Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[Burnt Hill]

I already know how this is gonna go. He wins. So I'm out.

Dont let this happen, you are not alone. It would be nice if there was some moderation to what has gone on here, but what are you gonna do? You are going to keep on fighting the good fight. We need you.

[justdrew]

naw, I'm with ya c2w, mac has been exactly as you say. He needs to knock it off

[Burnt Hill]

@c2w: For what it's worth I agree 100% with what you wrote. Please don't leave.

@Mac: Stop acting like such an arrogant prick. You probably don't see it that way, but that's how you come across.

Dr. Evil, thank you for speaking up.

[Burnt Hill]

naw, I'm with ya c2w, mac has been exactly as you say. He needs to knock it off

And you justdrew, thanks, we need more voices of reason to be heard here. And not let any of us get run over by a weasel wording self serving bully. By the way this is the first time I have cast any aspersion on anyone in this thread, just in case FourthBase is concerned.

[Burnt Hill]

I dont care that I continue off topic. At some point mutual respect and taking care of each other becomes more important. A certain member has been completely lacking in these characteristics. I am not the kind of person to "alert the mods".
But I know there are many kind and generous people here and we must standup for each other. So now, maybe, for me, back on topic.

[dbcooper41]

the dead can often be revived MacCruiskeen, if they got him to the hospital quickly enough. I'd expect they often attempt resuscitation on recent DOAs.

indeed!
just like the sandy hook victims.
oh wait, they were left in the school, laying on the floor, because they were obviously too dead to bother with.
couldn't even waste an ambulance ride on them.

[Project Willow]

Really, truly, Mac, that kind of belligerent rage should be reserved to fire actions against perps, and not misdirected here.

@c2w: For what it's worth I agree 100% with what you wrote. Please don't leave.

Agreed.

My apologies to C2W for not taking the time to speak up earlier. Hang in there.

[Burnt Hill]

the dead can often be revived MacCruiskeen, if they got him to the hospital quickly enough. I'd expect they often attempt resuscitation on recent DOAs.

indeed!
just like the sandy hook victims.
oh wait, they were left in the school, laying on the floor, because they were obviously too dead to bother with.
couldn't even waste an ambulance ride on them.

ouch... interesting point, wrong thread, but I hear you.

[justdrew]

the dead can often be revived MacCruiskeen, if they got him to the hospital quickly enough. I'd expect they often attempt resuscitation on recent DOAs.

indeed!
just like the sandy hook victims.
oh wait, they were left in the school, laying on the floor, because they were obviously too dead to bother with.
couldn't even waste an ambulance ride on them.

my gawd. have you at last no shame?

[FourthBase]

the dead can often be revived MacCruiskeen, if they got him to the hospital quickly enough. I'd expect they often attempt resuscitation on recent DOAs.

indeed!
just like the sandy hook victims.
oh wait, they were left in the school, laying on the floor, because they were obviously too dead to bother with.
couldn't even waste an ambulance ride on them.

ouch... interesting point, wrong thread, but I hear you.

Seriously? They were first-grade children, obliterated with at least two high-powered rounds each. For fuck's sake. They were dead. Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead.

Seeing how late I was responding, I won't be alerting any mods. Too late. But I will say this: C2W?, dumb move. You couldn't let it go? You've seen me. You know me as well as any virtual stranger can know another. You've seen one of the least let-things-go Southie punks on earth...let many, many things go. Yes, react. Often. Over-react, even. But even then, after the hormones have dissipated, senses re-gained...letting things go. In the interests of finding out truths. You are the board's Undisputed Champion of Reasonability. Which is why it sucks that you couldn't let it go this time. It, being your ego. Which is why it hurts, because this thread and the pursuit of the truth in the matter of these bombings means a little bit more to me personally than everyone here except a handful of members, and perhaps even them, because who else has loved ones living 500 feet from Emad Muntasser? I do. Do you? Catching the mastermind perps would be a victory for mankind, ultimately, short-term, too. But in the shortest-term, I want any secret masterminds and remaining sleeper cells out of my city, off of these streets, out of my fucking neighborhood, in jail. So I can sleep. No, living here doesn't give me the right to try to shut anyone up who might disagree with me over a fact or interpretation of an event. But living here makes everything personal to me. And what hurts my feelings is not when anyone supposedly disrespects my standing in this thread as a Bostonian. What hurts my feelings is when people prioritize their own feelings over pursuing the truth. With the maximum amount of respect expressible in pixelized words: Sorry, but, fuck your feelings. You, too, Mac, of course. You instigated and aggravated the intra-board personal bullshit and would not cede even an inch of territory on your phantom high ground. You were the worst here, by far. But no, I will not be offering C2W? any support or solace. Not here. She wasn't as bad as Mac, she was even right about Mac, but that last post, however right, was so totally-gratuitous that it makes her just as responsible. She wants to take a vacation? Cool. Come back soon. But yeah, good idea. Mac, take an even longer one, please. Learn how to simmer. If I can, anyone can.

Now, if you all don't mind, fuck this personal crap and let's get back to, say, Brian Glyn Williams.
(Really, no commentary about the personal stuff necessary. I covered it all. Move on.)

[compared2what?]

I think we should consider banning anyone who attempts to reverse the burden of proof, or who regards evidence as an option and a luxury,

(From here.)

Moving right along with the speaking-truth-to-the-will-to-power-run-amok-in-an-effort-to-contain-the-damage-and-lies part of our program:

Problematic as your belief that the burden of proof is a reversible legal principle that entitles you to yell at people who disagree with you for their lesser standards and insufficient dedication to justice and fair play may be, it's nothing compared to your ceaseless promotion of your views on evidence. So here we go:

I believe you've expressed some very strong feelings about people who compromise Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's right to a fair trial. Well, guess what? When you agitate for the instant public release of every scrap of evidence the state has against him, you're not arguing for something that would protect his right to that, which you seem -- once again -- to have confused with your needs. You're arguing for something that would destroy it.

Why, you ask? Because the key prong of a right to a fair trial is an impartial jury, meaning "a jury that walks in the door in a state of impartiality regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, hears and weighs the evidence on its merits, and then renders a verdict based on whether or not what they heard met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

And you know what makes it vanishingly less likely that the jury will be able to hear evidence being presented by the state and challenged by the defense in an impartial frame of mind? Repeatedly hearing the prosecution's entire fucking case on the news and reading about it in the newspaper for months and months in advance of being called to serve. That's what.

And you never know. If you bear that in mind the next time the urge to spend pages asking the internet why you haven't been shown this or that piece of evidence strikes you , you might even get back some of the time I've wasted.

BRB.

[compared2what?]

And by the way, if you have a problem with that,^^ take it up with the Supreme Court. Because if they realized how much personal pain the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were causing you, maybe they'd do something about it. But until you get out there and set them straight, you're stuck with this:

The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press (print and electronic media) to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury.

The U.S. Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of pretrial publicity since the 1960s. In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1961), the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began. Despite these admissions, the trial judge accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous. It set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors are biased.

The Supreme Court extended this concern to the trial stage in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966). Local officials allowed Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard's 1954 murder trial to degenerate into a media circus. The Cleveland media heavily publicized the case before trial and disrupted the control of the court during the trial. The jurors were exposed to intense media coverage of the case until the time they began their deliberations. Following deliberations, Sheppard was convicted of murder. Sheppard spent ten years in prison before the Supreme Court ruled that the publicity had deprived him of a fair trial. Sheppard was acquitted at his second trial.

The Sheppard case brought national attention to the problem of pretrial publicity. Trial judges attempted to address this problem by imposing gag orders on the press, preventing it from reporting pretrial information. The press resisted this approach and was supported by the Supreme Court in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976). The Court held that the trial judge's Gag Order was an unconstitutional Prior Restraint on the press.

Trial courts then attempted to close criminal trials to the public, including the press. The Supreme Court, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980), limited this approach, holding that the right of access to criminal trials is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Closure will only be permitted if there is an overriding interest, such as ensuring a defendant's right to a fair trial. In this and subsequent cases, the Court has adopted a test that makes it very difficult to justify closure.

A troublesome issue for defense attorneys is whether a jury pool is so "contaminated" by pretrial publicity that it will be extremely difficult to seat an impartial jury. In Mu'min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 111 S. Ct. 1899, 114 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate that prospective jurors be asked in Voir Dire examinations about specific information concerning the case that they have seen or heard in the media. The Sixth Amendment's impartial jury requirement will be satisfied when jurors do not admit during voir dire that they have been prejudiced by pretrial publicity.

Faced with court decisions that make it difficult to prevent the media from reporting pretrial information, courts have several ways of overcoming prejudicial pretrial publicity. One common tactic is for the court to issue an order prohibiting the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and other trial participants from making public comments about the case. Courts often permit extensive juror questionnaires that give both sides the chance to identify persons who have been exposed to pretrial publicity and who have already made up their minds about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. A court also may sequester the jury during the course of the trial. Another tactic is to postpone the trial until publicity dies down. In rare cases a court will change the venue of the trial to a locale less affected by the pretrial publicity.

From here.
.
You owe me an apology. I've not only never been mean or angry to you without provocation, I've never even quarreled with you for any reason other than that I thought you were making a mistake that was harmful to your own fucking stated interests. I don't say I like you for the sheer sport of it. I actually do like you. .

[Iamwhomiam]

Wow! a lot transpires within a few hours. C2w?, it is too bad our moderators weren't alert, (though it's hard to believe they haven't all been aware of this interchange) and took no action to modify one's abhorrent behavior.

Even if Mac shared with us his reason for questioning this imo rather unimportant item, which he hasn't, it wouldn't excuse his abusive treatment of others.

I'm more curious as to why that detail is important to him, because it holds no interest to me nor do I feel it deepens any mystery or helps to solve it. It seems to me as utterly unimportant as the source of Lanza's photo, yet one here is seemingly stuck there unable to proceed without the almighty answer.

So I'll ask most plainly, "what's so fucking important about the coroner leaving the time of death unknown?

I mean important enough to ignore your obviously limited powers of self control and to insult others so disparagingly.

[FourthBase]

[justdrew]

c2w is exactly right re pretrial publicity and protecting the right to a fair trial meaning in part evidence is generally not paraded before the public until the trial. I think I tried to point that out 20, 30, 40 or more pages ago. but Mac is not listening much to anyone and engaging in endless troll like behavior. WTF? Frankly I've mostly ignored it, but thankfully everyone hasn't.