I think it was pretty clear I’m talking about the clients. Though if you’ll remember going after Maxwell somehow didn’t involve discussing her clients. That was hidden during their going after her. Which is interesting isn’t it?
Dealing with potential bias from jurors is a part of the legal system. One they’ve dealt with many times in many ways. This isn’t the 1800s. The news exists. TVs exist. Computers exist. The Internet exists. It’s not a new problem . It’s not something that is impossible to deal with. So that’s just a completely fallacious argument. And frankly if for some reason they couldn’t do it because of that well that’s what the pitchforks are for.
I think it was pretty clear I’m talking about the clients. Though if you’ll remember going after Maxwell somehow didn’t involve discussing her clients. That was hidden during their going after her. Which is interesting isn’t it?
Are you being fucking serious right now.
Dealing with potential bias from jurors is a part of the legal system. One they’ve dealt with many times in many ways. This isn’t the 1800s. The news exists. TVs exist. Computers exist. The Internet exists. It’s not a new problem . So that’s just a completely fallacious argument.
Yes, and questioning jurors about their exposure to media evidence relevant to the case is a very well known way of weeding out people who’ve been influenced by public exposure of cases before they go to trial by the defense.
And frankly if for some reason they couldn’t do it because of that well that’s what the pitchforks are for.
So it’s just your contention that trials are impossible in the Modern Age? That nothing that’s been covered by the media can ever be brought to trial? That’s really where you are here? That’s why we can’t prosecute pedophiles and sex traffickers? Really?
No, my contention is that making evidence public before a trial is damaging to any attempts to prosecute people on the strength of that particular evidence, and thus making evidence public as a publicity stunt is not an action meaningfully ‘going after’ the people implicated by that evidence
I think it was pretty clear I’m talking about the clients. Though if you’ll remember going after Maxwell somehow didn’t involve discussing her clients. That was hidden during their going after her. Which is interesting isn’t it?
Dealing with potential bias from jurors is a part of the legal system. One they’ve dealt with many times in many ways. This isn’t the 1800s. The news exists. TVs exist. Computers exist. The Internet exists. It’s not a new problem . It’s not something that is impossible to deal with. So that’s just a completely fallacious argument. And frankly if for some reason they couldn’t do it because of that well that’s what the pitchforks are for.
Are you being fucking serious right now.
Yes, and questioning jurors about their exposure to media evidence relevant to the case is a very well known way of weeding out people who’ve been influenced by public exposure of cases before they go to trial by the defense.
Oh, like the ‘pitchforks’ that came out the last time people were credibly linked to Epstein, during the Biden administration, no less? How did that fucking go, again?
Christ.
So it’s just your contention that trials are impossible in the Modern Age? That nothing that’s been covered by the media can ever be brought to trial? That’s really where you are here? That’s why we can’t prosecute pedophiles and sex traffickers? Really?
No, my contention is that making evidence public before a trial is damaging to any attempts to prosecute people on the strength of that particular evidence, and thus making evidence public as a publicity stunt is not an action meaningfully ‘going after’ the people implicated by that evidence