| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 08 2006 : 12:27:55 AM
|
quote:
Unlike a Plaster of Paris which may capture a footprint in a permanent structure, I believe that your referral to the footprints of thousands of warriors should, at the least, produce substantial forensic evidence is a Primai Facie argument for evidence suitable to Courts of Law or to public discussion. I understood you quite well.
A contaminated scene can not produce forensic evidence suitable for a court handling criminal matters if the evidence could be contaminated by any means. Public discussion has no criteria for "Primai Facie argument" discussion.
Prima facie has a legal definition but I have not seen it attached to the word argument.
|
An officer's first duty is to his horses.
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 08 2006 12:29:56 AM |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 1:09:06 PM
|
Az, Prima Facie evidence is evidence that stands upon its own merit. It need not be substantiated by corroborative issues. An example would be that one blasts a human being in the abdomen, close range, with a 12 gage shot gun. It is prima facie that the subsequent death is a result of the shot gun balls ripping vital organs and not a heart attack. While I am certain that there exist, somewhere, an unscrupulous barrister who would argue that the "heart attack" was the actual cause of death to get his client off. Thus the connection with argument. While my example may be construed as ridiculous by some, I offer the "Primi Facie" evidence of O.J's blood on the crime scene of his wife's death as an example. A shyster lawyer succeeded in getting his client off despite the Prima Facie evidence of blood/DNA.
Sorry to disagree with you but, a Crime Scene will and can produce forensic evidence even if contaminated. That contaminated portion will be disregarded. However if prosecution or, for that matter defense,can prove the reliability of the remaining portion of the crime scene it is introduced into Court. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 2:09:06 PM
|
A contaminated scene can not produce forensic evidence suitable for a court handling criminal matters if the evidence could be contaminated by any means. Public discussion has no criteria for "Primai Facie argument" discussion.
quote:
Sorry to disagree with you but, a Crime Scene will and can produce forensic evidence even if contaminated. That contaminated portion will be disregarded. However if prosecution or, for that matter defense,can prove the reliability of the remaining portion of the crime scene it is introduced into Court.
Joe read my statement again "if it could be contaminated" would leave uncontaminated forensic evidence which could be used for court. A defense in a criminal case is that evidence could be added to a crime scene. The court is obligated to take it into account. For example you could not use blood evidence from LBH. It would prove nothing. Too many people have left blood there since June 25, 1876.
I am having trouble thinking of any uncontaminated evidence that might still exist at LBH but I don't rule it out.
AZ Ranger |
An officer's first duty is to his horses.
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 2:13:18 PM
|
quote:
Prima Facie evidence is evidence that stands upon its own merit. It need not be substantiated by corroborative issues. An example would be that one blasts a human being in the abdomen, close range, with a 12 gage shot gun. It is prima facie that the subsequent death is a result of the shot gun balls ripping vital organs and not a heart attack.
Joe Again you are wrong. A coroner determines cause of death. DC has stated that you stated you were in law enforcement. Is that correct?
AZ Ranger |
An officer's first duty is to his horses.
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 2:31:11 PM
|
AZ, for your entertainment you might want to read the entire "Benteen's Orders" thread starting on page two of topics on this board. R. Larson, long departed from participation and regretfully so, pretty much demolished Wiggs' various claims, and he was only in law school. Before you expend any more energy, you might want to read it. Also, the From the Indian Side threads where Wiggs enters various minds of the past.
As you sharply noticed, Analyst on LBHA has not dissimilar attributes, so your presence and Harpskippie's has toned down references to his allegedly relevant military and law enforcement background. Military officers tend to be restrained and good writers. The exclamation points that lacerated his posts are a clue. He was Warlord, I'm told, on this board and was tossed off, his posts erased (I and several others still have them.) He started out trying to pass off a game site as a reference here, and his posts since smell of the recently read on the Web to avoid being caught again.
I'm not entirely sure there are more than ten of us who participate on these boards. That's some hyperbole, but not much. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 8:11:46 PM
|
| DC, as an occasional paticipant for some time,I was completely taken in if Wiggs was Warlord. What makes you think so? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 10:18:20 PM
|
| I see. My mistake. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 10:54:29 PM
|
Thanks DC I understand.
AZ Ranger |
An officer's first duty is to his horses.
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2006 : 11:46:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If Wiggs was Warlord, I was taken in as well. That's not what I said, though. Read it again.
But your constant attempts at pitting one poster against another is really quite trying and boring. Save that stuff for off the board, DC, because it doesn't belong here. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on October 09 2006 11:47:11 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2006 : 1:14:39 PM
|
I've never pitted posters against each other; rather, they tend to unite against me, or at least various user ID's do. In any case, yet another painfully false accusation, with - again - nothing to support it.
Wiggs is energy absorptive with no return, an opinion offered along with extensive evidence in Wiggs' own postings to third parties in public, not by backchannel. They can accept or not. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2006 : 6:21:38 PM
|
Oh, DC ...
Ever the victim. But like Cher, cockroaches, and Twinkies, I somehow think you'll survive. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2006 : 10:04:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Never the victim.
Surely you jest. You can't stand the reflection in the mirror.
We're supposedly all ganging up on you and your multiple web-addies, all posted with pride; three works of an ego that knows no bounds ... well, at least in a small town in Colorado ... |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on October 09 2006 10:13:51 PM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 04:37:06 AM
|
Apologies for mis-quoting Michno - a while back I posted:
"Michno makes reference to an "obvious trail" down to MTC ford in his Lakota Noon book. He surely must have based his assumption on further assumptions that the Cheyenne village was opposite or just south the ford and the cheyenne accounts of limited action at "the ford" referred to the MTC ford, otherwise why use the word "obvious".
The assumption that I still maintain an adequate memory is a false one. He wrote that there clearly were tracks leading down to the MTC ford area (P150), so my point remains the same but apologies nontheless. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 11:26:27 AM
|
Any evidence of tracks leading anywhere should be taken with a grain of salt. During the battle horses (both white & red) were running all over the place. Plus once the battle was over Indians were taking soldier horses back to camp and their tracks would not be indicative of soldier movements.
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 12:00:13 PM
|
| I take your point, Shadymist, its just that I'd like to know if anyone present on 28th mentioned a trail down to MTC. A column trail being distinct from a general mish-mash of pony hooves and horse shoe tracks, which may have been the case all over Deep Coulee, for instance. |
Edited by - Smcf on October 10 2006 12:00:47 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 7:28:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I've never pitted posters against each other; rather, they tend to unite against me, or at least various user ID's do. In any case, yet another painfully false accusation, with - again - nothing to support it.
Wiggs is energy absorptive with no return, an opinion offered along with extensive evidence in Wiggs' own postings to third parties in public, not by backchannel. They can accept or not.
I have never pretended to be the brightest bulb in the closet, but does not you constant feedback/reactions/sputtering/to my "energy absorptive with no return" persona make you appear to be a glutton for punishment. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2006 : 7:56:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]Prima Facie evidence is evidence that stands upon its own merit. It need not be substantiated by corroborative issues. An example would be that one blasts a human being in the abdomen, close range, with a 12 gage shot gun. It is prima facie that the subsequent death is a result of the shot gun balls ripping vital organs and not a heart attack.
Joe Again you are wrong. A coroner determines cause of death. DC has stated that you stated you were in law enforcement. Is that correct?
AZ Ranger
Az, I truly did not believe it to be necessary to inform the board that only a coroner may determine a cause of death; that is officially and legally. Having said that, I believe that even the most simplest of us understand my example of a horrific, traumatic assault upon the soft tissues of the body will always result in death.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2006 : 12:00:21 PM
|
quote:
While I am certain that there exist, somewhere, an unscrupulous barrister who would argue that the "heart attack" was the actual cause of death to get his client off. Thus the connection with argument. While my example may be construed as ridiculous by some, I offer the "Primi Facie" evidence of O.J's blood on the crime scene of his wife's death as an example. A shyster lawyer succeeded in getting his client off despite the Prima Facie evidence of blood/DNA.
Joe you left out the rest of your post. It is clear to all it had a criminal courtroom setting and your lack of understanding of Prima facie evidence in criminal law. Most Prima facie evidence requirements that I am familiar with are described by the legislature in statute. It is the elements of the crime within the statute that are required to be present in order to move forward with a charge against someone. You must have all elements of the crime as found in the statue in order to proceed. If not you get a directed verdict. Sometimes it states Prima facie in the statute and you do not need a culpable mental state if the conditions are met.
In your O.J. example blood DNA only meets one of the elements needed for a conviction. It has the effect of potentially placing someone at a location but not the cause of death. It does not prove other elements of a crime. It can be defeated by an affirmative defense.
Maybe you are confusing it with Res ipsa loquitur or civil law in general.
AZ Ranger |
An officer's first duty is to his horses.
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 13 2006 : 8:42:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
AZ, for your entertainment you might want to read the entire "Benteen's Orders" thread starting on page two of topics on this board. R. Larson, long departed from participation and regretfully so, pretty much demolished Wiggs' various claims, and he was only in law school. Before you expend any more energy, you might want to read it. Also, the From the Indian Side threads where Wiggs enters various minds of the past.
D.c., your comments have about as much relevancy as chattering chipmunk in a ranging, forest fire. I have often suggested in the past, and I still continue to do so, that you read a book (any book) regarding this battle. Despite my earnest efforts, your constant drivel confirms that even, at this late date, you have failed to do so. Just think, with such newfound knowledge, you could then contribute substantial information to the forum instead of your normal, tiresome, personal perspectives which have nothing to do with issues. You must realize, unfortunately,that such such an obtrusive stance makes your otherwise bright personality appear, well, dim.
I would also refrain from remarks against the WARLORD. Methinks that there is a distinct possibility that he will be visiting Colorado soon, Oh My! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 13 2006 : 9:02:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
While I am certain that there exist, somewhere, an unscrupulous barrister who would argue that the "heart attack" was the actual cause of death to get his client off. Thus the connection with argument. While my example may be construed as ridiculous by some, I offer the "Primi Facie" evidence of O.J's blood on the crime scene of his wife's death as an example. A shyster lawyer succeeded in getting his client off despite the Prima Facie evidence of blood/DNA.
Joe you left out the rest of your post. It is clear to all it had a criminal courtroom setting and your lack of understanding of Prima facie evidence in criminal law.
In your O.J. example blood DNA only meets one of the elements needed for a conviction. It has the effect of potentially placing someone at a location but not the cause of death. It does not prove other elements of a crime. It can be defeated by an affirmative defense.
Maybe you are confusing it with Res ipsa loquitur or civil law in general.
AZ Ranger
Az, your earnest efforts in the dissemination of legal jargon is very impressive. I would be hard pressed to recall a time when I saw or heard so many Latin words strung together in such a magnificent succession. Undoubtedly you are well informed.
Unfortunately, your choice to avoid recognizing the merit of my particular, opposing perspective creates an inability for you to "see" another view (other than your own) negates a golden opportunity of an open and sharing discussion. I wish it weren't so. Obviously you are an educated gentleman. I believe that with just a shade of forbearance, on your part, your threads could go even further towards an informative discussion.
Please, as a favor, keep in mind that when others disagree with you you do it does not automatically translate into an "inability" to understand. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 13 2006 9:36:23 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 13 2006 : 10:04:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Oh, DC ...
Ever the victim. But like Cher, cockroaches, and Twinkies, I somehow think you'll survive.
With earnest apologies to the forum,recent events in my life have dealt me such a hand that my posts have been, admittedly, erratic and inconsistent for some time. As a result, I fear, I've lost contact with several forum members whom I cherish as true friends.
Suddenly,however, I find myself hoarding space with several threads in succession tonight. Is it inspiration or rudeness? I dare not say. However, I would be amiss if I failed to make the following comments.
MRW, I have long admired your posts as they have always been informative, equitable, and comprehensive. You are a sensitive individual who has much to offer regarding this particular format. I thank you for all that I have learned from you and I welcome your future contributions with humility and thanks.
Having said this, I must acknowledge your comparison of D.c. with a roach as a truism that will truly stand the test of time. It will rank with such obvious clichι's of wisdom as "where there is smoke, there is fire", and "birds of a feather stick together" , and "if it stinks, it's a skunk." Okay, I made that one up.
Therefore my friend, I present you the key to my psyche for your admirable revelation of truth;roaches can walk and talk. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 13 2006 10:10:02 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2006 : 09:50:54 AM
|
It's all still up, Wiggs. People can read it. While calling people "roaches" is a new if predictable low for you, it's all of a piece. What you're upset about is having to defend or explain what you alone have posted: the lies, the plagiarism, the fake quotes, the nonsense, the stuff that means the opposite of what you thought. No erase function here, and it would do no good since people copy these pages.
That you think benthics like Warlord scare anyone pretty much places you in the scheme of things. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Indian "Testimony"
