A woman who was in a vegetative state for years gave birth. Police want DNA from men who work at the facility

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility where a woman in a vegetative state gave birth last month.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said Wednesday the woman and child, who was in medical distress after being delivered December 29, remain in the hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html

Some sick bastards about...

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:17 am

Eilzel wrote:You know Quill, sometimes you talk sense. You may even be correct with all the legal terminology etc. etc.

However, from reading all the above, the only thing you've achieved is to show exactly why Lawyers get such a bad rep.

Anyone who would help this sicko get off with this is is equally as guilty as the sicko himself.

He's not even right about the legal aspect. This woman could no more give consent than a child.

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:20 am

I'll bet this woman got pregnant right after she finished running the Boston Marathon last year. I mean I can't prove she didnt run it and meet a nice boy at the conclusion of the race.

by nicko Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:16 am

Quill speaks Lawyer speak, but, is he a Lawyer ?

by Syl Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:00 pm

If this woman has been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, she is obviously too mentally impaired to give consent to sex...that's in the very unlikely event she ever woke up enough to speak, which there is zero evidence that she ever did.

"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.
She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show."

From the link provided earlier.

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:15 pm

Syl wrote:If this woman has been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, she is obviously too mentally impaired to give consent to sex...that's in the very unlikely event she ever woke up enough to speak, which there is zero evidence that she ever did.

"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.
She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show."

From the link provided earlier.

Legally speaking, she is a child. A very young child. With a breathing tube down her throat making speech impossible even if she wanted to communicate with her 2 year old verbal skills.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:22 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:If this woman has been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, she is obviously too mentally impaired to give consent to sex...that's in the very unlikely event she ever woke up enough to speak, which there is zero evidence that she ever did.

"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.
She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show."

From the link provided earlier.
Legally speaking, she is a child. A very young child. With a breathing tube down her throat making speech impossible even if she wanted to communicate with her 2 year old verbal skills.

That is even a better point than I made. I concentrated on how difficult it would be for someone coming out of this state with their mental capacity. I never simple considered that she would still have the mental capacity of a child. Being as she suffered this injury whilst as a child. Never knowing any understanding other than that of a two year old. It actually never crossed my mind.

Very good point mate and well thought out

by Syl Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:If this woman has been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, she is obviously too mentally impaired to give consent to sex...that's in the very unlikely event she ever woke up enough to speak, which there is zero evidence that she ever did.

"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.
She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show."

From the link provided earlier.
Legally speaking, she is a child. A very young child. With a breathing tube down her throat making speech impossible even if she wanted to communicate with her 2 year old verbal skills.

Exactly Maddog, her thought process would have stopped at the age she went into her vegetative state.
Couple that with her physical state, to even suggest she could have given consent to sex is beyond ridiculous.

It's frightening to think how often she could have been sexually abused before she became pregnant.
Or how many other vulnerable people in the same facility could have been raped and sexually abused.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:11 pm

Eilzel wrote:You know Quill, sometimes you talk sense. You may even be correct with all the legal terminology etc. etc.

However, from reading all the above, the only thing you've achieved is to show exactly why Lawyers get such a bad rep.

Anyone who would help this sicko get off with this is is equally as guilty as the sicko himself.

It's a job, Les. I don't write the rules. I have to go to law school to learn them, and after that they don't ask me if I have a problem with them. They expect me to go do what they say. It's the same with all lawyers, I'm sure.

The reason why I became a lawyer was not to be admired or glorified. It was to protect myself. Being a lawyer is like becoming really good at karate. I realized after studying politics for so long, that this world is going down the toilet. We had just gone through Watergate at the time, and I foresaw Reagan and Bush (41) and it scared me. I decided I'd better become a lawyer because one day I will need the skills to protect myself. Now that I see that Trump has sold out to the Russians, I know I will need them.

The fact that one makes a lot of money is beside the point. It's mainly about knowing the tools and how to use them. There's no glory in law. There's no fulfillment. But someday you will need the skills. I'm just trying to share with my friends how the law goes, in the hopes a few might pick up enough to protect themselves when the apocalypse comes. In this thread, you learn about elements and evidence.

As far as lawyers go? I hate them. Go ahead and rail away. The only time you will regret it is when you need one. Me? I learned how to avoid the situations in the first place.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Eilzel wrote:You know Quill, sometimes you talk sense. You may even be correct with all the legal terminology etc. etc.

However, from reading all the above, the only thing you've achieved is to show exactly why Lawyers get such a bad rep.

Anyone who would help this sicko get off with this is is equally as guilty as the sicko himself.

It's a job, Les. I don't write the rules. I have to go to law school to learn them, and after that they don't ask me if I have a problem with them. They expect me to go do what they say. It's the same with all lawyers, I'm sure.

The reason why I became a lawyer was not to be admired or glorified. It was to protect myself. Being a lawyer is like becoming really good at karate. I realized after studying politics for so long, that this world is going down the toilet. We had just gone through Watergate at the time, and I foresaw Reagan and Bush (41) and it scared me. I decided I'd better become a lawyer because one day I will need the skills to protect myself. Now that I see that Trump has sold out to the Russians, I know I will need them.

The fact that one makes a lot of money is beside the point. It's mainly about knowing the tools and how to use them. There's no glory in law. There's no fulfillment. But someday you will need the skills. I'm just trying to share with my friends how the law goes, in the hopes a few might pick up enough to protect themselves when the apocalypse comes. In this thread, you learn about elements and evidence.

As far as lawyers go? I hate them. Go ahead and rail away. The only time you will regret it is when you need one. Me? I learned how to avoid the situations in the first place.

There are a few sick kind of people in the world

Those that muder for fun, those that sexually abuse, espicially children and lawyers. That knowingly convict innocent people through lies and those that knowningly try to get guilty people off for horrendus crimes. Again through deception and lies

The later have no moral compass, its simple all about ego and being a challenge to fool people with misdirection and falsehoods

Of course everyone is entittled to a defense, but that should be based on the facts. Which in many cases lawyers never abide to this rule. They instead try to decieve. So a lwayer has no standing if they use perverse methods in order to get some off a crime they are guilty to. As there is no honesty in this, they are simple trying to decieve people in order to get the decision they want.

Lawyers should argue as a defense based on the facts with reason and not try to manipulate people with lies, as they constantly do.

Lawyers are nothing more than modern age confidence tricksters.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No. Children are legally without capacity to give consent.

So was she.

No, that's not correct. She was not legally incapacitated, she was factually incapacitated. A minor is only lawfully prohibited from consenting. This woman was presumably unconscious...and that is as a result of a factual circumstance.

It's an important distinction in law. Because there may be exceptions to laws; a factual state of affairs is dictated by fate.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So was she.

No, that's not correct. She was not legally incapacitated, she was factually incapacitated. A minor is only lawfully prohibited from consenting. This woman was presumably unconscious...and that is as a result of a factual circumstance.

It's an important distinction in law. Because there may be exceptions to laws; a factual state of affairs is dictated by fate.

She still would have the mental capacity of a child, being as this was the state her brain was damaged, through a lack of oxygen

Even if she was not, no court would rule someone coming out of tens years of this state, would be in full mental faculties of their mind, as its a long slow process of recovery

Hence again the view, you would need medical experts to argue otherwise

Maddog is right, you never considered (neither did I) this woman would never have anymore than a mental capacity of a child when woken. Being as she never learnt to grow up into teen and adulthood.

Her mental state would be treated that as such as of a child and thus could never possible provide consent

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:31 pm

Didge wrote:Lawyers should argue as a defense based on the facts with reason and not try to manipulate people with lies, as they constantly do.

I largely agree with this. But there is a third category: thee is true to facts; twisting facts; and inventing facts.

You and Trump are of the third kind, didge. When you two don't like the facts, you invent your own facts. With Trump, we are learning that this is the worst kind of dissembler.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Lawyers should argue as a defense based on the facts with reason and not try to manipulate people with lies, as they constantly do.

I largely agree with this. But there is a third category: thee is true to facts; twisting facts; and inventing facts.

You and Trump are of the third kind, didge. When you two don't like the facts, you invent your own facts. With Trump, we are learning that this is the worst kind of dissembler.

Come again?

When have I invented facts?

Lawyers twist facts, that is their speciality, as they are confience tricksters

That is the third category, just as the media do, when they hold a bias and yet you seem to think you know when something isn true or false or even misleading based on an article you read.

I suggest its more than that, its based on your bias, as it is for everyone

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:33 pm

Didge wrote:Even if she was not, no court would rule someone coming out of tens years of this state, would be in full mental faculties of their mind, as its a long slow process of recovery

And the court knows this, how?? Court's have an odd way of thinking for themselves.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:36 pm

Didge wrote:When have I invented facts?

Haha...look no further:

Didge wrote:no court would rule someone coming out of tens years of this state, would be in full mental faculties of their mind...

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Even if she was not, no court would rule someone coming out of tens years of this state, would be in full mental faculties of their mind, as its a long slow process of recovery

And the court knows this, how?? Court's have an odd way of thinking for themselves.

Based on medical evidence of the medical damage to her brian through anoxic brain injury. As well as the fact that someone ten years in this condition is extremely unlikely to recover. Let alone then recover and have full mental faculties when they then wake. They would still be in a slow process of recovery and also bee suffering from partial brain damage

So medical experts know this and why your argument would be laugfed out of court

Its why I know you have never been a lawyer or judge

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:When have I invented facts?

Haha...look no further:

Didge wrote:no court would rule someone coming out of tens years of this state, would be in full mental faculties of their mind...

Well has any court ruled as such they would be a full mental capacity state?

How is that inventing facts, when you can provide no single sample of someone coming out of such a state after 10 years, Within those first few hours?

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So was she.

No, that's not correct. She was not legally incapacitated, she was factually incapacitated. A minor is only lawfully prohibited from consenting. This woman was presumably unconscious...and that is as a result of a factual circumstance.

It's an important distinction in law. Because there may be exceptions to laws; a factual state of affairs is dictated by fate.

She is legally incapicated.

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:10 pm

"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated"

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 pm

Maddog wrote:"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated"

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had an evidentiary hearing.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated"

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had a hearing.

Well considering a case has already seen someone convicted based on a similar case

Based on the link I provided, why is it you continue to be in state of continual stupidity here Quill?

So again you questionning this would require what exactly Quill?

Medical experts by any chance?

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:36 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had a hearing.

Well considering a case has already seen someone conficted based on a similar case

Based on the link I provided, why is it you continue to be in state of continual stupidity here Quill?

It's in the state of Arizona.

Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Well considering a case has already seen someone conficted based on a similar case

Based on the link I provided, why is it you continue to be in state of continual stupidity here Quill?

It's in the state of Arizona. You don't like to lose, hum? Like Trump.

What has that got to do with the price of bread?

You claimed legality here and doing so off no medical reasoning or expertese

Hence why again you would be laughed out of court

Are you suggesting medical experts have no bases in such a case where you make such a daft claim?

What this again shows is you have zero understanding of medical conditions

This would be the same in every single US state

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Didge wrote:You claimed legality here and doing so off no medical reasoning or expertese

It's a legal question, not a medical question. You need a finding of a court of law, not a medical board.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:You claimed legality here and doing so off no medical reasoning or expertese

It's a legal question, not a medical question. You need a finding of a court of law, not a medical board.

Its a legal question based on medical legality

Opps

Unless you think a child can give consent to sex of course

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated"

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had an evidentiary hearing.

If the court documents are challenged every person with a functioning brain cell will know why those documents classified her as incapicated.

You're now dismissed on this thread. The rest of my comments will be addressed to those that meet or exceed the above mentioned criteria.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:53 pm

Medical legality???

You are a very stupid person, didge. But what is worse, you are locked into your stupidity because of your narcissism.

You just want to be right because you sympathize with one side of the case. If you live your life that way you are in for some big disappointments...or maybe they've already found you.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:Medical legality???

You are a very stupid person, didge. But what is worse, you are locked into your stupidity because of your narcissism.

You just want to be right because you sympathize with one side of the case. If you live your life that way you are in for some big disappointments...or maybe they've already found you.

-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_jurisprudence

Opps

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:58 pm

So nothing stupid about me Quill, the only thing stupid here, is you are flogging a dead horse in your ridiculous argument. Not only does it have zero validity. You have no toffered up any medical expertise on your claims. Not only that we have seen another case where the person was convicted of a similar crime

You have zero standing, because I have again exposed you for lying claiming you have been a lawyer and Judge

Its clear that is emphatically bullshit

Laughing

by eddie Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Also, I would like to see the probable cause for the search warrant. Being in the area of a crime isn't enough.

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime. Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed. Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

She was in a COMA. She did not give her consent. She was RAPED. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:01 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had an evidentiary hearing.

If the court documents are challenged every person with a functioning brain cell will know why those documents classified her as incapicated.

Of course, the practice of law is all about contesting such things. Any more easy questions?

Maddog wrote:You're now dismissed on this thread. The rest of my comments will be addressed to those that meet or exceed the above mentioned criteria.

I assume you are a child...perhaps the 500# kid sitting on his bed, that Trump mentions. You act like it. Anyway, I welcome your silence, as you don't add anything intelligent.

by eddie Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:02 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:"The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated"

And when that is questioned, as in a criminal trial? I'm betting it's never even had an evidentiary hearing.

If the court documents are challenged every person with a functioning brain cell will know why those documents classified her as incapicated.

You're now dismissed on this thread. The rest of my comments will be addressed to those that meet or exceed the above mentioned criteria.

Oh I am so glad you’re back.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:02 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime. Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed. Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

She was in a COMA. She did not give her consent. She was RAPED.

How do you know? Because some piece of paper said so?

Papers were made so that lawyers could challenge them.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If the court documents are challenged every person with a functioning brain cell will know why those documents classified her as incapicated.

Of course, the practice of law is all about contesting such things. Any more easy questions?

Maddog wrote:You're now dismissed on this thread. The rest of my comments will be addressed to those that meet or exceed the above mentioned criteria.

I assume you are a child...perhaps the 500# kid sitting on his bed, that Trump mentions. You act like it. Anyway, I welcome your silence, as you don't add anything intelligent.

Oh dear, so now Quill attempts to insult maddog, ignoring the many countless points he never answered

How can a woman who had brain damage through a lack of oxygen through a new drowning experince as a child.
Then 10 years later have the mental faculties/capacity of an adult?

Take your time

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:15 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Of course, the practice of law is all about contesting such things. Any more easy questions?

I assume you are a child...perhaps the 500# kid sitting on his bed, that Trump mentions. You act like it. Anyway, I welcome your silence, as you don't add anything intelligent.

Oh dear, so now Quill attempts to insult maddog, ignoring the many countless points he never answered

How can a woman who had brain damage through a lack of oxygen through a new drowning experince as a child.
Then 10 years later have the mental faculties/capacity of an adult?

Take your time

What??? Maddog insulted me. I'm glad I won't have to deal with his knuckle-dragging stupidity.

As to the condition of the woman, now you are arguing the case, final summation and all. I'm not going to argue the case. I don't even care. I'm just pointing out how an intelligent attorney will handle the case.

If you think the lawyer will commit malpractice, and ignore a good defense, it's no skin off my back. Whatever you do in your occupation, I’m sure malpractice is your soulmate.

I'm just pointing out the possibilities.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Oh dear, so now Quill attempts to insult maddog, ignoring the many countless points he never answered

How can a woman who had brain damage through a lack of oxygen through a new drowning experince as a child.
Then 10 years later have the mental faculties/capacity of an adult?

Take your time

What??? Maddog insulted me. I'm glad I won't have to deal with his knuckle-dragging stupidity.

As to the condition of the woman, now you are arguing the case, final summation and all. I'm not going to argue the case. I don't even care. I'm just pointing out how an intelligent attorney will handle the case.

If you think the lawyer will commit malpractice, and ignore a good defense, it's no skin off my back. Whatever you do in your occupation, I’m sure malpractice is your soulmate.

I'm just pointing out the possibilities.

What?

How did he insult you?

So you admit to defea\t and know you cannot argue the case based on medical grounds, being the fact. Even in the remote chance she woke from the vegetative state, she would never ever been in ever a mental capaicty state to consent. Being she never lived past childhood and thus would be classed mentally as a child.

I am against malpratice and its you trying to argue to get someone guilty off as innocent when its an open and shut case

Like i said, you clearly have a knowledge of law, but in no way have you ever practiced law

That is a fact

by eddie Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime. Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed. Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

She was in a COMA. She did not give her consent. She was RAPED.

How do you know? Because some piece of paper said so?

Papers were made so that lawyers could challenge them.

I’ll remind you of that when you read something in a paper about Trump.
Fair?

by Victorismyhero Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:33 pm

I'm afriad QUILL HAS IT HERE.....
there is no such animal as "medical legality"

in both the examples you produced
all you showed was , with the first how the law informs the medical practitioners as to what THEY can do or not, under certain circumstances. with the second it is to show how medical practices can inform the courts It is NOT actually "LAW"

mant things (in general) that are done are "unlawful", as opposed to illegal, a concept not many can grasp....

It is NOT necessarily correct as quill stated elsewhere that if it isnt prohibited its lawful....that only applies untill someone...anyone...challenges it. the only way it can then be determined is by a court action.....

For instance it is NOT illegal (afaik) for me to dismount a 1Kw laser from its bed, power it from a generator, mount it in my van and go hunting bunnies with it...HOWEVER it has been declared unlawful by the powers that be, but since NO case has been brought to court the status of that ruling (since it has never been included in an act of parliament, its only a "department of govt" saying so) is "in doubt"

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I'm afriad QUILL HAS IT HERE.....
there is no such animal as "medical legality"

in both the examples you produced
all you showed was , with the first how the law informs the medical practitioners as to what THEY can do or not, under certain circumstances. with the second it is to show how medical practices can inform the courts It is NOT actually "LAW"

mant things (in general) that are done are "unlawful", as opposed to illegal, a concept not many can grasp....

It is NOT necessarily correct as quill stated elsewhere that if it isnt prohibited its lawful....that only applies untill someone...anyone...challenges it. the only way it can then be determined is by a court action.....

For instance it is NOT illegal (afaik) for me to dismount a 1Kw laser from its bed, power it from a generator, mount it in my van and go hunting bunnies with it...HOWEVER it has been declared unlawful by the powers that be, but since NO case has been brought to court the status of that ruling (since it has never been included in an act of parliament, its only a "department of govt" saying so) is "in doubt"

Sorry but the above is utter and complete gibberish and am surprised you would even comtemplate such garbage

Show me how a child incapacited as a child, would be able to provde consent when in a vegetative state after 10 years this way

This is about consent, which you are not considering here, unless of course you think a child can give consent

You then have to factor the claims on a person waking from this state and how they would be and what mental capacity they would be. Even if they fell into this state, as an adult, where they suffered braindamage

So your examples were irrelevant, utterly dumb and stupid

Stick to the actual facts of this case

by Victorismyhero Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:39 pm

if and when they catch the person (and it could be a big if) how the case will go depends, as I'm sure quill will agree, upon the depth of the accused pocket, Lawyers who would proceed as quill suggests there is a possibility of, tend to be of the more expensive sort.
But certainly there is a prospect, however remote, that it could go as quill suggests. I don't think quill has a very high regard for some of his fellow practitioners.......I also think quill is something of a pessimist......................

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm

Lord Foul wrote:if and when they catch the person (and it could be a big if) how the case will go depends, as I'm sure quill will agree, upon the depth of the accused pocket, Lawyers who would proceed as quill suggests there is a possibility of, tend to be of the more expensive sort.
But certainly there is a prospect, however remote, that it could go as quill suggests. I don't think quill has a very high regard for some of his fellow practitioners.......I also think quill is something of a pessimist......................

Well being as there has been a case before and they matched Dna to this with the suspect and convicted them. I suggest you keep with the times and that happened nearly 20 years ago and actually brought about a change in the laws

Again this child had brain damage as a child and continue to be incapacited to this day. Thus never knowing ever being a teen or an adult. How then even if this person woke, could they be in a mental state as an adult to give consent?

by Victorismyhero Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:45 pm

Thor wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I'm afriad QUILL HAS IT HERE.....
there is no such animal as "medical legality"

in both the examples you produced
all you showed was , with the first how the law informs the medical practitioners as to what THEY can do or not, under certain circumstances. with the second it is to show how medical practices can inform the courts It is NOT actually "LAW"

mant things (in general) that are done are "unlawful", as opposed to illegal, a concept not many can grasp....

It is NOT necessarily correct as quill stated elsewhere that if it isnt prohibited its lawful....that only applies untill someone...anyone...challenges it. the only way it can then be determined is by a court action.....

For instance it is NOT illegal (afaik) for me to dismount a 1Kw laser from its bed, power it from a generator, mount it in my van and go hunting bunnies with it...HOWEVER it has been declared unlawful by the powers that be, but since NO case has been brought to court the status of that ruling (since it has never been included in an act of parliament, its only a "department of govt" saying so) is "in doubt"

Sorry but the above is utter and complete gibberish and am surprised you would even comtemplate such garbage

Show me how a child incapacited as a child, would be able to provde consent when in a vegetative state after 10 years this way

This is about consent, which you are not considering here, unless of course you think a child can give consent

You then have to factor the claims on a person waking from this state and how they would be and what mental capacity they would be. Even if they fell into this state, as an adult, where they suffered braindamage

So your examples were irrelevant, utterly dumb and stupid

Stick to the actual facts of this case

I am sticking to facts...you are riding with emotions, with "what you want to be" with "how you see the world working"

there ARE NO WITNESSES, so any even fractionally plausible scenario the perp comes up with becomes "fact" and for every "expert" the prosecution has the defence could provide another to argue contrarywise........

This is NOT a straightforward, solid "gotcha" moment.

given first that they actually find the perp......PROVE that he penetrated the woman........her pregnancy doesnt prove that at all..... and i beleive penetration is necessary for rape in US law?????

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:48 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thor wrote:

Sorry but the above is utter and complete gibberish and am surprised you would even comtemplate such garbage

Show me how a child incapacited as a child, would be able to provde consent when in a vegetative state after 10 years this way

This is about consent, which you are not considering here, unless of course you think a child can give consent

You then have to factor the claims on a person waking from this state and how they would be and what mental capacity they would be. Even if they fell into this state, as an adult, where they suffered braindamage

So your examples were irrelevant, utterly dumb and stupid

Stick to the actual facts of this case

I am sticking to facts...you are riding with emotions, with "what you want to be" with "how you see the world working"

there ARE NO WITNESSES, so any even fractionally plausible scenario the perp comes up with becomes "fact" and for every "expert" the prosecution has the defence could provide another to argue contrarywise........

This is NOT a straightforward, solid "gotcha" moment.

given first that they actually find the perp......PROVE that he penetrated the woman........her pregnancy doesnt prove that at all..... and i beleive penetration is necessary for rape in US law?????

No emotions, you are simple talking a tripe and ignoring the facts

Its as solid as it cimes

She had the accident as a child and would if she woke, still have the mental health still of the age of that child and more likely worse being that she is brain damaged, Being the fact she has been in this state for ten years

Now unless you can prove that this was the immaculate conception, you are talking utter tripe

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:49 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

How do you know? Because some piece of paper said so?

Papers were made so that lawyers could challenge them.

I’ll remind you of that when you read something in a paper about Trump.
Fair?

No. A newspaper is hardly a legal document. Courts generally exclude newspapers as a matter of course.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:51 pm

Oh a simple DNA test can prove whether the suspect is the father Lord Foul

Or did your brain not compute that?

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:01 pm

eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If the court documents are challenged every person with a functioning brain cell will know why those documents classified her as incapicated.

You're now dismissed on this thread. The rest of my comments will be addressed to those that meet or exceed the above mentioned criteria.

Oh I am so glad you’re back.

A woman who was in a vegetative state for years gave birth. Police want DNA from men who work at the facility - Page 2 1366281442

by Victorismyhero Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

it does not however prove rape especially if rape is predicated on penetration......

why and how I'll leave to your immagination.....

by Original Quill Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

Didge wrote:No emotions, you are simple talking a tripe and ignoring the facts

In fact, Victor is right on point. I haven't been retained in this case, so I have no interest it it at all. I'm just musing as to what defense might be raised.

And going back to using expert testimony to say she could never wake up, I can produce as many experts as anyone to say she could. So the element of awake and aware consent is up for grabs.

And as Vic says, this all assumes they can identify the perp.

And all lawyers are skeptics...and hence, pessimists. First year of law school you are taught to say, prove it!

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:04 pm

Lord Foul wrote:it does not however prove rape especially if rape is predicated on penetration......

why and how I'll leave to your immagination.....

So you are saying you need to medical prove penetration to make a conviction on rape, 9 months after the act and after giving birth?

Are you saying that is the case for every rape trial, that you have to prove penetration?

Really?

Want to think about that?

Lets look at the facts again.

She gave birth to a child

How did she get pregnant?

by Maddog Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:06 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thor wrote:

Sorry but the above is utter and complete gibberish and am surprised you would even comtemplate such garbage

Show me how a child incapacited as a child, would be able to provde consent when in a vegetative state after 10 years this way

This is about consent, which you are not considering here, unless of course you think a child can give consent

You then have to factor the claims on a person waking from this state and how they would be and what mental capacity they would be. Even if they fell into this state, as an adult, where they suffered braindamage

So your examples were irrelevant, utterly dumb and stupid

Stick to the actual facts of this case

I am sticking to facts...you are riding with emotions, with "what you want to be" with "how you see the world working"

there ARE NO WITNESSES, so any even fractionally plausible scenario the perp comes up with becomes "fact" and for every "expert" the prosecution has the defence could provide another to argue contrarywise........

This is NOT a straightforward, solid "gotcha" moment.

given first that they actually find the perp......PROVE that he penetrated the woman........her pregnancy doesnt prove that at all..... and i beleive penetration is necessary for rape in US law?????

Are you saying she was artificially inseminated?

Fuck, maybe it was aliens?

by Sponsored content