Hi all

[scipio_usmc]

I registered here today.  I am located in the United States. I have degrees in law and history and am former military.  I work in the legal profession.  My interest in this case is purely for pleasure.  I have no plans to write any works on the subject nor do I know anyone involved in the case.

I am simply interested in the truth about what occurred because of my interest in history and law.  I try to stay away from practicing criminal law but I do find it very interesting to study both the legal aspects as well as the factual aspects.  Especially cases involving firearms forensics since it is one of my passions.             

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nice to have you on the forum!

[John]

I registered here today.  I am located in the United States. I have degrees in law and history and am former military.  I work in the legal profession.  My interest in this case is purely for pleasure.  I have no plans to write any works on the subject nor do I know anyone involved in the case.

I am simply interested in the truth about what occurred because of my interest in history and law.  I try to stay away from practicing criminal law but I do find it very interesting to study both the legal aspects as well as the factual aspects.  Especially cases involving firearms forensics since it is one of my passions.           

Welcome to the forum scipio_usmc.  I look forward to reading your take on the case.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Scipio.  I have no idea what forum rules are on this, or indeed the rules of your own professional body, but if a poster wants to lay claim to being a member of a professional body and post from a position of authority it strikes me that he/she should be required to authenticate? 

[scipio_usmc]

Hi Scipio.  I have no idea what forum rules are on this, or indeed the rules of your own professional body, but if a poster wants to lay claim to being a member of a professional body and post from a position of authority it strikes me that he/she should be required to authenticate?

Honestly I don't care whether anyone believes I am a lawyer or not.  I am not going to bother to present my name for people to call up and harrass me, family or co-workers.  I have not suggested that someone should believe what I am saying because I am an authority. I present evidence and sound reasoning to support my positions.  I do not accept unsupported claims from people just because they supposedly are an authority nor do I advocate anyone else doing so. Too many times I have found authorities rendering unsupported opinions to be wrong.  One such case is here where this lawyer claimed there was an evidentiary basis to claim the suppressor was contaminated. I explained why he was wrong using evidence.

Even in a court of law we do not simply accept unsupported opinions of experts.  Experts must explain why and how something is the case so their claim can be evaluated for accuracy. If they don't explain at all or sufficiently then they will be furiously cross examined and have to explain on cross whether they had a solid basis for claiming what they did.

The only reason I mentioned the realities of what trial lawyers face is to try to help people understand the limitations at hand. Including understanding that a claim can be a double edged sword and result in admission of evidence that is damning and would otherwise never have been admitted or will highlight things the other side would not have brought to the attention to the jury even though they could have.  Moreover to try to give a better understanding of what reasonable doubt really means.  Reasonable doubt is in theory an objective standard. Is it reasonable to assume that a fingerprint was planted without any evidence to suggest that it was in fact planted?  No.  Just because it is possible to plant a fingerprint and therefore there is a remote theoretical possibility that a fingerprint was planted that doesn't mean there is a reasonable probability it happened. If there is some evidence to suggest that it was in fact planted then it is a different ballgame. In that case you can establish a reasonable probability it could have been planted and that constitutes reasonable doubt with respect to that piece of evidence.  There must be reasonable doubt with respect to every piece of major evidence though.   



 



     

[scipio_usmc]

On the history channel message board which I frequented for years (closed by the history Channel around 2011 but for many years was a great place for people of different countries to discuss and debate) there was someone who let his identity out.  Some nuts kept phoning his employer to try to get him fired among other things.  I have no intention of assisting people to harrass my friends and family.  I couldn't care less about letters or the like but third parties are the ones who usually suffer most especially if people call at work because I don't answer usually others do.   

I also do not want people posting my credentials and trying to hold me up as an authority simply because of them. People did that kind of crap all the time on the THC Forum.  When people have no valid argument or evidence that is when they rely on status as an authority.  I don't want people posting my proof is that Scipio says... and here are his credentials. If people want to "steal" from me I want them to "steal" my arguments which includes my reasoning and evidence not a claim supported merely by credentials.

When you bring up credentials then it is all about the person making the claim instead of testing the claims which is what it should be about. If valid points and arguments supported by evidence are made then it makes no difference at all whether the claim is being made by a plumber or a professor.  The points must be tested to determine whether they are valid.  A debate over the credentials of the person making the claim is pointless and diverts attention from the pertinent issue.

That is why I made no effort to ascertain if the person responsible for the quote is really a lawyer or not.  Whether he is a lawyer or not has no bearing on whether the claims he made are true I tested those claims.

If someone claims to have witnessed something that is a different matter though. Like if he claimed to be part of the defense team during the trial and was privy to secret info.  Then in that case his identity would matter.  On THC I busted no less than 10 people claiming to be soldiers/Marines. They made various claims that turned out to be sheer nonsense. Using actual military records I proved their claims false such as a guy who claimed he flew helicopters and was shot down 5 times in Vietnam.  The unit he claimed to be in didn't even have 5 choppers total shot down let alone was there a member in all 3 that were lost.  In all cases their credibility was an issue because they were the source of accounts they claimed they witnessed.  In that instance it actually matters if they took part as claimed or simply are making things up.