Hillary's rape case: a non-biased view

Originally posted by no1marauder
You were already informed in the other thread of the basis for Hillary's motion for a psychiatric examination of the alleged victim but continue to pretend that it was based on "nothing". The document is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor at p. 34.

No lawyer ever knew their client was guilty, so you a ...[text shortened]... n't "cheated" when a defense counsel presents a vigorous defense; it is cheated when they don't.

I'm pretending?
Get real.
She claimed to have reason to ask for psychiatric examination of the child, based on unsupported and unnamed sources for the child's alleged frame of mind.
She had been informed these two aspects of the child's psychological make-up?
By whom!?!
She cites no one, she enters no corroborating witness, zero-nada-zilch.
She made it up, in other words.
That is the textbook definition of lying: concocting something about which you have no facts.

Good on you for offering the link which proves my point.
Thanks, buddy.

No lawyer ever knew their client was guilty?
Are you high?

The system is cheated when in defense of their client attorneys lie.
Period, full stop.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm pretending?
Get real.
She claimed to have reason to ask for psychiatric examination of the child, based on unsupported and unnamed sources for the child's alleged frame of mind.
She had been informed these two aspects of the child's psychological make-up?
By whom!?!
She cites no one, she enters no corroborating witness, zero-nada-zilch.
She made ...[text shortened]... igh?

The system is cheated when in defense of their client attorneys lie.
Period, full stop.

You obviously don't know anything about pre-trial motions; I've written many affidavits similar to the one Hillary did. In general, you give the source of such information only if requested by the judge. Your claim that she "just made it up" is without a single shred of evidence to support it; in other words, YOU just made it up. And unlike Hillary's affidavit, you can do so without risking the penalties for perjury.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously don't know anything about pre-trial motions; I've written many affidavits similar to the one Hillary did. In general, you give the source of such information only if requested by the judge. Your claim that she "just made it up" is without a single shred of evidence to support it; in other words, YOU just made it up. And unlike Hillary's affidavit, you can do so without risking the penalties for perjury.

Ha!
The prosecutor named their witnesses, both physically present to hear the attacks and forensic witnesses after the fact.
Hillary named... no one.
Wasn't challenged.
But still allowed her innocent client to plead?
Sure.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ha!
The prosecutor named their witnesses, both physically present to hear the attacks and forensic witnesses after the fact.
Hillary named... no one.
Wasn't challenged.
But still allowed her innocent client to plead?
Sure.

Yes, they have to.

Since the case was pled out before Hillary's motion was decided on, she didn't have to.

You seem to think that defense lawyers have the power to force their clients not to take a plea deal. They don't.

As I have already said, the only people who know if Mr. Taylor was innocent or not were the ones present on the night of May 10, 1975. Not you, not me, not even Hillary. It is possible he pled to exactly what he actually did i.e. fondle the girl, not rape her (the evidence was that she had already had sex that night with a 15 year old boy).

EDIT: Actually it is unclear what happened to the motion; there's no document denying or granting it. The plea occurred on November 4, 1975 which was over three months after its filing, however, so it was probably resolved one way or the other.

EDIT2: And even an innocent man facing a trial where if he lost he might be sentenced to 30 years to life could reasonably decide that spending one year in the county jail, even with a felony conviction and 4 years of parole, was preferable to accepting such a risk.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, they have to.

Since the case was pled out before Hillary's motion was decided on, she didn't have to.

You seem to think that defense lawyers have the power to force their clients not to take a plea deal. They don't.

As I have already said, the only people who know if Mr. Taylor was innocent or not were the ones present on the night of May ...[text shortened]... l, even with a felony conviction and 4 years of parole, was preferable to accepting such a risk.

A man who is innocent never takes a plea bargain.
Ever.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A man who is innocent never takes a plea bargain.
Ever.

Wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/innocent-people-guilty-pleas_b_1553239.html

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A man who is innocent never takes a plea bargain.
Ever.

Except the tons of innocents who were threatened with much harsher sentences if they didn't.

Please understand that i believe you are such an imbecile that i ignore you most of the time. When i do reply to one of your posts it means it was exceptionally moronic so me calling you an imbecile again is implied

Originally posted by vivify
Wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/innocent-people-guilty-pleas_b_1553239.html

You cited a case where the accused plead no contest--- neither guilty or not guilty.
An innocent man does not admit guilt which does not exist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You cited a case where the accused plead no contest--- neither guilty or not guilty.
An innocent man does not admit guilt which does not exist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crippling-court-costs-force-poverty-stricken-people-to-plead-guilty-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-10466451.html

"Poverty-stricken people are being encouraged to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit out of fear they will face crippling costs imposed by new financial penalties, leading lawyers, magistrates and campaigners have warned."