Joe Guy wrote:It gets confusing when you present quotes from sources that say that it is common for prosecutors to act unethically and at the same time you claim that most of them aren't.Andrew D wrote: No.
And I said so.
I have said so from the very beginning.
I said so in the very posting that Lord Jim has been harping on.
I said "rarely". Rarely. As in no, not often; rarely.
And I have said so again and again and again.
This argument between you and Lord Jim is based on miscommunication and misinterpretation. If you didn't mean what Jim said that he believed you meant there are better ways to communicate that idea than to lash out at him.
There's not much more I can say on this subject without getting into the same argument that I'm trying to sort out.
I thought that at first too Joe, but it became apparent after a while that he was just engaged in deliberate dishonesty and attempting to brow beat me into shutting up about it.This argument between you and Lord Jim is based on miscommunication and misinterpretation.
To understand this "rarely" thing he keeps carping on, you have to look at the full original quote in context. :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3090&p=39842&hilit= ... ice#p39842It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.
But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.
"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.
It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.
Ever since he said this, he has been taking his "rarely" characterization out of context, as though he were saying that prosecutors would have some sort of moral or ethical compunction about suborning perjury; or that it happens "rarely" because he belives that most of the time the evidence is legally gathered and presented...(He clearly doesn't believe that)
But it's obvious from the full context that the only reason he used the word "rarely" is because of the other completely pulled out of his ass accusation; that : "Most of the time, the police have done that for them."
(It's worth noting that not one single time has he even pretended to provide any proof for his charges of rampant criminality among the police. I mentioned this fact over and over again, and he just ignored it. Again, this something he has deliberately tried to bury under the sheer volume of his lies and distortions)
So what he is saying is that he thinks that the reason prosecutors "rarely" suborn perjury is because of another blanket unproven charge that he made regarding the police. It's clear from what he wrote that the one is completely dependent on accepting as true the other.
Of course he then goes on to state as a fact:
So, when one takes everything he said here in context, how "rarely" prosecutors suborn perjury is entirely dependent on the cops "fabricating evidence". Based on what he said, it obviously won't be "rare" if the cops don't do this. because, as he said, "where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it."]It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.
The reason it seems confusing is because he's deliberately trying to make it so; he's doing this because a straight forward reading of what he says reveals that he has put together a construct based on two completely unproven assertions that he wants to treat as facts, and this reveal just how his whole position is founded on complete BS.
It's also confusing because taken in total it's contradictory. If you assume that cops don't regularly fabricate the evidence, given his final assertion, prosecutors would have to be suborning perjury a lot more than rarely....If he believes that it is a fact that "where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it" but that this only happens "rarely" he would first have to prove that the assertion this is based on is true; ie, that "Most of the time, the police have done that for them".
And as I've pointed out, he's never even pretended to try to do this. (Probably because even as off the hook as he's become he's still intelligent enough to realize that he can't)
But as with Team Troll, contradictions are not important, because the only reality is whatever they happen to be saying at any given moment. And the hope is that if he just keeps saying what he wants people to believe over and over to the point that anyone trying to point out what was actually said and done gives up, that eventually all people will remember is the made up distorted revisionist version, and that the actual facts will be forgotten.
That's the gist of the strategy he's employing.
