion? HA!

 

oh, and btw, oj were convicted in a criminal court in 2008... got something like 30 years.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Darth InSidious]

 

You might very well think that. The Prime Minister could not possibly comment.

Whoah, Francis Urquhart. Verily you are a poster of impeccable taste.

*45-degree bow*.

 

Watching the parliamentary panel grill the Murdochs. I didn't have high hopes, but they are simply scuttling about from point to point.

 

MP: "When did you meet Mr Marracec <sic>?"

Rupert: "I don't know a Mr Marracec"

MP: "He worked for the company for 25 years."

 

 

Meanwhile, his son waffles about "financial quantum".

[Gfted1]

Rupert Murdoch attacked at Parliament, appears unharmed.

[Tale]

Anyone around here watch Fox News? I'm curious as to your opinion of their coverage on the matter. I've read a few criticisms of them, such as claiming they're ignoring it, defending Murdoch, or changing the subject. But most of that I'm hearing from outlets that have been vocal against Fox News for a while. I'm hoping to get some closer to objective opinions.

[Orogun01]

Anyone around here watch Fox News? I'm curious as to your opinion of their coverage on the matter. I've read a few criticisms of them, such as claiming they're ignoring it, defending Murdoch, or changing the subject. But most of that I'm hearing from outlets that have been vocal against Fox News for a while. I'm hoping to get some closer to objective opinions.

Watch the Daily Show with Jon Steward, 90% of their footage comes from FOX news.

[Walsingham]

*snip*

 

Sure, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty necessarily transfers the weight of proof onto the prosecution. Which necessarily tends towards acquittal. But are you seriously claiming that the US legal system does not accord spectacular favours to rich clients? In terms of the freeform nature of presentations (rich clients use multimedia with I believe a disproportionate impact on juries), number of appeals (necessarily going to favour a private client), and the general support of 'raw' data in the form of DNA and wiretapping*.

 

Most importantly a rich client will spin out a case for years if possible, angling for mistrils and every other sort of shenanigan. Official prosecutors must surely weigh such extravagances heavily. You don't call a multi-million dollar case with the same carefree regard for law and order as busting a misdemeanour felon for assault.

 

 

*This naturally favours the state with poor clients.

[Gromnir]

*snip*

 

 

Most importantly a rich client will spin out a case for years if possible, angling for mistrils and every other sort of shenanigan.

 

 

 

 

showing your ignorance? civil trial lawyer motto = Delay, Delay, Delay. is NOT the goal/aim for criminal defense. sixth amendment grants rights to speedy trial in large part to protect defendants from the burdens that accompany a lengthy trial. defense needs to show good cause to drag delay, and all judges look at such efforts with a jaundiced eye.

 

*shrug*

 

as already noted, the US system is skewed in favor of defendants. and as we already observed, rich defendants is more able to make use o' the procedural advantages put in place to benefit all defendants... is a largely unavoidable consequence. nevertheless, there is a long and storied history o' rich folks getting their arse handed to them in US courts. also, while juries frequent go easy on celebrity, they can have a complete opposite reaction to defendants seen as wealthy, particularly in cases that can be presented as resulting from greed. in both civil and criminal trials, juries frequent seem to wanna punish rich folks. is more than a few situations wherein a rich defendant is not gonna wanna have a jury trial.

 

the segment o' society most likely to get stuck with the fuzzy end o' the lollipop in regards to mounting a criminal defense is the middle class. guilt or innocence not alter the fact that being a criminal defendant is expensive. public defenders sometimes gets portrayed as hacks in the media, but the reality is far from the truth. the typical public defender is a competent true-believer who has almost unparalleled experience. sadly, with recent cutbacks due to budget issues, many public defenders offices is now handling ridiculous caseloads. even so, is the middle class that gets screwed more than the poor.

 

a rich and high-profile defendant also typical gets the best effort from the da. looking like you rolled-over for a rich defendant does not look good in the press, eh? say what you will 'bout marcia clark, but she was a very competent prosecutor with a long list o' homicide convictions in her pocket before the oj trial started. heck, she had faced robert shapiro before the oj case, and had come out on top in that encounter.

 

yeah, all things being equal, Gromnir would rather be wealthy and able to afford the best legal representation possible. even so, am thinking that you folks who know the American legal system only through tv shows and newspaper articles got a strange and twisted notion 'bout the degree to which money will grease the wheels o' justice.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps wire-tapping? now that there is hardly any mob cases, the number o' criminal cases with relevant wire-tap evidence is very small. dueling experts, on the other hand, is a factor to consider.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"are you seriously claiming that the US legal system does not accord spectacular favours to rich clients?"

 

More than a few exanples of celebrities getting punished worse than the aervage joe or jane for the same crime as well. *shrug*

[Tigranes]

Fox News' coverage of the scandal? Look no further:

 

 

Pretty much, they pull their age old trick of bringing on a PR agent who specializes in corporations' crisis management as an "Expert", who then proceeds to berate us for paying so much attention to NOTW being hacked when it has happened to Citibank and other companies as well.

 

Chinese propaganda ain't got nothin' on Fox. I mean, OK, filthy liberals love to hate on Fox, but this is pretty hard to excuse.

[Gorgon]

Fox News is a circus act of pundits, not a serious news organization. They have to be 'different' in anything they do, it's not like they have a choice.

[Orogun01]

"are you seriously claiming that the US legal system does not accord spectacular favours to rich clients?"

 

More than a few exanples of celebrities getting punished worse than the aervage joe or jane for the same crime as well. *shrug*

I guess we should point out the difference between rich and wealthy? But point is that corporations and those within can drag cases for years.

E.G: the ruling on sexual harassment suits against Walmarts employees and Halliburton (KBR)

[Humodour]

America has some very powerful consumer/citizen-biased bodies as well as some very powerful corporation-biased bodies. I don't think "the rich and powerful manipulate government to get what they want" is the whole story - although it is definitely a huge problem that needs to be fixed.

[Calax]

Fox News' coverage of the scandal? Look no further:

 

 

Pretty much, they pull their age old trick of bringing on a PR agent who specializes in corporations' crisis management as an "Expert", who then proceeds to berate us for paying so much attention to NOTW being hacked when it has happened to Citibank and other companies as well.

 

Chinese propaganda ain't got nothin' on Fox. I mean, OK, filthy liberals love to hate on Fox, but this is pretty hard to excuse.

I think Colbert put that as "They happened to be in the same sentence as the world 'hack'"

 

Also, the only other peeps I've heard from Fox was a webcam shot found by Daily Show where there was a round table discussion during the commercial break which boiled down to "So, anyone want to talk to the audience about what we're not supposed to talk about?" "No, I wanna keep my job."

[pmp10]

I don't think "the rich and powerful manipulate government to get what they want" is the whole story - although it is definitely a huge problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm sorry but how exactly would you go around fixing that?

Wealth always gives influence and using is to further your aims is just integral part of human nature.

[Humodour]

I don't think "the rich and powerful manipulate government to get what they want" is the whole story - although it is definitely a huge problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm sorry but how exactly would you go around fixing that?

Wealth always gives influence and using is to further your aims is just integral part of human nature.

 

By reducing income disparity to levels more in line with Western countries and reforming the electoral system.

 

Wealth always gives influence, but in some countries far more influence than others.

[Gromnir]

"are you seriously claiming that the US legal system does not accord spectacular favours to rich clients?"

 

More than a few exanples of celebrities getting punished worse than the aervage joe or jane for the same crime as well. *shrug*

I guess we should point out the difference between rich and wealthy? But point is that corporations and those within can drag cases for years.

E.G: the ruling on sexual harassment suits against Walmarts employees and Halliburton (KBR)

 

try not to confuse civil with criminal... is complete different situations.

 

*shrug*

 

no doubt orogun and walsh has impressive expertise regarding the US criminal legal system. perhaps walsh is actual a supreme court judge in ny (ny supreme court is actual the original jurisdiction level.) maybe orgun is a criminal defense attorney? is curious where all the certainty is coming from, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nepenthe]

"are you seriously claiming that the US legal system does not accord spectacular favours to rich clients?"

 

More than a few exanples of celebrities getting punished worse than the aervage joe or jane for the same crime as well. *shrug*

I guess we should point out the difference between rich and wealthy? But point is that corporations and those within can drag cases for years.

E.G: the ruling on sexual harassment suits against Walmarts employees and Halliburton (KBR)

Grom already pointed out the difference between criminal and civil cases...

 

Ninja'd... by an hour. ("Oh, there was one page more?!")

 

Surely Gromnir you know by now how everybody is a legal expert (which IMO is in the heart of all the lawyer hate. I personally hate dentists. Coz they are sadists and bill roughly ten times more than I do).

Edited July 20, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Walsingham]

Grom: You're damn right I know the US legal system through books and TV.... and conducting an assload of interviews with criminals and law enforcement back in the nineties. I'm interested in crime, not justice generally speaking.

 

But I tell you what: when you only comment on things you have direct experience of, I'll do the same.

 

Speaking of which, since you are obvously a lawyer or student of law, perhaps you'd have some figures or facts to back up your claim that rich defendants don't exhiibit the behaviours I related?

[Gromnir]

Grom: You're damn right I know the US legal system through books and TV.... and conducting an assload of interviews with criminals and law enforcement back in the nineties. I'm interested in crime, not justice generally speaking.

 

But I tell you what: when you only comment on things you have direct experience of, I'll do the same.

 

Speaking of which, since you are obvously a lawyer or student of law, perhaps you'd have some figures or facts to back up your claim that rich defendants don't exhiibit the behaviours I related?

 

 

you got all the "interviews" from the 90's, no? why don't you post numbers? ask for what you can't produce yourself? and as already noted, the Sixth Amendment protections is a pretty substantial fact rebutting your claims.

 

in any event, am not sure what kinda numbers you is looking for, or how you want generated. of defendants accused o' same crime in same jurisdictions, what is % of convictions for persons who earn in top 10% v. bottom 50%... something like that? no doubt there is studies done on such. you got westlaw access? maybe old aba journal articles. is probable a sociologist study as 'posed to a legal one.

 

our career started with the US Attorney's Office before we moved onto first amendment stuff so we got got some personal experience in the field... enough to be able to sniff out nonsense such as the suggestion that wealthy defendants attempt to lengthen the process, or that rich defendants got an edge 'cause they can better fight wire-tap admissibility. but if you want something concrete, we can rundown the top ten most common categories o' crimes committed in the US... makes obvious why wire-tap is pretty rare.

 

*shrug*

 

tv is extreme misleading, and am not knowing who you interviewed in the 90's, but they gave you a distorted view o' reality. oj and michael jackson is needing an answer?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Of course I can't produce numbers. I just said I was relying on anecdotal data. You are the one claiming an authority on the subject. YOU back it up.

[Volourn]

No, he doesn't have to do any such thing.

[Gromnir]

Of course I can't produce numbers. I just said I was relying on anecdotal data. You are the one claiming an authority on the subject. YOU back it up.

 

superior authority means we need statistical data? ask a car mechanic with 15 years experience whether rich or poor people does a better job of maintaining their personal vehicles. when he gives an answer you not like, demand that he show you numbers as if the observation from the mechanic is less relevant without numbers or footnotes. does the mechanic likely keep personal records o' poor v. rich car owner maintenance habits? unlikely. nevertheless, as 'tween some clown who has watched top gear obsessively, and the mechanic with actual experience fixing cars, who is you gonna believe? as we said, the stuff you ask for is Not a legal question per se. you is asking for sociological data.

 

guy in england who clear misunderstands delay tactics o' civil v. criminal and thinks wire-tap challenge is a significant benefit to wealthy defendants. not need to post stats to recognize that there is serious holes in your knowledge o' criminal proceedings in the US.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

superior authority means we need statistical data? ask a car mechanic with 15 years experience whether rich or poor people does a better job of maintaining their personal vehicles. when he gives an answer you not like, demand that he show you numbers as if the observation from the mechanic is less relevant without numbers or footnotes. does the mechanic likely keep personal records o' poor v. rich car owner maintenance habits? unlikely. nevertheless, as 'tween some clown who has watched top gear obsessively, and the mechanic with actual experience fixing cars, who is you gonna believe? as we said, the stuff you ask for is Not a legal question per se. you is asking for sociological data.

 

guy in england who clear misunderstands delay tactics o' civil v. criminal and thinks wire-tap challenge is a significant benefit to wealthy defendants. not need to post stats to recognize that there is serious holes in your knowledge o' criminal proceedings in the US.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Modes of persuasion, Grommir. You questioned our characters now we are pointing the finger at you and asking you the same, where is the ethos to back up your argument?

[Humodour]

Yeah, I find it annoying when people use anecdotal evidence or argument from authority as the crux of their argument.

[Gromnir]

Yeah, I find it annoying when people use anecdotal evidence or argument from authority as the crux of their argument.

 

again, please be aware of the hypocrisy.

 

*snort*

 

and am suspecting that you has relied on authority literal hundreds if not thousands o' times in your life. med doctor visits. dentists. car mechanic. etc. nepenthe is correct when he is observing that everybody somehow believes they is an expert on law. go figure. oh, and once more, this ain't a question o' law, but if you not think lawyers, cops and judges gots special insights, then you kid yourself. regardless, we already pointed out a couple problems with walsh comments that is easily verifiable... if he wanna takes a quick look at the US Constitution, or use the logic krez seems to favor.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps while orogun is incorrect that we questioned his character (we questioned your certainty in spite of seeming lack of familiarity and requested clarification) it not change the hypocrisy o' the demand in absence of a similar offering, eh?

Edited July 21, 2011 by Gromnir