The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II DISCUSSION

It will be interesting to see if he actually answers the questions or just tries to run around them like he's been doing.

My opinion is that he knows that the "evidence" he's presenting can be easily dismantled with a couple of key questions so his solution to this to refuse to respond to direct questions and hope that the Defense just moves on without a fight.

Rhindon Blade is clearly bias towards the side of the Prosecution (no, really?) to the point of which he will do just about anything to make his opinion look good all the while trying to avoid those pesky and inconvenient truths that the Defense's questions would provide if answered in full.

In short, RB knows his testimony is flimsy and would not stand up to careful scrutiny so he’s seeking to by-pass this by refusing cooperation with the Defense and doing everything he can in his power to not answer any of the Defense’s questions.

We shall see how that strategy works out for him.
 
Ah, excellent! Keep that pot warm for me, would you?

V8 Supercars, city's first event, new track, 170,000 people, admin nightmare = very busy weekend for me.
 
*Eluvatar pours RB some tea.

I don't quite get what you meant here though, "Furthermore, I do not believe that in order for one to convict, unintentional or no, one needs to be a criminal." What does that mean?
 
That's because the witness is doing everything in their power not to answer questions and the Court isn't doing anything to rectify the situation.

Seriously, I feel like a lone atheist in the middle of a religious argument, I‘ve never seen so much false logic in my life.
 
You might as well be guilty, because there is no way i'm reading those walls of text that aren't even a response to a specific question, but are a witness opining from the stand.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I'm confused? It seems like the witness is asking questions of the defense?
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the accused practically stands the defense's lawyer. And I've been asked to comment on evidence I have deliberately dug up myself...something that is usually expected of the prosecution.
 
Oh he's around here somewhere I am sure, but he did take an announced leave.

Bladie:
And I've been asked to comment on evidence I have deliberately dug up myself...something that is usually expected of the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Well the Prosecution didn't do a very good job then, did it? :P
 
I have decide it takes too long to go through the whole trial everytime so am trying to summarise the case so far. If I have understood the case so far a summary of the prosecutions case is:-

1) Blue Wolf supplied an open access endo scanner, possible with the aim of it being use for treasonous reasons, obviously the intent behind this is disputed.
2) He had a conversation with an unnamed source, who it seems he might not be able to cross examine due to security reasons, that indicates he was planning an attack.
3) He discussed, whether seriously or not, an illegal change of government with the FEC, but how far he would have gone we do not know as FEC was not interested.
4) A third party conversation between Rhindon Blade and WTOTW could indicate that he tried to plan something, but as WTOTW has not been brought to the witness stand it could be considered hearsay. After all to me it seems that it has not been established by the prosecution what the relationship between WTOTW and Blue Wolf is/was. They could be friends or hate each other for all we know.

Hopefully I have got the gist of it, but can't be sure so by all means correct me. I am left wondering whether Geobbels name has been deliberately left in the RB transcript with WTOTW or not as RB obviously thought they might be involved somehow. To me posting the message with their name showing seems to cast a doubt on their loyalty.
:ADN:
 
Yes a very strange trial indeed. The prosecution witness called as an expert on evidence he had personally edited, I refrain from using the word doctored, has spent more time cross examining the accused than providing honest and open responses to direct questioning. It seem that the concept of “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” has been lost on him. If I was feeling generous I could put it down to some pretty loose questioning initially by the prosecution but the blatant evasion of direct Yes or No questions tells its own story.

I raise the following points:

1) If, as the prosecution witness argues, the endo scanner is such a deadly weapon then why is it free for all to access and use? I found it easily enough as have many others on this forum.

2) If it is not a weapon but rather a tool which can be used to facilitate the overthrow the government then where is the evidence it has been used to such ends? Has Wee Tiddle, or any other for that matter, used it to breach the Endo Cap?

3) If there was a plan to use the endo scanner to overthrow the government then where is the evidence of this plan? Indeed for clarity what was the plan, Who were the individuals who formulated it and who was to participate in its implementation?

Yes the democratically elected government and the system that elects them must be protected from revolutionary threats but all too often “defence of the realm” has been used as the vindication for miscarriages of justice. When the weight of the law is used without due diligence and thought against dissenting voices then those that wield it in such a manner debase its value and dishonour the positions they hold.

It is my humble opinion that this case was ill conceived, poorly planned, based on flimsy and questionable evidence and brought for all the wrong reasons.

Blessings on you all.

VP :noangel:
 
I find it remarkably telling that you only have comment for the very last word of my thoughts and are silent on the primary issues I have raised.
 
Vaticania Prime:
I find it remarkably telling that you only have comment for the very last word of my thoughts and are silent on the primary issues I have raised.
Click to expand...
The rest are matters of opinion which is up to the Court to decide, but the last is an accusation of misconduct. Now what would that reason possibly be? Or are you just throwing everything up against the wall and seeing what sticks?
 
Please don't try hiding behind subjudice as if you care to look back through this thread you will see a willingness to discuss this case out of court is something prosecution has had no issue with previously.

Do I take it that you have no intention of addressing the key issues I raised in defence of the action you have brought against Blue Wolf or is it because you cannot answer as they cut to the very core of your allegations? Any honest and impartial judicial system must be able to withstand the scrutiny and questioning of the citizens who are subject to it, otherwise how are they to have faith in it?

Let his benign light shine upon you.

VP :noangel:
 
Sorry guys, afraid I'm going down to Pompey tonight and I won't be back until late Sunday. I will be without an internet connection so we'll have to continue on Monday.
 
I fail to see how asking a series of interlinked and relevant question is slinging mud. A valiant effort at attempting to avoid the issue Mr Sniffles but doomed to failure as the issues remain unaddressed.

I repeat:

Where is the evidence of a plot?
What was this alleged plot?
Who participated or were to paticipate?

Without these points being addressed afraid it must be the prosecution that stands accused of mud slinging.

Bright blessings.

VP :noangel:
 
Oh, trust me, we've asked, we just didn't get anything in return but a lot of question dodging fluff.

So far all the Prosecution has really produced is a statement that amounts to "BW did something bad with some people at some time and we know this because.…we just do, stop asking stupid questions!"

The whole thing shouldn't have even progressed to trial if that's really all the "proof" they have.
 
Oh, trust me, we've asked, we just didn't get anything in return but a lot of question dodging fluff.
Click to expand...

Then that speaks volumes about the forensic skill of your defence team. Rather than whining about it in a discussion thread, get competent counsel.

And you know what they say about the person who conducts their own defence...
 
The point of this thread is, if I'm not mistaken, to allow people to voice their views and observations on the trial rather than to usurp it’s authority. If anything what we have here is a running commentary not dissimilar to what is seen in the free press anywhere when a matter of public interest is before the court.

I fully agree that Defence has been lax in some aspects of managing its case but the witness has singularly failed to provide clear and unequivocal answers to some pretty straightforward questions. I also stand by my earlier comments relating to the three key issues the Prosecution must prove for the case to stand.

1)What was the actual mechanics of the plot. Just saying there was a plot is insufficient, there must be evidence.

2)Who was actively involved in the plot and what were their roles. Again there must be evidence.

3)Was the plot initiated, if so where is the evidence, if not then why not?

Without all of these points being solidly addressed and proven beyond reasonable doubt then the case has no foundation.


Happy times ahead

VP :noangel:
 
It is not the job of a witness to conduct a prosecution or a defence. It is the job of a witness to answer questions. If the answers given do not help the defence's case, then that is down to counsel.

If a witness proves evasive, that is the point of examination.

as an outsider to this affair and this trial, looks to me as if the defence is clutching at straws in a pretty clear cut case.
 
Well you are entitled to your opinion as are we all and I respect that. However, in my opinion I believe it's a clear cut case of the prosecution bringing a hasty action with little or no thought put into confirming firstly if an offence has been committed.

With all prosecutions it is encumbant on the prosecuting body to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. So far they have not been able to produce evidence of an offence being committed. From experience it is normaly the accused or defence witnesses who tend to be circumspect or evasive with their answers. However in this case it is the prosecution witness who has been doing so. This raises great doubt in my mind as to the strength of the prosecution case when they are so determined not to respond openly and fully.

If this alleged plot involved several conspiritors then why are they not in the dock? Why has only one prosecution witness been called? In heavens name where is the evidence?

As with any criminal matter the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. This has so far not been achieved.

Something to mull on before vespers.

Illumination on you all.

VP :noangel:
 
Flem:
Then that speaks volumes about the forensic skill of your defence team. Rather than whining about it in a discussion thread, get competent counsel.

And you know what they say about the person who conducts their own defence...
Click to expand...

Flemmy, the Court got so pissed off at the second witness' question dodging that they basically threw him off the stand because they couldn't take any more of the BS he was spewing out.

We've been advocating this whole trial for the Court to be more strict about Courtroom protocol when it comes to the conduct of the witnesses but, until recently, we went largely ignored.

Evidence has been allowed into admission by the Court that borderline violates the Constitution despite our protests both in and out of public view. Witnesses have been allowed to speculate wildly under the guise of being an “expert”, the Prosecution has been allowed to take unrelated cheap shots, and evidence has been either censored or withheld from both public viewing and the view of the Defense themselves by the Court because it was deemed “sensitive”, which is a fairly big deal.

The fact that we're being forced to call a Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person to the stand pretty much highlights how much of a joke this Court has dissolved into.

From what I’m seeing, I could have Daniel Webster as my lawyer and we’d still be experiencing the same resistance from the Court.
 
I love all this legalese.

0330chewbacca.jpg

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
 
Well after a short delay it's business as usual in the courtroom. Mr S is going to have to adopt "Objection" as his middle name I think.
 
Vaticania Prime:
Glad you find it so amusing. :noangel:
Click to expand...
In comparison to the number of objections made by the defence? Hilarious and ironic.

But even I have to admit sometimes I feel like Phoenix Wright...
If someone else could find another legally accepted and proper way of objecting, then sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top