We're the Lose-Lose People

World Net Daily ^ | 15 Dec 2004 | Ann Coulter

[Rummyfan]

We're the 'lose-lose' people!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME – OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Shrum's losing streak obscures the fact that he is also a swine. Among his charming unifying political campaigns, in 1996, Shrum yanked his dripping snout from the political donation trough just long enough to design the commercial against California's Proposition 209 – which proposed banning racial preferences – that featured Klansman, burning crosses and David Duke. (Conforming to pattern: Shrum lost, Californians voted for the Proposition 54-46 percent, and then liberals tried to get a court to overturn it.)

This year, Shrum racked up his eighth loss in an unblemished 0-8 record of losing Democratic presidential campaigns. He's the embodiment of the Democratic Party ideal: Screw up, keep getting hired or promoted. One more loss and his last name officially becomes a verb, as in "we were ahead by 6 points but we ended up 'shrumming.'"

At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.

This came as no surprise to those who have followed the fate of Geragos' other hapless clients throughout the years. (Or, to be fair, the evidence against Peterson.) Among Geragos' clients are:

Clinton crony Susan McDougal: spent 18 months in federal prison. In his defense, at least Geragos didn't get Susan McDougal the death penalty. Any additional damage Geragos could do to McDougal's case was nullified when Clinton granted her a presidential pardon hours before he left office. As Susan McDougal assured New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in 1997, Clinton would never pardon her: "He's not going to wake up one day and confer it on me." As to how McDougal knows the way Bill Clinton behaves when he first wakes up in the morning, I'll leave that to your imagination.

Gary Condit: suspected (but never accused!) of involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance. Condit was never charged with any crime. But he hired Geragos to manage a media campaign to defend his reputation. The next thing Condit knew, he was kissing his 30-year political career goodbye when he lost to his Democratic primary opponent by a whopping 18 points. Or as the kids are saying these days, Condit got "shrummed" by 18 points. The only way Condit could have lost by a bigger margin would be if Bob Shrum had managed his campaign.

Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial, where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.) Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.

Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him. Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man.

And now Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been convicted of first- and second-degree murder in a trial that I believe began sometime in the '80s – which is good because you can always catch the trial highlights on VH1's "I Love the '80s."

The only reason to hire Mark Geragos is if the only other attorney left on Earth is Mickey Sherman, aka the "Mark Geragos of the East Coast." And that's only if Long Island gunman Colin Ferguson, who famously represented himself at trial, is not taking new clients.

But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.

In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."

Speaking of O.J., I keep hearing TV commentators say the Scott Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury. Besides the fact that the jurors themselves say O.J. never crossed their minds until the press started asking them questions, the comparison is absurd. Among the burdens liberals have placed on blacks is the nutty idea that all blacks are obliged to defend the worst elements of their race.

White people don't feel a need to defend Jeffrey Dahmer or Scott Peterson. Go ahead, kill him. If we did, the Judgment at Nuremburg would have ended in a hung jury. In fact, the biggest dilemma we usually face after a case like Scott Peterson's is, "Lethal injection, or Old Sparky?"

[Forgiven_Sinner]

A "no skin off my nose" ping for Ann. And a pic:

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Please add [Ann Coulter] to the title so we don't get duplicate posts.

Thanks.

[Miss Marple]

HA! She manages to skewer both Shrum AND Geragos (with a little needle to Mickey Sherman, too)!

[alloysteel]

Ann Coulter has expressed a certain degree of distain for both Mark Geragos and Bob Shrum, to the degree she suggests a new verb, "to shrum". Apparently this means that using the services of certain individuals guarantees a publicly known and overwhelming humiliation in the endeavor that has been undertaken.

[The Lumster]

"Physical evidence can be circumstantial. Ann notes this, referencing DNA and fingerprints as examples of such cases."


That is my point - much of the evidence against O.J., while circumstantial was physical evidence.

None of the circumstantial evidence against Peterson was physical - not one piece of physical evidence ties him to her death.

[radicalamericannationalist]

How about the hair in the pliers? Or the tools he used to make the anchors? Or the bodies used to establish time (in a generalized sense, not the TV fantasy of a to the minute pronouncement) of death?

[The Lumster]

Hair in pliers? - First of all they could not establish by DNA that it was her hair but even if it was, so what - She knew about the boat - She had been in the boat. A strand of her hair found in their boat was not evidence of a crime.

Anchors? - What anchors? The prosecution claimed he made anchors out of concrete to weigh down the body. This was pure speculation based on the fact that he had concrete in his garage and some concrete dust in the boat. But again they never produced any thing remotely resembling an anchor that they could tie to her death. I have some concrete in my garage - maybe I did it.

Again - I'm not saying he is innocent - he probably did it but I'd have like to have seen some physical evidence - an actual crime scene - some blood from the crime scene - a cause of death - something.

Ann was right about one thing - Geragos is a moron. There were enough holes in the prosecution's case that any half assed lawyer should have been able to raise some serious doubt.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Hey, I noticed you ignored the bodies. There was physical evidence. Quit watching CSI and thinking everything can be put in a nice little package at the end of the hour.

[Petronski]

Here's a previous discussion

[Mr. Lucky]

There was a boat load, so to speak of physical evidence.

The bodies were physical evidence. The bag of cement was physical evidence. The boat was physical evidence. The mistress was physical evidence. The hair dye was physical evidence. The glove compartment full of cash was physical evidence. Ad infinitum.

[The Lumster]

I didn't ignore the bodies - I said there wasn't even a cause of death.

A dead body in and of itself is not evidence of a crime - particularly when the coronor could not even provide a cause of death! She could have walked into the bay on her own for all we know.

I'm not saying it's likely just that without a cause of death how can you convict this guy of murder?

Yes - he acted guilty - but that is not physical evidence.

BTW - I've never seen CSI

[The Lumster]

OK - this is my last response to all this.

A dead body is not evidence of a crime without a specified cause of death. - She could have drowned herself for all we know.

Bag of cement - I have a bag of cement in my garage - does that make me a suspect?

A boat - lot's of people have boats - a boat is not evidence of a crime.

The Mistress - Is evidence of adultery - not evidence of murder

Hair dye & cash - Is evidence of intent to flee I'll grant that but a good lawyer could have raised plenty of doubts on this point.

Again - I agree with Ann that all this means Geragos is a moron. We should assign him to be Sadam's defense counsel. That should get Sadam convicted and executed within a few weeks

[radicalamericannationalist]

The dead bodies are physical evidence that she is dead, so there can be no "Elvis is alive"-style claim that she just ran away. The bodies also showed a time of death, negating the claim that she was kidnapped and held hostage. The fact that those bodies wash up where his own words place him, well, that's just pretty damning.

The fact that the coroner could not determine cause of death does not mean that the bodies were not physical evidence.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"The Mistress - Is evidence of adultery - not evidence of murder"

It's called motive.

"Hair dye & cash - Is evidence of intent to flee I'll grant that but a good lawyer could have raised plenty of doubts on this point."

An attempt to flee show "consciousness of guilt." Acts showing such consciousness are permitted as evidence that the defendant committed the crime.

[JFK_Lib]

The dead bodies are evidence that someone died, but not evidence of murder. In fact a murder was never proven to have occured in court because there was never a cause of death proven. As the earlier poster stated, she could have drowned, commited suicide, etc as far as any actually evidence or proff is concerned - the bodies do not prove murder.

The affair is hardly a motive as the scumbag had had many prior to the last one. When one is a serial philanderer any criminal event related to the wife is purely coincidental and hardly evidence of a motive.

And the scumbags hair dye, etc is no more evidence of intent to flee than of attempt to avoid paparazi and the cash was evidence of the cops timing more than of the scumbags decision to flee. And SP's parents lived near the Mexican border, which is why he was there, having been tossed out of his home by the Modesto PD.

And Ann is being disengenuous about what 'circumstantial evidence' means in narrow legal definition as compared to what it means in the vernacular, the latter of which is what most of us converse in.

Physical evidence can be considered direct evidence as it is something the jury can 'witness' for themselves when it is brought in and presented in court.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"The dead bodies are evidence that someone died, but not evidence of murder. In fact a murder was never proven to have occured in court because there was never a cause of death proven. As the earlier poster stated, she could have drowned, commited suicide, etc as far as any actually evidence or proff is concerned - the bodies do not prove murder."

Proving someone is dead is the first step to proving a murder. without the bodies, Garagos could have argued that Lacy had simply run away, had amnesia, or whatever. By proving her death, that avenue of argument is gone.

Further, the location of the bodies ties them to Scott as his own words placed him at the location

Finally, the rate of decomposition allowed them to determine time of death, thereby allowing them to charge him in Connor's death. It also showed when the death occurred (i.e. at the time of her disappearance rather than after weeks of captivity).

"The affair is hardly a motive as the scumbag had had many prior to the last one. When one is a serial philanderer any criminal event related to the wife is purely coincidental and hardly evidence of a motive. "

That's your opinion. Evidently the jury formed another, equally plausible opinion. After all, with the potential of having to pay alimony and child support in the event of divorce, Peterson had motive to kill rather than simply leave his wife and child.

"And the scumbags hair dye, etc is no more evidence of intent to flee than of attempt to avoid paparazi and the cash was evidence of the cops timing more than of the scumbags decision to flee. And SP's parents lived near the Mexican border, which is why he was there, having been tossed out of his home by the Modesto PD."

Yes, many people change their appearance, carry false ID and carry large amounts of cash around with them near the Mexican border. I live in San Diego and was just remarking to my brother-in-law about how I'd like to borrow his ID so that I could wander around with ten grand in my pocket.

Come on. Let's use common sense here.

"And Ann is being disengenuous about what 'circumstantial evidence' means in narrow legal definition as compared to what it means in the vernacular, the latter of which is what most of us converse in."

That the vernacular has been corrupted by half educated writers for Law and Order does not make that definition have any special significance. Words have meaning. Learn them.

[JFK_Lib]

1) You have not shown that the bodies show evidence of murder rather than, say, accidental death or suicide. Murder was never proven to have happened and that is a simple fact.

2) Many, many thousands of men commit adultery each day and yet only a very small fragmentary percentage kill their spouses. The statistics would suggest that it is more *unlikely* that a man committing adultery would kill his wife, not more so.

3) Yes, lets use common sense. A person is constantly hounded by paperazi and sells his membership in a country club, so has some cash on him, in addition to what his mother returned to him, so that he could buy a car. He has cash because he cant sell his wifes car, despite it being community property, and the cops still had his.

So, yes, common sense can allow for his having changed his appearance, being near the Mexican border with cash for which he planned to buy the car. It is only the presumption of guilt that colors this scenario as being implicative of guilt.

Either way, even if you can prove beyond doubt that SP was planning to flee, that does not prove he murdered his wife, it only means he had no faith in the justice system near Modesto and I cant blame him from this point in time.

4) Yes, words do have meaning, a meaning that exists in the vernacular long before the legal or other technical writers take those words and phrases and give them narrowed meanings within their proffession. You think you know what a 'key' is? It has entirely different meanings within different proffessions.

For Ann to use the narrow legal definition of 'circumstantial evidence' here as though it negates what people mean when speaking of it in the vernacular is merely a dodge. The specific fact is that there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that ties SP to his wifes death. There is no such evidence to prove a crime was necesarily committed in the first place as no murder was ever proven. Whether this would fall into some legal category of circumstantial evidence proves nothing more than the opacity of legal jargon.

While I think I would have to bet that SP did kill his wife if compelled to do so, his guilt was nowhere near being proved, and the jury convicted him from the hysteria remaining from seeing the autopsy photos and the fact that the MSM had already decided on SPs guilt from the start and tainted beforehand any possible jury.

This really undermines my support for the death penalty and if evidence comes to light that proves SP innocent, it will be a disaster for continuation of the death penalty in the mind of the public.

The media has proven repeatedly that it can focus on a crime and totally distort it to sell advertising while some innocent man (isnt it nearly always a man?) rots and maybe dies in jail like Richard Ricci did.

But somehow Ricci is not a victim and is forgetable, but everyone *knows* without a shred of physical evidence that SP is guilty? It is simply mind-boggling how degenerate our justice system has become.

Some wag once said we have a due process system, not a justice system.

Well now we dont even have due process as the SP case has demonstrated that a person can be railroaded on emotional shock and media hype to the point of a death sentence, the whole nation can watch and everyone still left thinking that somehow justice has been served.

If one is born a male in the US today, one is born with the presumption of guilt regarding any gender related crime - THAT is the only thing that has been proven in the Scott Peterson case.

[Lazamataz]

I wasn't too hot on Ann's beauty.

Then I saw that pic.

Now she must marry me.

[uglybiker]

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[JFK_Lib]

Have you seen the case where the woman killed a pregnant woman simply to take the child?

http://cnn.org/2004/LAW/12/19/missouri.fetus/index.html

If that could have happened once, it could have happened in the SP case. Nothing was ever presented in court that tied SP to a *speculated* murder of his wife and it could have been a third party as far as the evidence goes who then dumped the corpse int he bay where SP tried to establish his alibi. That is more reasonable to me than to suppose someone would try to alibi themselves where they dumped the bodies.