Lie Detector Test for 3

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: xuenchen
The entire episode was scripted and acted out.

Even Smollett's lies.

😀

Then he would likely refuse a lie test done by the fbi.

How do you know if lie detector tests were taken or not ? 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: xuenchen
The entire episode was scripted and acted out.

Even Smollett's lies.

😀

Then he would likely refuse a lie test done by the fbi.

How do you know if lie detector tests were taken or not ? 😎

Jussie would have to be a fool to take one givin by CPD.

If the brothers had taken one then the police leaker would have made sure that it made the front page news.

I am proposing that the fbi do it. They are investigating the letter so they could do it.

How are you still defending this racist, attention seeking scumbag?

It's because he's black, isn't it?

Come on, you can tell us.

We won't bite.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Nice deflection attempt.

Pointing out your deeply flawed understanding of the discussion topic isn’t a deflection. It’s pointing out that you lack the knowledge to engage in any meaningful discussion of the topic. A deflection would be refusing to rebut any cogent point you’d made due to inability to rebut it. Pointing out no cogent point has been made and therefore there’s nothing to rebut isn’t a deflection.

If they had proper evidence they could have been indicted without summoning a grand jury.

We’re back to my original point, again. It is literally impossible to indict somebody in the United States without a grand jury. A prosecutor can file a charging document and skip the grand jury altogether, but in order to secure an indictment it has to come from a grand jury. Otherwise it goes to a preliminary hearing and the suspect gets bound over for trial by a judge.

I am sure you knew that though.

I’m sure I know that plea deals have nothing to do with indictments.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
By your reasoning we should burn all lie detection devices and hang anyone who practices such witchcraft.

Yup. Including it's advocates.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't necessarily think we need to burn or hang fools, just ignoring them would drive them nuts; even though I also fail and succumb to the temptation to continually engage the foolish.

ETA:

But can you imagine how the imbeciles would react if they were completely ignored?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It’s really amazing that the “argument” presented is “the cops and prosecutor followed the established procedure they’re supposed to follow which means they have no case and they’re lying, but also when they DON’T go outside that procedure and use pseudoscience that’s inadmissible in court, that means they’re lying.”

a reply to: Shamrock6

It is literally impossible to indict somebody in the United States without a grand jury. A prosecutor can file a charging document and skip the grand jury altogether,

Text

Nuff said and you have proven to try to appear in the know by attempting to demean myself. Why come in with false info and personal attacks.

It varies from state to state and in a grand jury the defense has no say. That is why they say a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.



I will type slow for you.

If the police have proper evidence they can present it in a preliminary hearing to a judge who can decide to indict.

They do not often do this because they have to allow the defense in the hearing.

Instead they most often choose to seek a grand jury because they generally always return an indictment cause the defense is not allowed to present evidence.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not sure I cared any about how the case was handled when it shows that upwards of 24 detectives were assigned to this case.

pjmedia.com...

This thread may hold some value if it were an update on the condition of Dejon Irving? Sadly, threads want to clamor for their favorite celebrities as a priority to 1 year old's getting shot in the head these days it seems...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It’s really amazing that the “argument” presented is “the cops and prosecutor followed the established procedure they’re supposed to follow which means they have no case and they’re lying, but also when they DON’T go outside that procedure and use pseudoscience that’s inadmissible in court, that means they’re lying.”

You just don't get it since you, like, all be hatin' on Jussie. Word.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
I don't necessarily think we need to burn or hang fools...

I agree, we shouldn't burn or hang fools. We should burn AND hang fools.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they can present it in a preliminary hearing to a judge who can decide to indict.

The police don't present anything in a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor does.

You really should educate yourself before making pronouncements in subjects where you obviously have no familiarity.

*** ATTENTION ***

STOP IT NOW.

STOP THE INSULTS AND COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS.

YOUR POST WILL BE REMOVED AND YOU MAY BE POST BANNED.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they can present it in a preliminary hearing to a judge who can decide to indict.

The police don't present anything in a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor does.

You really should educate yourself before making pronouncements in subjects where you obviously have no familiarity.

I did not say that the police present it. I said they present it. They being the prosecutors.

If you have no other function than to spin and deflect then you can feel free to do it somewhere else.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Why come in with false info and personal attacks.

Attacking your credibility is not attacking you personally. And nothing I’ve said is false.

It varies from state to state and in a grand jury the defense has no say. That is why they say a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Correct, which is why the example I used is taken specifically from the Cook County justice system.

If the police have proper evidence they can present it in a preliminary hearing to a judge who can decide to indict

A) Judges don’t indict. They bind over for trial. Grand juries indict. I’m not sure how else to make that point. When it comes to the law and legal terms, semantics matter. Either you’re trying to substitute words for other words that don’t mean the same thing or you simply don’t know the difference.

B) Cops don’t present evidence to judges at preliminary hearings. At most, the arresting officer may testify. Evidence is presented by the prosecutor. A defense team can ask questions of witnesses, but the questions are limited in scope. The defense is not allowed to present evidence, period. They can ask questions. That’s it.

C) In Illinois, if a judge declines to bind over a case for trial the prosecutor can still take the case to a grand jury to seek an indictment. If the judge were able to indict, as you’ve repeatedly claimed, the prosecutor would not be able to do so.

D) Cook County rarely uses then indictment route, period. Any reason you subscribe to them using it or not using it is purely your opinion.

How felonies work in Cook County, complete with proper usage of terms like bound over and indictment.

What an indictment actually is in US law.

What a grand jury does in Illinois.

What a preliminary hearing is in Cook County.

Now that I’ve provided multiple sources that a) support my statements and b) rebut your opinions, we’re pretty much done here unless you start ponying up sources of your own that rebut mine. I suspect that’ll be difficult since mine are the relevant county and state judicial sites explaining to people what’s what.

a reply to: Shamrock6

All you done is admit i was right and your original statement you made was wrong. Thanks.

You tried to claim that indictments come only through a grand jury you are wrong and you have proven yourself wrong.

Simple fact still stands that if the police had gathered proper evidence to convict him then they would not have to use the secretive grand jury process to get the ball rollin.

They have a weak case so they chose to not let the defense have a say in the matter.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: butcherguy
There is a security camera that caught the brothers in the act, so yes, they did rough him up.
Jussie’s problem is that he reported that his attackers were white.
They are not white.
He knows them personally.
How do we get around that and why would we need a lie detector involved at that point?

He went on gma and admitted they had their identities hidden and he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays.

That in no way equates to jussies guilt.

All that says is that jussie is subject to the msm daily feeding the hate between whites and blacks.

In the interview he admitted they could have been white or black but that he believed they were white based on what one of them said.

LOL the cops initially were on Jussie's side but when you throw in failure to disclose phone records unredacted, even though it would collaborate part of his story. #2 So we are supposed to believe 2 Nigerian men sound like caucasian men yelling MAGA. LOL Its Chicago a bastion of Democrats they'd love to stick it Trump but the evidence not only doesn't back it up, but it also supports fraud and hoax aspects.

but you know this and are just being contrarian, for some reason cause you are definitely smarter than this.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: butcherguy
There is a security camera that caught the brothers in the act, so yes, they did rough him up.
Jussie’s problem is that he reported that his attackers were white.
They are not white.
He knows them personally.
How do we get around that and why would we need a lie detector involved at that point?

He went on gma and admitted they had their identities hidden and he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays.

That in no way equates to jussies guilt.

All that says is that jussie is subject to the msm daily feeding the hate between whites and blacks.

In the interview he admitted they could have been white or black but that he believed they were white based on what one of them said.

LOL the cops initially were on Jussie's side but when you throw in failure to disclose phone records unredacted, even though it would collaborate part of his story. #2 So we are supposed to believe 2 Nigerian men sound like caucasian men yelling MAGA. LOL Its Chicago a bastion of Democrats they'd love to stick it Trump but the evidence not only doesn't back it up, but it also supports fraud and hoax aspects.

but you know this and are just being contrarian, for some reason cause you are definitely smarter than this.

First off thanks.

The phone records are in consequential since the police have them now from the phone company. Only one of the two spoke during the attack and was yelling racial stuff while having his skin covered.

Yes chicago has alot of dems and the cpd had much to gain by putting this on jussie they avoided riots.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes, all my links that definitively demonstrate that grand juries and grand juries alone hand down indictments somehow prove that grand juries aren’t the only entity that can indict somebody. My links that definitively demonstrate that judges hold cases over for trial but don’t indict defendants prove that judges actually do indict people.

Your mental gymnastics is incredible to see in action. Not one single solitary source to back up any claim you’ve made, but the flexibility to somehow claim sources that disprove your claims somehow actually prove them....without citation as to how they prove them. The need to be right and claim victory for yourself trumps the need to learn anything at all.

Like I said, we’re done here.