clyons

Atta boy, Cork!

What a surprise.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 6, 2009 -> 07:42 AM) I would ban twizzlers. I'd dethrone your tyrannical ass.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 12, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) They have no witness and no body. I'm not certain how solid that can ever be. They have Kathleen's body, whose murder is the one he's been indicted for.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 12, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) The letter from Savio to the States Attorney's office is located here. This is my first time reading it. There are events described therein which can be independently corroborated. Specifically the wrist injury and what appears to be a psychological evaluation of one of the kids. Unfortunately, the kids are probably going to have to take the stand if this guy is going to go to prison. Thanks for that link; that letter does seem to provide a verifiable context.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 12, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) That's what all hearsay exceptions are. Hearsay is not permitted into evidence because there is no cross-examination, as you said. However, there are a whole bunch of hearsay exceptions including excited utterances, present sense impressions (usually used for 911 calls made by bystanders), business records (made in the regular course of business without knowledge of future litigation), among many others. The letters would be admissible under the theory that the letters contain the actual language of the victim, and because she had no reason to say what she said without some reasoning for it. Essentially, there is a lesser degree of possible insincerity in the letters than in other hearsay statements. Furthermore, the legislature believes that the probative value of letters such as this (particularly in mob cases) outweighs the prejudicial effect. This is likely because the reader of the letters can be cross examined as to their impression of the sincerity of the letter. If, for example, Savios did nothing to try to help her, then the defense will claim that the letters were meaningless. We don't know how the court will rule. I guarantee the defense will claim that the law is unconstitutional and drag it as high as they can to get it declared unconstitutional. That's a good summary of the reasoning behind the hearsay exceptions. However, I question the application of such an exception here, because I think there could be potential insincerity in her letters, given the context of their reportedly contentious divorce. Those have been known to motivate people to say just about anything about their spouses in an attempt to gain leverage or the upper hand. It would be one thing if this was like the Simpson case, where there was other external evidence of abuse, threats, etc., and thus an established, independent foundation supporting Nicole's statements to others that OJ was going to kill her (after their divorce was already final). I don't recall whether there's any of that here. Without that, I think the possible prejudical effect of such statements could seriously overwhelm their probative value, which is relatively nil.

HATRICK KANE

WOW

I am in--but only because my navel is concave and I tend to take things literally.

Kiss.Of.Death.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 11, 2009 -> 01:46 PM) Let's end this thing tonight and rest up until the weekend. I'll be there tonight...haven't been to this big of a game since 1996. That's ridiculous. Let's do it. Represent--I think our crowd can be a big factor, especially if we get ahead early. LETS GO HAWKS!!!

One "Joker" helping another . . . Soxtalk's a beautiful thing

If Jack is Jacob, then why would Christian have bothered to tell Locke to "Say hello to my son for me" right before Locke turned the wheel to get off the island? Couldn't Christian have just said "hello" to Jacob/Jack in his cabin when he was there hanging out with Claire?

Salma Hayek

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) They are accountable on a wider perspective than one case. They are accountable based on the information they had and what happened. Perhaps, since this is a University funded thing, that the administration wanted to prove that their campus had almost zero illegal drug use. They hoped that this would attract more students to their campus, increase their prestige amongst potential donors, etc. In that case you could call this a success. Maybe the entire thing was made up and the investigation was really just one cop, for 10 minutes every other week, standing on a corner and asking if anyone has drugs. I understand your point regarding accountability on a larger scale; a lot of unknown things may have to be factored into the equation in order to assess overall effectiveness as a whole. On the face of it, however, looking purely at the limited facts that we know (1 year, 25 arrests, 180 grams) versus what might be hypothetically true, I'm still pretty comfortable labeling "Operation Thunder Strike" a joke based on the after the fact results, which thus will diminish any mythical "effectiveness rating" once its factored in. I feel that if the government spends "a year" looking for something that basically turns out not to be there (drugs, Osama Bin Laden, WMD's, etc.), it should expect to face the music and accept the inevitable criticism of its efforts, even if that criticism is Monday morning quarterbacking in its purest form. This whole thing just looks and smells like a first class f***-up, and if there's a good explanation for it (and assuming airing it wouldn't compromise future investigations), I'm dying to hear it.

QUOTE (knightni @ May 4, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) Hilarous! Thanks for the wishes and laughs.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2009 -> 05:41 AM) There does need to be some sanity. Who knows what they were investigating. They may have been close to another, bigger, arrest, but could not get enough information or evidence. Unless someone really thinks this was what they were after. It is unfair to label the investigation a waste after the fact. They may have been investigating Pablo Escobar on a tip that he was running kilos of cocaine out of Bromley Hall, but all they ended up with after a year and gosh knows how much $$$$, was two dozen college kids and 180 grams of pot. If you can't label Operation Thunder Strike a piddling drizzle after that, when and how does law enforcement ever get held accountable for how they spend our tax (and in this case tuition) dollars? Do they get a total pass based on noble intentions?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:01 AM) Would you eliminate then all *investigations* like this? It seems pretty easy to decide after the investigation, which ones should have been conducted. I'm not sure anyone has suggested that drug investigations like this one be eliminated, but I don't see how there's any disputing that this one was ultimately a collossal waste of time and money. The best way to gauge the utility of a drug investigation is by its results; one can always term that second-guessing, but how else do you measure success? Its not like investigating the cure for cancer, where if a year's worth of research comes up with nothing, you have at least gained something by eliminating a particular hypothesis. I suppose there could be a residual deterrent effect, as Illini students might refrain from buying or holding small stash in the future, but at what cost? A year's investigation netting only 180 grams of mj can only be judged an abject failure and embarassment, and one totally in keeping with my recollections and impressions of the U of I campus police, who I have always considered just a couple steps up from minimum wage security guards in their law enforcement professionalism. This just reaffirms that they are better off staying focused on the low-hanging fruit that are the underaged drinkers at Kam's. Of course, I still carry a grudge from getting busted carrying home a street sign freshman year.

I'd try the Grand Canyon one before I'd do this, for no other reason than the Sears Tower's is going to be retractable; thus there's greater danger that something mechanical could go wrong.

I read this morning that after a "yearlong investigation" dubbed "Operation Thunder Strike," University of Illinois police arrested some 25 people, including members of the ZBT, Beta Theta PI and TKE fraterntities, for drug posession and dealing, and confiscated a whopping 180 grams of marijuana. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,5928476.story http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/200...embers-detained Two questions: Do any of our Illini posters know anyone effected? After a year's investigation (albeit one with a really cool name), how is it that the best the campus cops could do in arresting 25 persons (during or shortly before Finals, I assume) is seize less than half a pound of pot?

You can find some helpful refinancing calculators at places like bankrate.com. http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortga...calculator.aspx

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 08:38 PM) I'd say Owens is like AIDS, it's always bad. But Pods is more like Herpes, and at least some days it's not that bad.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 25, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Whats wrong with Chris Berman? I prefer Kiper and McShay and I like Steve Young.. not a big fan of Keyshawn but I can tune him out. His schtick got old for me 10 years ago. I'm still flipping channels for Erin Andrews' interviews, though.

Just an aside, but God bless the NFL network. Its heaven to watch the draft without having to endure Chris Berman!

That bank's just around the corner from where I work. I'll have to keep my eyes open for a Bo sighting.