Lawyers Aren’t Always Bad

Years ago, in a house far, far away, I was undergoing a course which involved a module to do with the “Law of Evidence”, which involved learning about what types of evidence is acceptable in Courts in Victoria. We did an in-depth study of the case of Leith Ratten, a man from the very far North of Victoria who was convicted of shooting his eight-month-pregnant wife, causing her death.

Now, Leith Ratten may or may not have been guilty, because I’m certainly not convinced “beyond reasonable doubt”, and we all know what that means. Leith Ratten was apparently turning from facing left to facing right while holding a loaded rifle, and he was blind in his right eye. So yes, it could have been intentional, and it could have been an accident. And when he rang the Echuca telephone exchange (who were, and are now, in charge of connecting all phone calls) he said either “Police!” or an unheard (“Ambulance”) “Please!” Again, reasonable doubt springs up.

Add to it that Ratten was having an affair with a married woman at the time. Reasonable doubt all around, either way.

Important Question

Important to me at least, because I’m intrigued and it’s bugging me.

Is “A Mighty Heart” worth watching at all?

I have suspicions that Hollywood would have completely destroyed the true story of Daniel Pearl and what happened to end his life in such a horrific fashion, but I thought I’d ask for reviews rather than watching it and destroying my TV.

Tips/Hints and especially opinions are greatly appreciated!

For The Historically Interested

The scene is England. The date is August 31, 1759 and it’s dark outside. It’s a quarter past nine in the evening, and two men are fighting.

They are both skilled fighters. Their dispute started in an ale-house, when the landlady attempted to send one of the men and another who was with him away. The second man assisted her, and he and the first man started fighting.

Out in the street, one of the men stabbed the other in the abdomen, and was then taken to the hospital. The other was arrested. The man who was stabbed died at 2pm the following day.

The case of the murder of William Kendal was heard in the Old Bailey in England on 12 September 1759, and the sentence was immediately given.

The sentence was swift, with no appeal process:

Now, for the plug:

This all comes from the Old Bailey Online, which has just released transcripts of criminal trials from back to 1674. It makes for rather fascinating reading. Those of us interested in history, particularly that of criminal matters, will enjoy this.

Three observations though:

1. 11 days to prepare a criminal trial and have a sentence handed down? Brilliant! Now it’s lucky to take less than 11 months.

2. Two and a little bit days to carry out a sentence for almost nothing (monetary wise)? Equally good, as long as guilt is established. In this case, it seems to have been pretty conclusive.

3. We’ve advanced far in medicine, because this kind of injury is often overcome these days. Of course, I say that just going off the information read in the transcript.

One last thing, if anyone likes reading about true crime and the like, I have plenty of links if you’re interested.

Proof Positive that Lawyers are Amoral Shit, Spat out of Hell

I dare you – I fucking dare you – to read this, and come to any conclusion other than that Shakespeare was right when he said, through his surrogate character, “Dick the Butcher” in Henry VI part 2, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” No utopia is possible so long as a single lawyer sucks air.

“This is a story about an innocent man who has been in prison for 26 years while two attorneys who knew he was innocent stayed silent. They did so because they felt they had no choice.”

Think about that! These two shysters knew an innocent man was rotting his life away in fucking prison and they stayed silent about it.

“Now new evidence reveals that Logan did not commit that murder. But as correspondent Bob Simon reports, the evidence was not new to those two attorneys, who knew it all along but say they couldn’t speak out until now.”

Couldn’t speak out? NO!!! WOULDN’T speak out: They willed not to speak, they were not prevented from doing so. Sub-human bastards.

“Attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan had good reason to think that, because they knew he was innocent. And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald’s – the crime Logan was charged with committing.”

Is that clear enough? These two scum-sucking, maggot-out-of-hell shysters knew this man didn’t commit the crime, and they also knew exactly who did. So what did they do? They let the poor guy spend half of his life in prison. How, ex-fucking-zactly is that not pure, unmitigated evil? It is, in thought, word, and deed, evil, which is my point: Lawyers are intrinsically evil slime who ought to be treated as the second-class scum that they, in fact, are. If it was up to me, they would all have a scarlet “L” tattooed on their foreheads so they could be instantly recognized for the losers that they are.

Get ready – brace for it – here it comes: A shyster thoroughly indoctrinated and brainwashed by the relativistic shit-sea that is wrongly-so-called a “law school” explains:

“Well, the vast majority of the public apparently believes that, but if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or you know anybody who knows the rules of conduct for attorneys, it’s very, very clear-it’s not morally clear-but we’re in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It’s just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn’t work without it,” Coventry explained.”

Get the kicker there: ” – it’s not morally clear – “?

What. the. fucking. FUCK?!?!?! I guess I’m just a simple musical genius, but that situation is perfectly morally clear to me: You tell the judge, you lose your job, and you go on to do something that doesn’t involve ripping people off and fucking them in the ass! The innocent man goes free, and you end up happier all around in the long run, and you might not end up in hell with every other shyster who ever wasted a lifetime turning perfectly good oxygen into carbon dioxide, perfectly good water into piss, and perfectly good food into shit.

That’s right, these stinking yeast-infected gashes weren’t risking jail or anything, they would have just lost their miserable, dishonorable jobs. So, to save their positions in the least honorable profession mankind has ever developed or even conceived of… they let an innocent man rot in prison. Any crack whore would have made a more honorable choice.

And, we let these evil piles of relativistic excrement make the law and judge the law: How is that not insane? Shysters should be limited to the adversarial part of the process, where their evil is actually necessary. No lawyer is qualified to be a judge or legislator due to their inherant evil, never mind the conflicts of interest.

If you took as a strategy the, “kill them all and let God sort them out” tactic with lawyers, God would have exactly no work to do. Lawyers are the very lowest of all human forms of life. At least pathological criminals have a pathology to explain their behavior; lawyers are just plain evil.

I hope the Lord has long, slow, lingering, miserable deaths in store for these two abject fucks.

Amen.

Cop Killer: State Not Trained To Kill Me….Is Trying to convince SCOTUS.

Ralph Baze is awaiting execution for the cold-blooded murder of a sheriff and his deputy, but has convinced Supreme Court to review claim that state’s executioners are not qualified to take his life.

Say, Ralphie…Question. Were you “qualified” to take the lives of that “sheriff and his deputy”? Didn’t think so, you gutless cry baby, son-of-a-bitchin’ murderer.

Fox News

Video may take a while to load, I’m sure it is being hammered…Also depends on the speed of your hook up