MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Man Wrongfully Sentenced to 50 Years in Prison Goes Free After Dog He Supposedly Killed Is Found Alive and Well

Joshua Horner was convicted of sexual abuse—his victim claimed he killed her dog to keep her from talking. But the dog is fine.

DogChristinlola / DreamstimeA dog may have spared a Salem, Oregon, man from a 50-year prison sentence for sexual abuse of a minor. The fact that the dog is still alive contradicts key testimony used to convict the defendant, who had already been released from prison and is no longer facing a possible retrial.

In this very strange and slightly confusing tale, plumber Joshua Horner was convicted in 2017 of abusing a minor who testified that Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she ever squealed on him to the cops. To prove he was in earnest, she said, he shot her dog.

But after Horner appealed to the Oregon Innocence Project, the group realized that if it could find the dog—Lucy—it would be proof that the alleged victim had lied under oath.

The Oregonian reported that when the Project "raised concerns in April about the case with Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel, he agreed to work with them." Let's hear it for a D.A. willing to revisit a case.

The folks at the Innocence Project became human bloodhounds on the trail of the dog, a black lab with distinctive ears and coloring. Somehow, they ended up tracking her down, as Fox News reported:

The dog's existence showed the complainant was lying in her testimony — enough evidence for [Deschutes County District Attorney John ] Hummel to request the case be dismissed. The woman also failed to show up to a meeting in August to address her statement.

"Lucy the dog was not shot. Lucy the dog is alive and well," Hummel's office said in a statement.

"While I cannot say with certainty that Mr. Horner did not sexually abuse the named victim I can say I am not convinced by a preponderance of evidence that he did and I am certainly not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," Hummel said Monday.

While we're on the subject of reasonable doubt, even the jury that convicted Horner was not unanimous. How is that legal? It turns out Oregon is one of two states where jury decisions need not be unanimous—even when the outcome will result in a person spending 50 years in a cage.

To add one last layer of weirdness to this story, Horner was already out on appeal as of August 3. Accordng to The Oregonian:

[T]he Oregon Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial. The appeals court said the defense had not been allowed to present certain evidence that was unrelated to the dog.

Now, Horner no longer faces that second trial. He declined a request for an interview, saying he is not ready to speak with the press just yet

After Lucy was found, the complainant failed to attend a meeting in August to discuss her testimony, Hummel said. Last Wednesday, one of his investigators heard she was at a home near Redmond. When he pulled up to the driveway, she ran away.

A case of ruff justice all around.

Photo Credit: Christinlola / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    This entire case should not hinge on whether or not she fabricated a dog shooting.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I mean, the conviction is entirely based on the testimony of the victim, so it all hangs on her credibility. Since she testified that Lucy was shot dead, and Lucy is fine, her credibility is basically wrecked.

    If you follow through to the stories it turns out that the alleged victim is the daughter of the ex-wife of the accused. And she made similar allegations against three other males in her ex-family - information that the DA succeeded in getting excluded at trial. And the ex-wife is also the one that gave Lucy away, presumably because having Lucy hanging around the house would not be considered consistent with her daughter's testimony that Lucy had been shot dead.

    Sounds like the system eventually got this one right...….

  • Eddy||

    Not until the false accuser(s) get justice.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    ^^^^

  • James Pollock||

    "Not until the false accuser(s) get justice."

    Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

  • Warren||

    Eh? She accused him of killing her dog. The not dead dog is all the evidence needed.

  • James Pollock||

    Was he convicted of animal cruelty? That wasn't in the story.

  • Eddy||

    She swore he killed the dog. Fairly obviously, she knew she wasn't telling the truth. Unless her mental capacity is severely impaired.

  • James Pollock||

    Proof that the dog is alive proves that her allegation that he killed the dog is false.
    Did she so testify because she believed he'd shot the dog? Did she so testify because the whole allegation is made of whole cloth? You can't answer those questions from the evidence available.

    So. You can't prove perjury. You can't prove that the allegations he was convicted for are false or true.

    So quit jumping to conclusions.

  • Eddy||

    I'm concluding that she lied about the dog being shot.

    I've said on several occasions that it's *possible* she told the truth about the molestation but lied only about this one "minor" point.

    Just as it's *possible* the prosecutor is a sheepfucker. If you deny it you're assuming facts not in evidence.

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm concluding that she lied about the dog being shot."

    And, as has been pointed out to you, you're choosing to jump to that conclusion.
    Which is stupid. But you've made your choice.

  • Eddy||

    You might want to take things up with the prosecutor, who said in a press release:

    "A significant claim made at trial by the named victim was not true. Specifically, the named victim,,,said that to prove his point: "[Mr. Horner] shot my dog Lucy right in front of me.

    "Lucy the dog was not shot. Lucy the dog is alive and well."

    Why not explain why the prosecutor is "stupid" to say this.

  • James Pollock||

    "Why not explain why the prosecutor is 'stupid' to say this."

    Sure. What would that reason be?

  • Eddy||

    Face it, you got caught with your pants down.

  • eat the gristle||

    Tulpa isn't even tryimg at this point.

  • James Pollock||

    WTF are you talking about?

  • eat the gristle||

    Fuck off Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "Fuck off Tulpa"

    You seem... confused.

  • eat the gristle||

    Fuck off Tulpa.

  • Bill||

    She said the dog was shot IN FRONT OF HER. It was NOT.

    That is perjury. Dumbass.

  • Naaman Brown||

    From the linked story:
    "In the trial, the complainant testified Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she went to the police about the alleged molestation, and said she saw him shoot her dog, killing it, to make his point."

    She "said she saw him shoot her dog, killing it".

    The dog was found alive.

    The complainant failed to attend a meeting with the prosecutor to discuss this in Aug. Later she ran away from a prosecution investigator who wanted to talk to her.

  • eat the gristle||

    And "James Pollock" vanishes into the ether...

  • James Pollock||

    "And 'James Pollock' vanishes into the ether"

    Wishful thinking? Or just not paying attention?

  • eat the gristle||

    Ok Tulpa, you got me.

  • James Pollock||

    English, please.

  • eat the gristle||

    Fuck off Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    You seem to have lost the thread of the debate.

  • eat the gristle||

    Whereas you just lost the debate.

    Now fuck off Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    You're arguing with a figment of your imagination. Either way, you lose.

    Have a nice day, anyway.

  • eat the gristle||

    The entirety of the thread said otherwise.

    Fuck off now Tulpa, you lost the debate and the best response you could muster was "no you!"

    Lololol

  • James Pollock||

    No, the best response I could muster is "damn, I'm glad I don't have THAT guy's problems". But I kept it to myself until now.

  • eat the gristle||

    Why does pointing out that you're obviously Tulpa trigger you so much Tulpa?

    Why do you think your tantrum does anything other than demonstrate that you are obviously Tulpa, Tulpa?

  • James Pollock||

    "Why does pointing out that you're obviously Tulpa trigger you so much Tulpa?"

    Why does pointing out the fact that I'm not this person you keep imagining me to be get you so agitated?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Is it time for an "I am Tulpa" moment amongst the commentariat?

  • Steve-O||

    This guy's bizarre thought processes make me think more of Michael Hihn. Plus he showed up on these boards immediately after Hihn vanished.

  • eat the gristle||

    "damn, I'm glad I don't have THAT guy's problems"

    My dick is pretty big, your wife knew, and yes it's not all it's cracked up to be.

    That's surprisingly considerate of you Tulpa, your little guy is fine I'm sure.

  • James Pollock||

    "'damn, I'm glad I don't have THAT guy's problems'

    My dick is pretty big"

    Shit. The poor reasoning, the losing arguments with imaginary friends, were problems I knew you were struggling with. To now find out that you struggle with overcompensating for inadequacy? Yikes.

    (Hint: You know who says "I have a big dick"? Answer: Guys who don't.)

  • Steve-O||

    Perjury applies to any testimony given in a court - not just testimony material to the outcome of the case.

  • masculistman||

    Quit playing the white knight.

  • dchang0||

    Doesn't matter what the charge was; there was a clear punishment of 50 years in prison, of which he has served some time. Justice for him would be getting back that time served, regardless of charge, because he has not been convicted of either sexual abuse OR animal cruelty.

    In other words, he is to be treated as an innocent man, wrongfully punished.

  • Longtobefree||

    The only relevant facts are not in dispute; a 'she' accused a 'he. Guilty.
    That dog stuff is just a distraction.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Until the dog's complicity in this case is discovered, we cannot call the case settled.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Well, one good thing in the government's favor is that this case was already hanging by a thread, with the appeals court and jury both noting that it was questionable.
    This just seals the deal.

  • Agammamon||

    I think you missed the point - even though you list things that support it in your post.

    This entire case should never have hinged on whether or not she fabricated the dog shooting.

    It should never have gotten that far without other supporting evidence. Locking a person up *solely on the testimony* of another person without any external, *objective* corroborating evidence is complete bullshit.

    Its worse when, as you point out, not only do they not have any corroborating evidence, but the prosecutor actively sought to suppress evidence of innocence.

    Yeah, the justice system 'eventually got one right' - it should never have gotten this far.

  • James Pollock||

    "It should never have gotten that far without other supporting evidence."

    Speaking of jumping to conclusions...

  • VinniUSMC||

    Fuck off slaver.

  • James Pollock||

    It's a pity such a dumbfuck impugns the good name of the USMC.

  • eat the gristle||

    You were a marine too?

  • BYODB||

    You haven't met many Marines if you think saying 'fuck off slaver' somehow impugns them. Ever notice how many dicks Marines draw on walls? I have. They have very few fucks to give, since the green weenie is omnipresent.

  • James Pollock||

    "You haven't met many Marines if you think saying 'fuck off slaver' somehow impugns them."

    Yeah, that's a reasonable interpretation. For sure.

  • eat the gristle||

    It was, you just hate that he's right and need to whine about it pathologically.

  • James Pollock||

    "It was, you just hate that he's right and need to whine about it pathologically."

    I'm going to decline to take psychological advice from the guy who has public arguments with his imaginary friends, just on principle.

  • eat the gristle||

    Why are you telling me things about your sex partners Tulpa?

  • BYODB||

    For your benefit, I included two inside Marine jokes to see if you got them.

    You did not. I suspect you know zero Marines.

  • James Pollock||

    "I suspect you know zero Marines."

    And your assumption skills have not improved.

  • eat the gristle||

    At this point why do you think anyone cares about your claims Tulpa.

  • BYODB||

    Is a suspicion the same thing as an assumption to you? Goodness, you're a terrible pedant.

  • James Pollock||

    "Is a suspicion the same thing as an assumption to you?"

    Either way, you're dead set on your conclusion and won't tolerate having someone pointing out mistakes to you.

    "Goodness, you're a terrible pedant."

    Horrors! How can I ever go on?

  • masculistman||

    You are a fucking moron.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agree completely - a he said she said or she said he said or any other combination, without corroborating evidence, should not result in convinctions.

    But this is juries fault and their apparent desire to punish defendants instead of evaluating evidence with an assumption of innocence.

    Not sure the solution, but almost all innocent people released were convinced solely on testimony of others and usually the lack of an alibi (which is true of any homebody who,lives alone, or true when charges as not definitive - such as claims of "molestation sometime in the winter").

  • James Pollock||

    "But this is juries fault and their apparent desire to punish defendants instead of evaluating evidence with an assumption of innocence."

    Did you review the trial record to see what evidence the jury saw and considered, or do you just know there wasn't any because that's what you assume?

  • Mark22||

    Sounds like the system eventually got this one right...….

    It's not right until the accuser gets locked up for many years.

  • James Pollock||

    "It's not right until the accuser gets locked up for many years."

    For...

  • eat the gristle||

    Perjury.

  • James Pollock||

    In this country, we like to hold the trial BEFORE we decide on what the punishment should be.

  • eat the gristle||

    You asked about the charge Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "You asked about the charge"

    I did? Point to where.

  • eat the gristle||

    "For..."

    Damn Tulpa, how fucking stupid are you?

  • James Pollock||

    "Damn Tulpa, how fucking stupid are you?"

    Not so stupid that I lose track of who I'm debating with, and I can also tell the difference between the words "for" and "charge".

    So, however fucking stupid that level is, you've way exceeding it.

  • eat the gristle||

    The charge follows your "For..."

    How fucking stupid are you?

    "I can also tell the difference between the words "for" and "charge"."

    So can I, but I'm not sure as you are about your own abilities. You seem to be too stupid to understand, or too pathetic to admit, that your "For..." was your moronic attempt to inquire about what she would "get locked up for many years."

    For...

    The answer to which is the charge of perjury.

    You've reached the point where you can't even keep track of your own stupidity, Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "You've reached the point where you can't even keep track of your own stupidity, Tulpa."

    says the guy arguing with his imaginary friend.

  • eat the gristle||

    Hey, at least you gave up on your stupid, incoherent attempt to pretend anything you said there was true or accurate, and instead went to "I'M NOT TULPA!" Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    It's just as true now as it was before.

    You may believe that repeating untruths makes them true, but I don't.

  • eat the gristle||

    So it's not true.

    Glad you finally admitted it, still weird that it triggers you so much pointing out that you're obviously Tulpa

  • James Pollock||

    " it triggers you so much pointing out that you're obviously Tulpa"

    It's weird just how much you have your heart set on this.

    Did someone break up with you and stop returning your texts?

  • jdgalt1||

    +1

  • Malvolio||

    the alleged victim is the daughter of the ex-wife of the accused.


    Done.

  • Echospinner||

    Tom Bombadil,

    If it is established that a part of her testimony was fabricated is that not relevant?

    It is not the whole case. If it comes down to he said she said then it matters.

  • James Pollock||

    "If it is established that a part of her testimony was fabricated is that not relevant?"

    This isn't established.
    She said that he said he'd kill the dog. Do you have evidence that shows that this is not true?

    That's the problem... the people who know whether or not the accusation was fabricated aren't saying so.

  • Agammamon||

    Do you have evidence that shows that this is not true?

    Yes. Did you not read the article. The evidence that this is not true is the live dog. That wasn't killed. By anyone.

  • James Pollock||

    The fact that the dog is alive proves that he didn't say he'd kill the dog?

    If I'm ever on trial, I want you on MY jury...

  • Rigelsen||

    Not if you're going to misstate facts like this.

  • BYODB||

    It proves that he did not, in fact, kill the dog which was the verbatim claim being made. Not that he said he would kill it, but rather that he did kill it.

    If I need a lawyer, I want one who can not only read but understand what they've read.

    Joshua Horner was convicted in 2017 of abusing a minor who testified that Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she ever squealed on him to the cops. To prove he was in earnest, she said, he shot her dog.

    You see, she has other animals. The dog was specifically the one he supposed already killed to shut her up.

    In 'he said, she said' cases credibility is all you've got. She has none. That doesn't prove he didn't molest her, it proves she's a liar. Oops.

  • James Pollock||

    "It proves that he did not, in fact, kill the dog which was the verbatim claim being made. Not that he said he would kill it, but rather that he did kill it."

    Right. Try to follow along. Suppose he A) threatened to kill the dog, and then B) did something that convinced the girl that he'd shot the dog. Does THIS assumption change the interpretation? It would be wrong to assume that was the case, just as it's wrong to assume that she made the entire allegation up out of whole cloth, without any other evidence in hand that supports that conclusion.

    "If I need a lawyer, I want one who can not only read but understand what they've read."

    Yes, since you lack this skill, you'll want to hire someone who has it.

  • BYODB||

    From the linked article:

    In the trial, the complainant testified Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she went to the police about the alleged molestation, and said she saw him shoot her dog, killing it, to make his point.

    From the above article:

    After Lucy was found, the complainant failed to attend a meeting in August to discuss her testimony, Hummel said. Last Wednesday, one of his investigators heard she was at a home near Redmond. When he pulled up to the driveway, she ran away.

    So what is your point, exactly?

    Suppose he A) threatened to kill the dog, and then B) did something that convinced the girl that he'd shot the dog.

    Yeah, he fake-shot the dog, left, and mom then decided to get rid of the live dog for unrelated reasons far, far away knowing that it would be useful evidence to her own case. That seems likely. It is not an 'assumption' that the girl claimed to actually, physically see him kill the dog.

    You know many kids that wouldn't run to their dog if they thought it was hurt? The guy didn't take it with him, after all. That dog must be a really good actor.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yeah, he fake-shot the dog, left, and mom then decided to get rid of the live dog for unrelated reasons far, far away knowing that it would be useful evidence to her own case."

    You REALLY like jumping to conclusions, don't you?

    "That seems likely."

    What seems likely and what's proven true are different things.

    "It is not an 'assumption' that the girl claimed to actually, physically see him kill the dog."

    And she was incorrect to say so.

    "You know many kids that wouldn't run to their dog if they thought it was hurt?"
    Lots. Kids that were scared of someone who'd just shot their dog, for example.

    "The guy didn't take it with him, after all."
    Aha! A new fact. Except... you just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?

    That means everything else you said is a lie, too.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not jumping to any conclusions, I'm logically examining your argument and what might make it true.

    That you feel nothing can be proven as true might be true philosophically, but in criminal justice it was my understanding they use actual criteria to decide those things.

    Curious that a crime, specifically sexual abuse, can be 'proven true' to the extent of locking someone up for 50 years sans any evidence whatsoever whereas being caught in an 'error' in your testimony (specifically, the testimony that managed to land you in jail for 50 years) that has an empirical measure isn't enough to 'prove' malicious intent in getting you locked up for the rest of your natural born life.

    It is inconsistent at best and a violation of due process and equal protection under the law at worst.

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm not jumping to any conclusions"

    You are.
    You're jumping from "she was incorrect in saying he shot the dog" to "she lied about him shooting the dog".

    "That you feel nothing can be proven as true"
    You seem to have jumped to this conclusion as well. It's contrafactual.

    Applying your logic, the fact that you lied about THAT proves that everything you said is a lie.

    "a crime, specifically sexual abuse, can be 'proven true' to the extent of locking someone up for 50 years sans any evidence whatsoever"

    This appears to be a figmeng of your imagination.

    " being caught in an 'error' in your testimony [...] that has an empirical measure isn't enough to 'prove' malicious intent"

    Being wrong is ONE of the parts of perjury, yes. But it isn't, by itself, proof of maliciousness. Now, if you have any actual evidence of malice, bring it out.

    Or admit you can't, and go away.

  • ||

    This appears to be a figmeng of your imagination.

    *snicker*

  • eat the gristle||

    "Gordon's Alive!?!?!?"

  • BYODB||


    Being wrong is ONE of the parts of perjury, yes. But it isn't, by itself, proof of maliciousness.


    Correct. The fact that the lie resulted in someone she didn't like being locked up for 50 years as a direct result of her 'misstatement of fact', however...

  • James Pollock||

    "The fact that the lie resulted in someone she didn't like being locked up for 50 years as a direct result of her 'misstatement of fact', however..."

    You're jumping all over the place.

    First, you're still arguing that her statement is a lie. It may be, but it hasn't yet been proven to be. Secondly, you're assuming that he story about the dog resulted in him being locked up, which is not the case. Finally, you're assuming that the guy is someone she didn't like. (That's probably a good bet... IF he's guilty. But it's not in the story.)

    If you have to invent facts to support your story... say, isn't that what you're accusing her of doing?

  • BYODB||


    First, you're still arguing that her statement is a lie. It may be, but it hasn't yet been proven to be.

    How, in your view, does one prove a lie?

  • eat the gristle||

    With evidence silly, and a living dog that was testified as being shot to death is NOT evidence, don't you get it?????

  • James Pollock||

    "How, in your view, does one prove a lie?"

    Proving a lie has two parts. One part involves showing that a statement wasn't true. The other part involves showing that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, when they said it.
    Then, showing an intent to deceive may be part of some situations. (This differentiates sarcasm from lying, for example.).

  • dinkster||

    Tulpa is very dumb

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Apparently, the dog thing is key because they didn't have much real evidence. In fact, it sounds like this case never should have been brought in the first place, let alone a jury overcoming reasonable doubt.

    Like I always say..... "people are stupid".

  • Bruce D||

    There is at least probable cause that she deliberately perjured herself. That is enough to charge her and try her.

  • markm23||

    She was a child. That limits the penalties available, and it's likely that it's just not worthwhile to bring charges by this time. However, her mother that allegedly concealed the dog should be charged for that, and investigated to see if they can prove she taught the kid to bring false accusations in this and earlier cases.

    But to me, the major culprits are the prosecutor who moved to exclude evidence of her earlier lies, and the judge that granted that motion. If they truly believed that a record of false accusations is irrelevant, they should be fired and permanently disbarred for being too stupid to do their jobs - and there should be an investigation into how idiots could pass law school and the bar exam. Or if the prosecutor made that motion out of a win-regardless-of-justice mentality and the judge approved it because he sympathizes with the prosecution, they should be fired, disbarred, pay the defendant's legal bills plus compensation for the time lost and disruption of his life, and then spend as much time in prison as he did.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "She said that he said he'd kill the dog. Do you have evidence that shows that this is not true?"

    She testified that he threatened to kill all of her pets if she talked to the cops, and that he shot her dog Lucy dead to demonstrate that he wasn't bluffing.

    Lucy being not dead definitively proves that she was lying.

  • James Pollock||

    "Lucy being not dead definitively proves that she was lying."

    No, it doesn't.
    That's one of several possible explanations for why her testimony was incorrect. You or I may well consider it the most likely. But those are opinions, not proof.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you believe it is possible for her statement to be proven false?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    To be clear. I'm not asking do you think it false now, you clearly do not. I am asking is there any possible evidence that you believe would render her statement false, and if so, what would it entail?

  • James Pollock||

    "To be clear. I'm not asking do you think it false now, you clearly do not."

    To be clear, you are an idiot with at best grade-school-level reading comprehension.

  • BYODB||

    Ah, Pollock revealed themselves as a possible local-variety troll with this. Now I feel dumb for replying in earnest.

    Say, Pollock, why don't you go stand on a ladder and throw some paint around? It seems more your speed.

  • James Pollock||

    "Now I feel dumb"

    This part I believe.

  • James Pollock||

    " Pollock revealed themselves"

    Just how many of me are you imagining there to be?

  • James Pollock||

    "Do you believe it is possible for her statement to be proven false?"

    Yeah. It has been.

    But some have jumped from "incorrect" to "lie". One of those is proven with the facts given. The other is an assumption. Maybe the assumption is true. The people who KNOW if it's true or not aren't saying so.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you believe anyone can be shown to be lying without explicit admittance by the person?

    Is the disagreement here purely over whether or not someone can be shown to be lying? Like, lying depends on the speakers mental state in regards to the statement, and because that is unknowable to the outside, that one can never know if a person lied?

  • James Pollock||

    "Do you believe anyone can be shown to be lying without explicit admittance by the person?"

    Yes. Can you read?

  • BYODB||


    "Do you believe anyone can be shown to be lying without explicit admittance by the person?"

    Yes. Can you read?

    Ah, the pedant didn't notice the difference in usage between 'lying' and 'false' I see.

  • James Pollock||

    "Ah, the pedant didn't notice the difference in usage between 'lying' and 'false' I see."

    (The pedant was asked two questions, and answered both of them)

    The idiot imagines something else, I see.

  • eat the gristle||

    Just retire this screen name Tulpa, it's torched.

  • James Pollock||

    "Just retire this screen name Tulpa, it's torched."

    I don't care what name you choose to post under.

  • eat the gristle||

    Great, you should still retire your "James Pollock " sockpuppet screen name Tulpa.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "In the trial, the complaintant testified Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she went to the police about the alleged molestation, and said she saw him shoot her dog, killing it, to make his point".

    The dog is alive and has no bullet wounds. She lied.

  • James Pollock||

    "The dog is alive and has no bullet wounds. She lied."

    Or she was fooled. Or she was mistaken. Or misidentified which dog he shot. Or the dog they found isn't really the dog he shot. Or he shot AT the dog, but is a terrible marksman and missed. Or...

    "She lied" is an assumption. It may be right, but it may not be.

  • VinniUSMC||

    said she saw him shoot her dog, killing it,

    You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Fuck off slaver.

  • James Pollock||

    "Special kind of stupid" is how you refer to people who are smarter than you are, isn't it?

  • eat the gristle||

    No, actually, he was talking to you.

    What the fuck are you even doing now? She said she saw it, so your whole premise is in tatters.

  • James Pollock||

    "your whole premise is in tatters."

    Is this how you say "is as true as it always was"? Because I think you're using the term incorrectly.

  • eat the gristle||

    No, it's how I say you're conducting a desperate defense of a stupid position, that was defeated as soon as you made it clear that you didn't read the article.

    Your posts are here. Anyone who reads them can see it. No amount of this sad display you are engaging in will change anything.

    Now fuck off Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, it's how I say you're conducting a desperate defense of a stupid position, that was defeated as soon as you made it clear that you didn't read the article."

    Yeah, you're definitely using these terms incorrectly.

    "Now fuck off"

    I accept your apology.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Yeah, you're definitely using these terms incorrectly"

    I'm not surprised you finally reached the point where the only thing you can say is "NU UH!"

    Fuck off now Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm not surprised you finally reached the point where the only thing you can say is "NU UH!"
    Fuck off now Tulpa"

    I haven't yet started pretending I'm arguing with someone else, though.

    Or was that intended to be taken literally, and you think you're arguing with yourself?

  • eat the gristle||

    I see you gave up any pretense of your not being in full retreat and cover mode.

    Now how about you just fuck off now Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "I see you gave up any pretense of your not being in full retreat and cover mode.

    Now how about you just fuck off now Tulpa."

    Ask the nurse for another dose of medication. Your delusions are multiplying.

  • eat the gristle||

    That may be true, but your post is still one of those fact free "no argument" posts that you hypocritically keep whining about Tulpa.

  • Peter Duncan||

    We have no evidence you are smarter than a pile of shit, Tulpa.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    "She lied" is an assumption.

    If I ever have the misfortune to be a defendant in a criminal trial, I want you on my jury.

    But she said she witnessed him shooting her dog.... making the idea he could fake the gun shoot and death or the idea that she wouldn't know the pets in her house very implausible.

    Conclusion: she lied.

  • James Pollock||

    "If I ever have the misfortune to be a defendant in a criminal trial, I want you on my jury."

    The only criminal jury I was ever on voted to convict.

    "But she said she witnessed him shooting her dog...."
    Yes, she did. And as best as can be determined, she was wrong about that.

    " making the idea he could fake the gun shoot and death or the idea that she wouldn't know the pets in her house very implausible."

    Or so you assume.

    And if she lied about one thing, she must therefore be lying about everything else?

    I don't know. Without further evidence, I will consider to not know. Your ability to leap to certainty with inadequate evidence must be comforting for you.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed technically with all current known that we cannot,prove she lied.

    But giving her unwillingness to clarify, given how definitive her testimony was, given past accusations against the mother's previous significant others, I think it's not a leap to call it a lie.

    In fact, the amount of contortions you must go through to say it's not a lie is more interesting. Maybe you know of a situation where the abused had no proof and couldn't do anything about it - that sucks.

    But a liar she is.

  • BYODB||


    In fact, the amount of contortions you must go through to say it's not a lie is more interesting.

    Exactly, which is curious since that is not what 'reasonable doubt' is at all. All the actual evidence not only contradicts the girls story, but points directly to her fabricating the story intentionally.

    That could be coincidence, I guess, but they already have enough to try her for perjury if they so choose, which I doubt they will because the D.A. won't want to go after even a possible sexual abuse 'victim' even when there is not only no evidence of sexual abuse, but there is actual evidence of abuse of the legal system.

  • James Pollock||

    "Exactly, which is curious since that is not what 'reasonable doubt' is at all. All the actual evidence not only contradicts the girls story, but points directly to her fabricating the story intentionally."

    Really? What would all that "actual evidence" be? It has remained undisclosed to this point.

    " they already have enough to try her for perjury if they so choose"

    Not unless they have more evidence in hand than they have disclosed thus far.

  • James Pollock||

    "which is curious since that is not what 'reasonable doubt' is at all."

    Who's been talking about "reasonable doubt"?

  • James Pollock||

    "with all current known that we cannot,prove she lied."

    Was that so fucking hard? Should have stopped there.

    " I think it's not a leap to call it a lie."

    Funny. That's not what you just said.

  • d1sinfo||

    http://www.dcda.us/c5/files/97......10.18.pdf

    I notice the prosecutor says that statements were untrue. Can you explain if he is 'jumping to conclusions'? If he is not then I can only assume you mean something like the following. If she didn't state directly she saw him kill the dog, maybe she heard a shot and a dog in pain, and he walked into view made his threat and this way she could claim she knew he killed the dog without ever knowing the dog was dead.... if that were true, wouldn't the prosecuting attorney not make claims about untrue... or is it that he didn't say this specific thing was untrue and we are making assumptions about what he is describing himself as untrue? You can see how we are being a jury here, and I think what you have inadvertently proven is that no matter what a lawyer hopes to convey with an argument they must convince. You have failed here in a court of public opinion to convince even if this legal argument you are making is valid, it really isn't of any importance right because we don't believe you and were on the jury? So maybe this is why the prosecutorial attorney used untrue and not lie? So maybe if your protterny convince us? Or do like the real pro did and BOW THE FUCK OUT!

  • James Pollock||

    "I notice the prosecutor says that statements were untrue. Can you explain if he is 'jumping to conclusions'?"

    The statements were untrue.
    I have no idea if he is jumping to conclusions or not, because he isn't posting stupid conclusions on the Internet.

    "So maybe this is why the prosecutorial attorney used untrue and not lie?"
    Maybe.

    "So maybe if your protterny convince us?"

    I can't make any sense of this.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well yeah, of course not you're stupid. You still don't understand why we are laughing at you.

  • d1sinfo||

    http://www.dcda.us/c5/files/97......10.18.pdf

    I notice the prosecutor says that statements were untrue. Can you explain if he is 'jumping to conclusions'? If he is not then I can only assume you mean something like the following. If she didn't state directly she saw him kill the dog, maybe she heard a shot and a dog in pain, and he walked into view made his threat and this way she could claim she knew he killed the dog without ever knowing the dog was dead.... if that were true, wouldn't the prosecuting attorney not make claims about untrue... or is it that he didn't say this specific thing was untrue and we are making assumptions about what he is describing himself as untrue? You can see how we are being a jury here, and I think what you have inadvertently proven is that no matter what a lawyer hopes to convey with an argument they must convince. You have failed here in a court of public opinion to convince even if this legal argument you are making is valid, it really isn't of any importance right because we don't believe you and were on the jury? So maybe this is why the prosecutorial attorney used untrue and not lie? So maybe if your protterny convince us? Or do like the real pro did and BOW THE FUCK OUT!

  • Paloma||

    James keeps arguing with no logic or facts as though the sheer stamina of repeating over and over, I'm right, you're wrong, again and again means you win the argument or at least save face. The only people I've ever know to do this are women. Especially high school girls.

    James, you're a birch.

  • Paloma||

    James keeps arguing with no logic or facts as though the sheer stamina of repeating over and over, I'm right, you're wrong, again and again means you win the argument or at least save face. The only people I've ever know to do this are women. Especially high school girls.

    James, you're a birch.

  • eat the gristle||

    More like a knobweed.

  • James Pollock||

    "James keeps arguing with no logic or facts as though the sheer stamina of repeating over and over"

    You already said this.

  • Bruce D||

    Saying that the dog was shot dead in front of her, and the dog later being found, and her running away, would be proof beyond reasonable doubt of perjury.

  • markm23||

    Perjury, or insanity if she doesn't know what the truth is...

  • Chasman1965||

    She also said that he then shot her dog.

    Second paragraph in the above article:
    "In this very strange and slightly confusing tale, plumber Joshua Horner was convicted in 2017 of abusing a minor who testified that Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she ever squealed on him to the cops. To prove he was in earnest, she said, he shot her dog."

  • James Pollock||

    Congratulations on your excellent cut-and-paste ability.

    Are you under the impression that there is a "smoking gun" contained within the cut-and-pasted text?

  • Bruce D||

    James Pollack, dude. Give it up. You've been soundly refuted. You been given a good intellectual spanking.

  • Echospinner||

    "Gambini: So, Mr. Tipton, how could it take you five minutes to cook your grits, when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes."

    The witness might have been mistaken or lied. I do not know. The testimony was proven incorrect.

    She said the dog was shot. The dog was not.

    Another curious incident of the dog in the night.

  • masculistman||

    Yeah,the dog is still alive. That is the proof. Do you practice for hours on how to be stupid or does it come naturally?

  • ||

    If it is established that a part of her testimony was fabricated is that not relevant?

    It is not the whole case. If it comes down to he said she said then it matters.

    He's saying a 50 sentence shouldn't come down to a Schrödinger's Dog situation. People seeing him frequently making overtures to a minor, previous convictions for solicitation of a minor, dick picks texted to a minor... these are the sort of things that could/should earn someone hard time. You know, evidence.

  • ||

    Being more clear, direct evidence should confirm his guilt rather than circumstantial evidence to find him innocent.

  • ||

    Clarifying my clarification: the *presence* of direct evidence should confirm his guilt rather than the *absence* of circumstantial evidence. The latter, quite literally being convicting someone on a story that has no evidence of not being made up.

  • James Pollock||

    "People seeing him frequently making overtures to a minor, previous convictions for solicitation of a minor, dick picks texted to a minor."

    These would all be inadmissable as evidence.

  • eat the gristle||

    That is wrong.

  • James Pollock||

    Or not.

    ORS 40.170(2)

    Proving that someone has misbehaved in the past doesn't provide evidence that they have misbehaved in this particular case.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Proving that someone has misbehaved in the past doesn't provide evidence that they have misbehaved in this particular case."

    Which is, of course a huge goalpost shift from. "These would all be inadmissable as evidence."

    From your link

    "1) Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is admissible when it is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense"

    Which would be determined at a hearing.

    You're too fucking stupid to read your own source, and it proved you both pathetically attempted to shift the goalposts, AND you were still wrong.

  • ||

    He also skipped No. 2:

    "(2) Evidence of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

    . . . .

    (c) Evidence of the character of a witness"

    This is just getting pathetic.

  • eat the gristle||

    Thank you, I didn't bother reading past the first proof of his ignorance. I imagine further scrutiny would reveal even more evidence of his error.

  • James Pollock||

    "I imagine further scrutiny would reveal even more evidence of his error."

    Not a good argument when you're trying to claim you don't jump to conclusions, BTW.

    Of course, referring to an "error" that isn't wrong is ALSO not bright.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Not a good argument when you're trying to claim you don't jump to conclusions, BTW."

    Cool, but why are you talking to me about that?

    I never claimed anything of the kind.

    Maybe you should try working on your reading comprehension as you have counseled others to do Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "Maybe you should try working on your reading comprehension as you have counseled others to do Tulpa."

    Or maybe you should. Or take it up with Tulpa, with whom you seem to have great disagreement.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well, I always work on my reading comprehension, but it will never help when it's your mistake like that one was Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    " I always work on my reading comprehension"

    This time, try working on making it better, instead of what you've been doing.

  • eat the gristle||

    No, I can work on it while pointing out how wrong and stupid you are, you make that part easy enough.

  • James Pollock||

    "I can work on it while pointing out how wrong and stupid you are"

    Not, and not. That wasn't hard.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Not, and not. "

    So going with "Nu Uhhhhhhh!!!!!" again I see

    "That wasn't hard."

    Why are you telling us about your dick?

  • ||

    Yeah - it's not like it's written in some obscure legalese - the meaning really couldn't be more plain, such that "People seeing him frequently making overtures to a minor, previous convictions for solicitation of a minor, dick picks texted to a minor"

    absolutely would be admissible in the trial of sexual predator at least under (2) and that her having lied about the dog incident is, again, absolutely admissible if her lying and habit of serial accusation are an "essential element" of his defense (which they clearly are).

    I expect he'll call me stupid again, but won't actually explain how this section would render any examples he has offered "inadmissible."

  • James Pollock||

    /"I expect he'll call me stupid again,"

    Amazingly, the message appears to have penetrated.

    "won't actually explain how this section would render any examples he has offered "inadmissible.""

    You didn't like the "explanation" that the statute says that such evidence "is not admissible". Here's the statute again:

    Evidence of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion

    Notice that it doesn't say "is not admissible unless some clown on the Internet really, REALLY wants it to be, it just says "is not admissible".

    Now, there is an exception to the rule. If the defendant wants to introduce character witnesses to claim what a swell guy he is, THEN the prosecution can call as rebuttal, witnesses that show otherwise. If the defense doesn't introduce character witnesses, then neither can the prosecutor. There is an exception, sharply limited, that lets the prosecution show convictions for the same crime to show habit.

    None of the three things listed falls into any of the exceptions.

  • James Pollock||

    You screwed up the bold tags.

    Doesn't matter, other than to show that you didn't understand it.

    "You're too fucking stupid to read your own source, and it proved you both pathetically attempted to shift the goalposts, AND you were still wrong."

    Three swings, three misses. You're out. Go sit in the dugout.

  • ||

    You screwed up the bold tags.

    And you misspelled "figment" above.

    Are you just trying to be a tedious asshole at this point?

  • ||

    And please, dear God, explain how the statute that you cited that clearly stated that any of that evidence would be 100% admissible in fact said the opposite like you claim it did.

  • James Pollock||

    " explain how the statute that you cited that clearly stated that any of that evidence would be 100% admissible in fact said the opposite like you claim it did."

    Ask your public defender to explain it to you. He (or she) gets paid for that, and I don't.

  • ||

    Ask your public defender to explain it to you. He (or she) gets paid for that, and I don't.

    You would get paid in maybe not every single person who sees this thread thinking you're an insufferable idiot. So there's that.

    I'm guessing you're just going to continue to double down and claim ORS 40.170(2) says the opposite of what it says and call people poo-poo faces when they point out it doesn't.

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm guessing you're just going to continue to double down and claim ORS 40.170(2) says the opposite of what it says and call people poo-poo faces when they point out it doesn't."

    That appears to be your strategy.

    I'll stick with "read 'em and weep, troll".

  • eat the gristle||

    Which is of course idiotic when the text is posted and clearly says you're wrong Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "Which is of course idiotic when the text is posted and clearly says you're wrong Tulpa."

    Or would be, if that's what the text said. But it isn't.

  • James Pollock||

    "Are you just trying to be a tedious asshole at this point?"

    And beat you at your own game.

  • ||

    So I'm gonna take that as a "no," that you can't, in fact, explain how this cite that you posted that 100% contradicted what you were trying to say didn't, in fact, contradict what you were trying to say.

    Good job, guy - you look sooper smart now.

  • eat the gristle||

    You called it perfectly, he got tagged and had to say SOMETHING, which is just precious because nothing he says will change anything after the hours long display he has engaged in.

  • James Pollock||

    "So I'm gonna take that as a 'no,'"

    Why not. What's one more mistake when you've made so darn many...

  • eat the gristle||

    I think it's obvious now that you were always just trolling, a post like that isn't done to have anything like a constructive discussion.

  • James Pollock||

    "I think it's obvious now that you were always just trolling"

    Fuck off, Tulpa

  • eat the gristle||

    Seriously, why don't you just fuck off already Tulpa, you stopped pretending not to be a troll hours ago.

  • James Pollock||

    "Seriously, why don't you just fuck off already Tulpa, you stopped pretending not to be a troll hours ago"

    Fuck off, Tulpa

  • eat the gristle||

    And here we have another of your admissions that you don't have an argument Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    Why don't you take your argument with this "Tulpa" fellow offline?

  • eat the gristle||

    Because you're here right now Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "a post like that isn't done to have anything like a constructive discussion."

    You can't even manage a constructive discussion with your imaginary friend.

  • eat the gristle||

    While that may be true Tulpa, it has nothing to do with your posts here today.

    Try to stay on topic Tulpa.

  • eat the gristle||

    "You screwed up the bold tags."

    No, actually I didn't person who continues to bitch about other people jumping to conclusions, I was berating you.

    Now fuck off Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    " I was berating you.

    Now fuck off Tulpa."

    Really? You seem to be berating someone else...

  • eat the gristle||

    Yes, don't focus on how you were wrong and jumped to conclusions, after whining for hours not to, instead focus on denying that you are Tulpa, Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    Your psychosis runs deep.

  • eat the gristle||

    This appears to be one of those posts you bitched about that doesn't make an argument because you don't have one to make.

  • James Pollock||

    "This appears to be one of those posts you bitched about that doesn't make an argument because you don't have one to make."

    Correct. I have no dog in your fight with your imaginary friend.

  • eat the gristle||

    Which has nothing to do with the whining you engaged in over fact free no argument posts like the one you made.

  • James Pollock||

    " focus on denying that you are Tulpa, Tulpa."

    I'm sorry that facts don't agree with your imagination, but I'm going to continue denying that I'm this Tulpa person you so vehemently like to argue with, for the dull and boring reason that I don't know who the fuck you're talking about.

    Since it clearly amuses you to argue with your imaginary friend in public, knock yourself out.

    Actually, that was a literal wish.

  • eat the gristle||

    "I'm sorry that facts don't agree with your imagination"

    Me too, then you wouldn't exist Tulpa.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Doesn't matter, other than to show that you didn't understand it."

    So clarify it.

    The written text says you're wrong. Make your case about what it says.

    Stop pretending like you are making a factual argument. You're just doing that thing internet trolls do when they go on offense and attack people who point out that they are wrong.

    Make your case, and save the stupid baseball garbage.

    Because the text says you're wrong, and your "you're too dumb to understand" is just an obvious dodge.

  • eat the gristle||

    Hey wow look THIS post goes untrolled at. Huge surprise.

  • James Pollock||

    "So clarify it."

    You don't sound sincere, at this point.

    "The written text says you're wrong."

    No, it doesn't. Find someone you trust to explain it to you, then come back and apologize. Or don't.

    "Stop pretending like you are making a factual argument. You're just doing that thing internet trolls do when they go on offense and attack people who point out that they are wrong."

    You're projecting.

  • ||

    You don't sound sincere, at this point.

    lol. And you sound exactly like a schoolyard blowhard whose friends didn't hold him back when asked.

    "Meh. You're not worth it, anyway."

    Put up or shut up, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.

  • James Pollock||

    "Put up or shut up, you're just making yourself look like an idiot."

    'When you had the opportunity to explain why the text is wrong, you made excuses and failed to do so"

    The text isn't wrong. I cited the statute for the Oregon Rules of Evidence, pointing exactly to the part that says what I said it says.

    They you came along and says "Ha, it doesn't say that!"

    Evidence of past misbehavior is inadmissible to show guilt in the present prosecution (except as rebuttal when the defendant presents character evidence.) You can whine about it all day, but it's still true, and will remain true for the foreseeable future.

  • eat the gristle||

    " I cited the statute for the Oregon Rules of Evidence, pointing exactly to the part that says what I said it says."

    And then we posted the actual text and saw that it didn't say what you said it said, and that you were lying, and then you made a bunch of excuses about why you wouldn't explain why the text showed you were lying.

  • ||

    Evidence of past misbehavior is inadmissible to show guilt in the present prosecution (except as rebuttal when the defendant presents character evidence.

    You keep ignoring

    Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is admissible when it is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense.

    and

    that there are quite a few more "excepts" than that one you mention, because you can't admit you're wrong.

  • James Pollock||

    "You keep ignoring

    Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is admissible when it is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense."

    Yes, I kept ignoring something that isn't applicable. I'm going to keep doing that.

  • eat the gristle||

    You're dodging and it's obvious.

    "No, it doesn't."

    Yes it does, I posted it. When you had the opportunity to explain why the text is wrong, you made excuses and failed to do so.

    No one thinks for one moment you are correct, and that includes you.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yes it does, I posted it. When you had the opportunity to explain why the text is wrong, you made excuses and failed to do so."

    The text isn't wrong. The text is right. It says just what I said it does... that the evidence "is not admissible".

  • Brandybuck||

    Just because you WANT him to be guilty does not mean he is.

  • James Pollock||

    Also vice-versa.

  • eat the gristle||

    No, she lied about seeing him shoot the dog.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, she lied about seeing him shoot the dog."

    No. She stated incorrectly that she saw him shoot the dog.

  • eat the gristle||

    No, she stated under penalty of perjury that she saw him both shoot and kill the dog.

    She lied.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, she stated under penalty of perjury that she saw him both shoot and kill the dog."

    True.

    "She lied."

    Maybe true, maybe not.

  • eat the gristle||

    You know what is great? You don't get to decide how much evidence I or anyone else need to make that determination. No matter how much you bitch and shitpost in this thread.

    She lied. You can't do ANYTHING about it.

  • James Pollock||

    "She lied. You can't do ANYTHING about it."

    Maybe she did, maybe she didn't.
    You can't prove either one. and you can do ANYTHING about it.

    Get over yourself.

  • eat the gristle||

    I don't,t have to prove it. This isn't court fuckwit.

    She obviously lied, you're obviously stupid, and you can't ever change either fact in any way.

  • James Pollock||

    "This isn't court fuckwit"

    Thanks for clearing THAT up.

    Go play with your imaginary friend.

  • eat the gristle||

    I'm glad you admit you were wrong finally, Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    You imagine a lot. Good luck with that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "This entire case should not hinge on whether or not she fabricated a dog shooting."

    I'm surprised the cops didn't shoot the dog when they found her. Must have been difficult for them to overcome the urge.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So part of "a Salem jury" went on a witchhunt? Why weren't the deja vu alarms going off from Portland to Portland?

  • James Pollock||

    Probably because there is no "Salem jury" involved in this case. The crimes were alleged and prosecuted in Redmond, which is a couple of counties away from Salem.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I hope to hell they prosecute that "victim" for perjury for trying to send a guy to prison for 50 years. In a fair justice system, the very fact of the perjury itself should send her to prison for 50 years in his place.

  • James Pollock||

    "the very fact of the perjury itself should send her to prison for 50 years in his place."

    The "very fact" of perjury has not been established.

  • Agammamon||

    She lied in her testimony dude. That's called perjury.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not for female 'victims', though - - - - - -

  • James Pollock||

    "She lied in her testimony dude. That's called perjury."

    1. You don't know that she lied. Did she believe he shot the dog? If she did, it's not even lying.

    2. "That's called perjury" by people who don't know what they're talking about.

  • Rigelsen||

    The article above says: "To prove he was in earnest, she said, he shot her dog."

    This is proved to be a lie, as the prosecutor himself understood, by the fact that the dog is alived.

    Now, if you have alternate facts, you might share them. But instead you're just blowing a whole lot of smoke. Are you here lawyer?

  • James Pollock||

    "This is proved to be a lie, as the prosecutor himself understood, by the fact that the dog is alived."

    It's proved to be incorrect. It's not proved to be a lie.

    "Now, if you have alternate facts, you might share them."

    You're the one stating your opinion as fact.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    She said she witnessed him shooting her dog.

    Dog found alive without bullet holes proves she lied.

    Only other completely implausible possibilities are he's a special effects artist and faked it or she doesn't know her own dog(s).

  • ||

    Oh, there are plenty of possibilities.

    The whole thing could have been a VR illusion that she experienced as 100% real while none of it actually happened.

    The dog could have had an identical twin that no one knew about, and he was able to convince her that it was her dog when it wasn't.

    The Universe itself could be the product of a Great Deceiver, and everything we see is an illusion masking the fact that we're all being slowly digested by a gigantic furry snail.

    Pollack, here, however, is just a pedantic asshole who has to double-down now that he's been outed as a pedantic asshole who didn't read the article all that closely.

  • James Pollock||

    "Pollack, here, however, is just a pedantic asshole who has to double-down now that he's been outed as a pedantic asshole who didn't read the article all that closely."

    Pedantic? Maybe. Asshole? Definitely. Has to double-down? Not even a little bit. Didn't read the article all that closely? Nope.

    But if you're going to accuse somebody of not reading carefully, maybe don't misspell their name when it's printed out right in front of you, several times.

  • ||

    But if you're going to accuse somebody of not reading carefully, maybe don't misspell their name when it's printed out right in front of you, several times.

    *eyeroll*

  • James Pollock||

    "*eyeroll*"

    = busted

  • eat the gristle||

    You've seriously descended to spell checking?

    God damn dude, put down the keyboard.

  • ||

    No, it's legit - assuming I have no reading comprehension because I couldn't be bothered to get his name right is completely consistent with his rigorously empirical demands everywhere else on this page.

    Isn't it?

  • eat the gristle||

    When you put it that way...

    I just found it to be beneath him, but I was wrong.

  • James Pollock||

    You're whining about spellchecking?

    Go home.

  • ||

    You're whining about spellchecking?

    Um, no - you're the one running around calling people out on typos, even though you can't spell "figment" and don't know where periods go with quotation marks.

    There's a saying about specks in eyes and logs and stuff, but I'm too lazy to look it up for you.

  • eat the gristle||

    I'm sorry that pointing out your errors bothers you this much but really there's no reason to whine about it like you have

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm sorry that pointing out your errors bothers you this much but really there's no reason to whine about it like you have"

    That whining you're hearing? It's coming from INSIDE your house.

  • ||

    Wipe the spittle from your chin - it's interfering with your attempt to appear dignified.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well, yeah, I'm posting from home, where else would your whining be?

    God damn you're dumb Tulpa.

  • James Pollock||

    "Well, yeah, I'm posting from home, where else would your whining be?
    God damn you're dumb Tulpa."

    Thought you'd be able to work that one out, I'm surprised I can still be disappointed by you.

    YOU are in your house. I am NOT in your house. So, the whining you are hearing in your house is coming from....


    (Hint: You.)

  • eat the gristle||

    "YOU are in your house. I am NOT in your house. So, the whining you are hearing in your house is coming from...."

    Your posts.

    "Hint: You."

    "r posts", just like I said, it's coming from your posts. I'm surprised you admitted this.

    God damn, you can't even concoct an insult without making a fool of yourself.

  • James Pollock||

    "Dog found alive without bullet holes proves she lied."

    It still doesn't, though.

    It proves she was wrong. Full stop.

    "Only other completely implausible possibilities are he's a special effects artist and faked it"

    Don't have to be a special effects artist. Take the dog outside, in the dark. Fire a gun in the air. Return without the dog.
    Take the dog outside, fully intending to shoot it. Shoot at the dog, and miss. Dog runs away and doesn't come right back.
    Or maybe you're right, and although he threatened to kill the dog, but never actually carried out the threat, but she lied and said he did.
    None of those is proven, or disproven, by finding the dog alive.

  • ||

    Take the dog outside, in the dark. Fire a gun in the air. Return without the dog.

    Hey, Mr. Reading Comprehension:

    She said she saw him kill the dog.

    If you're going to proudly be a pedantic asshole, at least succeed at the pedantry part. You're just grasping at straws here trying to pretend you're making a heavy point no one understands.

  • James Pollock||

    "Hey, Mr. Reading Comprehension:

    She said she saw him kill the dog."

    Hey, Mr. NO Reading Comprehension:

    She was incorrect to say that he shot the dog.
    This is STILL not the same thing as saying that she lied about it.

    If that's pedantic, so be it.

  • ||

    She was incorrect to say that he shot the dog.

    And how would you characterize her saying that she saw him shoot the dog?

    How are your hypotheticals about him shooting the dog somewhere else and telling her about it, or missing the dog, or whatever else you need to make up, relevant to HER CLAIM TO HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN HIM SHOOT THE DOG?

    You've actually left pedantic behind at this point and are just flailing at shadows.

  • ||

    Close those bolds after "she saw him shoot the dog" - didn't mean to shout.

  • James Pollock||

    "And how would you characterize her saying that she saw him shoot the dog?"

    Wrong.
    (But unlike you, I'm not claiming to know why it's wrong).

    "How are your hypotheticals about him shooting the dog somewhere else and telling her about it, or missing the dog, or whatever else you need to make up, relevant to HER CLAIM TO HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN HIM SHOOT THE DOG?"

    They aren't, nor were they claimed to be, relevant to her claim to have actually seen him shoot the dog.
    They ARE relevant to YOUR claim to know why her statement was incorrect.

    "You've actually left pedantic behind at this point and are just flailing at shadows."

    Shadows would be more substantial than your arguments, if you had any.

  • ||

    Shorter JP: "That's just, like, your opinion man!"

    I'm not claiming to know why it's wrong

    Yes you are, for the same reason the rest of us do. The guy did not kill the dog. The dog is still alive. She claims she saw him kill the dog, but she did not, because he did not kill the dog.

    You got caught saying something ridiculously, uselessly pedantic just (by your own admission) to be an asshole, and can't handle that you got called out not understanding how any of this works.

    I'm sure you're acting out some personal ritual where you think you're proving yourself to be a really especially smart and knowledgeable guy, but you're actually showing yourself to be quite pig-headed and inept at actually thinking things through.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yes you are, for the same reason the rest of us do. The guy did not kill the dog. The dog is still alive. She claims she saw him kill the dog, but she did not, because he did not kill the dog."

    The guy did not kill the dog. I don't know who you're arguing with who said he DID kill the dog, but that guy's an idiot.

    "You got caught saying something ridiculously, uselessly pedantic just (by your own admission) to be an asshole, and can't handle that you got called out not understanding how any of this works."

    You LOVE making shit up. I get that.

    "I'm sure you're acting out some personal ritual where you think you're proving yourself to be a really especially smart and knowledgeable guy"

    Nope. I'm just bored, waiting for the hurricane I've already made all the preparations for, and have a low tolerance for ignorance. Today, it's you, tomorrow, who knows, and the day after that, probably no Internet because hurricane. Lucky you.

  • ||

    have a low tolerance for ignorance

    I see - you hate being alone.

    Well enjoy the rest of your sad, sad day poking people on the internet to try to make yourself feel smart!

  • eat the gristle||

    And failing.

  • James Pollock||

    "Well enjoy the rest of your sad, sad day poking people on the internet to try to make yourself feel smart!"

    Thanks. And you can also enjoy the rest of your day, continuing to be wrong because you don't like it when someone points it out, and DAMN if you're going to let anyone feel smarter than you..

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This was all clearly a CIA psi-op. There is no dog, no attacker, no victim, no prosecutor, court, jury, or cops. Hell, I'm just a figment of your CIA manipulated mind. As is Reason.

  • BYODB||


    It's proved to be incorrect. It's not proved to be a lie.

    A first hand account that turns out not to be true is indeed perjury. If she said her mom told her he shot her dog, maybe, but this is a first hand account. It is outside the realm of plausibility to believe that the girl can't tell a dog being shot from a dog not being shot.

    That is absurd.

  • James Pollock||

    "A first hand account that turns out not to be true is indeed perjury."

    Is something someone who didn't know what they were talking about might say.

    " It is outside the realm of plausibility to believe that the girl can't tell a dog being shot from a dog not being shot."

    Your realm of plausibility is greatly outstretched by the actual world you live in. Shakespeare had something to say about that, but I'm too lazy to go look it up for you.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Is something someone who didn't know what they were talking about might say.

    Describes almost everything you've said here.

  • James Pollock||

    "Describes almost everything you've said here."

    Is ALSO something that someone who didn't know what they were talking about might say.

  • ||

    Shakespeare had something to say about that, but I'm too lazy to go look it up for you.

    lol, you are some kinda special. I bet you're a member of Mensa, aren't you?

  • eat the gristle||

    It's Tulpa.

  • ||

    I honestly didn't think Tulpa was still around, but this guy does echo the pointless pedantry and tedious unwillingness to give up a lost point to a tee.

  • BYODB||


    I honestly didn't think Tulpa was still around, but this guy does echo the pointless pedantry and tedious unwillingness to give up a lost point to a tee.

    It's possible. It wouldn't be the first or last time long-lost posters return using a sock puppet to rebrand themselves and erase their prior idiotic statements.

    For example, I give Tony credit for never dropping his name. He may use other names, I can't say, but he at least consistently posts as the same person. Around here, that says something I guess.

  • James Pollock||

    "It's Tulpa."

    I don't care who you are.

  • eat the gristle||

    No, you never do care who you troll, Tulpa.

  • d1sinfo||

    Use the words the prosecutor said. UNTRUE evidence, and he was not specific as to which. James needs to convince us, were proxy for a real jury, that there were in fact reasons for her to believe he killed the dog, yet she didn't see it, yet she could deduce he did and therefore she is not lying rather misspoken and this effects this court case but does not CREATE a perjury charge... That being said, I would like to hear the argument James would make in court to explain her statements to defend what we have decided is perjury. I think James has to guess just as much about what happened as we do in order to even begin to make a defense. I think this would be why the real lawyer BOWED THE FUCK OUT, but the internet expert can continue to argue the point without fully explaining even a hint of the legal reason why he is technically right. Notice how James says only what's needed to say, intentionally to further an argument rather than convince... its because James isn't in possession of enough evidence to convince us she is not guilty of perjury just like we don't have enough to land a charge.... or maybe we do, neither side knows. Him continuing to bait you fools on a technicality rather than convincing you as if he had to defend the perjury charge is just his way of continuing an argument rather than convincing an audience. This would be why hes not pro lawyer and pro lawyer BOWED THE FUCK OUT.

  • d1sinfo||

    I agreed with your point to suggest you were a troll for not illustrating the entirety of the legal argument which is easily rationally understood. I am imagining you as a defense lawyer because you are arguing with people who are claiming they would find her guilty of perjury, and your suggestion for why they wouldn't was that they don't have enough evidence, when in reality neither do you, so you could say something like. Yah maybe in the evidence there will be enough to go with perjury.

    You are a troll don't expect me to respond, you know how your mind works, its fucked and its antagonistic and not participatory in the sense that you want to participate in a discussion, you want to find ways to be right by not strong manning the opposition. It likely haunts your day to day and you should get help.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    She was a minor. I doubt the DA is going to go after her for perjury. He wants to put this mess behind him.

  • James Pollock||

    Perjury has elements that make it fairly difficult to prove, even when the witness can be shown to have said something that isn't true.

    Here's the definition, from ORS 162.065
    (1) A person commits the crime of perjury if the person makes a false sworn statement or a false unsworn declaration in regard to a material issue, knowing it to be false.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - you'd think proving an nascent person or molestation wouldn't be easy either.

    Hell - they convicted Martha Stewart of perjury when it wasn't really or lie nor was she on trial giving testimony.

    So, it's difficult, but given juries today, they should be able to convince the mother on suborurning perjury and leverage jail time to get the daughter to testify or charge her too.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    convict the mother...not covince.

    Apologies

  • James Pollock||

    You chose to correct 1 of the 15 spelling errors?

    PS: Martha Stewart wasn't convicted for perjury.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Point still the same - convicting an innocent man of child molestation without proof is exceedingly possible, so unsure how difficult it would be to prove perjury here.

    Doesn't the guy who went to prison deserve some justice here like any other victim?

  • James Pollock||

    "Doesn't the guy who went to prison deserve some justice here like any other victim?"

    what guy is that?

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Lying to federal investigators. Same fucking thing minus being under oath.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    This has nothing to do with what I wrote. Go back to your handlers and ask for additional guidance.

  • James Pollock||

    "This has nothing to do with what I wrote."

    What you said is nonsense, except for "he wants to put this behind him".

  • ||

    ^ Look at this guy, putting his period outside his quotation marks. Must be an idiot.

  • James Pollock||

    Must be.

    Look at that guy. Forgot to put in any argument in his comment.

    Must not have any.

  • ||

    You don't get that I'm making fun of you, do you?

  • James Pollock||

    "You don't get that I'm making fun of you, do you?"

    You didn't get that I'm making fun of you?

  • ||

    "You don't get that I'm making fun of you, do you?"

    You didn't get that I'm making fun of you?

    Holy shit you really did "I'm rubber, you're glue."

    smdh

  • James Pollock||

    Still not getting it?

  • eat the gristle||

    Probably because you aren't, you're desperately trying to not look like a moron and failing.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Must not have any."

    The irony of you posting this after the past several hours of your posts could power the Earth for centuries.

  • ||

    The irony of you posting this after the past several hours of your posts could power the Earth for centuries.

    Yeah - I thought Tony was bad about lacking self-awareness, but this guy is really something else.

  • James Pollock||

    Coming from you, that REALLY says something.,..

  • ||

    Holy shit you really did "I'm rubber, you're glue" twice in the same thread.

    I can't even get any work done today I'm having so much fun with this guy!

  • eat the gristle||

    Yes, it says your stupidity and hypocrisy astound even a jaded internet poster like me.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yes, it says your stupidity and hypocrisy astound even a jaded internet poster like me."

    You said "jaded internet poster" when you meant "troll".

  • Eddy||

    "While we're on the subject of reasonable doubt, even the jury that convicted Horner was not unanimous. How is that legal? It turns out Oregon is one of two states where jury decisions need not be unanimous—even when the outcome will result in a person spending 50 years in a cage."

    What possible justification is there for this, after the Supremes "incorporated" the Sixth Amendment right to a jury?

    Unanimity is still required in federal trials, but by some weird Supreme Court voting patterns, they're not required in state trials.

    Time for the Supremes to own up to yet another mistake.

  • James Pollock||

    "What possible justification is there for this, after the Supremes 'incorporated' the Sixth Amendment right to a jury?"

    The right to a trial by jury does not imply a right to a unanimous jury verdict.

    "Unanimity is still required in federal trials, but by some weird Supreme Court voting patterns, they're not required in state trials."

    Because (duh) the state governments and the federal governments are different things.
    States are allowed to exercise their authority in ways that are different from the way the federal government does. The Google keyword for this is "laboratories of democracy". Don't like the way your state runs things? Vote with your feet.

  • Eddy||

    Which of the incorporation decisions were wrong? All of them?

    Because the Supremes have incorporated most of the Bill of Rights against the states. (Though it was based on "due process" when I would think they should have used privileges and immunities)

    Why *wouldn't* the right to a jury trial be one of the privileges or immunities of U. S. citizenship?

    "Don't like the way your state runs things? Vote with your feet."

    Which in this guy's case would have necessitated busting out of prison. And of course if he'd been captured in any other state he'd have been sent back to prison. And if he'd escaped the country, Interpol would be looking for him and his extradition would have been sought.

  • Eddy||

    Unanimity was believed to be part of jury trial since the founding, outside Oregon and Louisiana, those bastions of common-law jurisprudence.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Actually, Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic Law, not English common law. That's why Louisiana has Perishes instead of counties.

  • Eddy||

    You need to order a sarcasm detector.

  • Eddy||

    (Parish the thought)

  • James Pollock||

    "(Parish the thought)"

    Boo. Hiss.

  • James Pollock||

    "Unanimity was believed to be part of jury trial since the founding"

    Not really accurate as a blanket statement.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    [citation needed] when you claim something as fact which is not commonly believed.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Check here , the history is against juries have always required unanimity.

  • Agammamon||

    While a right to a jury trial has been incorporated, the form of the jury, or its procedures, has never been locked in.

    Its like due process - you're entitled to it, there's no real definition of what it must entail though. Anything more than 'the government has a process they use before taking your shit/locking you up' is up in the air as far as legality goes.

  • James Pollock||

    "Which of the incorporation decisions were wrong? All of them?"

    WTF are you on?

    "Because the Supremes have incorporated most of the Bill of Rights against the states."

    Indeed. Who are you arguing this point with?

    "Why *wouldn't* the right to a jury trial be one of the privileges or immunities of U. S. citizenship?"

    Read the Slaughterhouse Cases, which is where that particular determination comes from.

    But then work on the fact that having the right to have a jury determine your guilt or innocence is not the same thing as having a right to a unanimous jury verdict. Oregon allows 11-1 and 10-2 jury verdicts (both ways)

    "'Don't like the way your state runs things? Vote with your feet.'
    Which in this guy's case would have necessitated busting out of prison."

    No. It would have meant deciding to leave BEFORE being accused of a crime.
    This is the same deal that covers all those other things. Want to live in a state that "must issue" a carry permit? Move to a state with that rule before you apply, or maybe to one that doesn't even require a permit to carry concealed. Don't like income taxes? Move to a state that doesn't have any. Don't like non-unanimous jury verdicts? Then Oregon is not the ideal state for you. Want a state that has a state constitution that protects the right of strippers to strip all the way down? Then maybe you DO want Oregon, after all.

  • Eddy||

    The thing is, I'm fully familiar with your side of the argument, I simply don't agree with it.

  • James Pollock||

    So that's why you're arguing with yourself?

    Carry on, I guess.

  • Zeb||

    Anyone ever tell you you're kind of a dick?

  • James Pollock||

    Besides my ex-wife?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    She's probably an ex because you *weren't* a dick.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well, she now has company from everyone who read this thread and watched you make a fool of yourself.

  • James Pollock||

    Glad to join your club, then... I guess?

  • eat the gristle||

    You mean the club for people who fucked your wife?

  • James Pollock||

    "You mean the club for people who fucked your wife?"

    You don't often see people bragging about necrophilia.

  • BYODB||


    You don't often see people bragging about necrophilia.


    Note that Gristle didn't provide a time frame for when the fucking occurred.

  • ||

    It's okay when Mr. Pollack leaps to conclusions - he has special access to knowledge that his intellectual inferiors do not.

  • eat the gristle||

    It was usually before he got home.

    Ask him how my dick tastes.

  • James Pollock||

    "Ask him how my dick tastes."

    Like camel farts, I'm assuming.

  • ||

    I'm assuming

    There you go again. . .

  • James Pollock||

    Clearly labeled. Reading not your strong suit?

  • eat the gristle||

    "Like camel farts, I'm assuming"

    And now you know why your wife tasted like that.

  • James Pollock||

    "And now you know why your wife tasted like that."

    Does your boyfriend know you talk like that?

  • Eddy||

    "Read the Slaughterhouse Cases"

    Because the only reason there's such a rich scholarly literature criticizing the Slaughterhouse Cases is because these scholars didn't read the decision. That can be the only explanation. How else to account for all the criticism the case has received from that day to this?

    Or if you insist on deferring to the Supreme Court in all things (like Stephen Douglas about Dred Scott), then the majority of the Justices in Apodaca v. Oregon concluded that the 6th Amendment requires unanimous juries. But Justice Powell said this part of the 6th Amendment didn't apply to the states - and Powell was the deciding vote.

  • James Pollock||

    "Because the only reason there's such a rich scholarly literature criticizing the Slaughterhouse Cases is because these scholars didn't read the decision."

    Because the answer to your question was answered there. I didn't say you had to like it, or agree with it.

    "if you insist on deferring to the Supreme Court in all things"

    Not all things. Just the way federal law is going to be implemented. It's a pretty good guide for that.

  • Eddy||

    Another article posted today show that at least the voters of Louisiana will have the chance to implement federal law guaranteeing unanimous juries, even if the courts won't implement it.

  • operagost||

    There should be a federal investigation into the Oregon justice system, because it doesn't sound like they have a republican form of government out there.

  • James Pollock||

    " it doesn't sound like they have a republican form of government out there."

    They mostly don't elect Republicans, to the considerable whining from about 33 of the 36 counties.

  • eat the gristle||

    That post should say everything anyone needs to know about you.

  • James Pollock||

    That the rural counties whine about Oregon electing Democrats statewide says what, exactly, about me?

  • eat the gristle||

    Keep digging.

  • ||

    Keep digging.

    Why do you hate the Chinese?

  • eat the gristle||

    After all the stupid shit he said in this thread, that he doesn't understand what is happening is probably the best payoff I could have hoped for.

  • James Pollock||

    It's a waste of time to tell you to quit jumping to conclusions...

  • eat the gristle||

    I could say the same for you Mr Bold tags.

  • eat the gristle||

    The best part is YOU STILL DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU!!!

  • James Pollock||

    "The best part is YOU STILL DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU!!!"

    If I had to guess, I'd say it's the end-stage syphilis, but TBI is still a possibility, too.

  • ||

    OMG this guy has me almost in tears.

    Thank you, man - I haven't had this much fun here in years.

  • eat the gristle||

    And we are still laughing at you, and every time you post it gets even better!!

    You don't even realize what misstake you made!!

    Lololo

  • James Pollock||

    "You don't even realize what misstake you made!!"

    Sure I do.
    I fed the troll.

  • dinkster||

    Lol, Tulpa is very dumb.

  • Zeb||

    How do you figure?

  • Eddy||

    "While I cannot say with certainty that Mr. Horner did not sexually abuse the named victim I can say I am not convinced by a preponderance of evidence that he did and I am certainly not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt"

    We can't say for certain the prosecutor doesn't have sex with sheep, but so long as there's no credible witness saying he did, I'll be charitable and assume he didn't.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Jealous?

  • Eddy||

    I just don't know what the sheep see in him. Allegedly, that is.

  • Jerryskids||

    But Mr. Horner is still banned from the University of Oregon's campus, right?

  • ||

    In this very strange and slightly confusing tale

    It's only slightly confusing tale if you assume women, being people, are incapable of lying.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Once you start to assume that when emoting women are lying at least 50% of the time, you will see the truth.

  • ||

    If you reverse the gender roles, it's practically a joke. And because it's practically a joke, a woman could've totally gotten away with it (see Ken Hagler's comment below).

  • Ken Hagler||

    Sounds like both the (real) victim and the dog are lucky that the false accuser didn't think to kill her own dog. She must have assumed that nobody would take an interest in the case who didn't buy into "listen and believe."

  • Nardz||

    Yea, I really don't give a damn about any of the people involved.
    I'm just glad the dog is okay.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    She didn't kill the dog for the same reason Jackie Coakley didn't throw herself through a glass coffee table. She didn't think it through.

  • BYODB||


    She didn't kill the dog for the same reason Jackie Coakley didn't throw herself through a glass coffee table. She didn't think it through.


    In fairness, maybe she really liked her dog and couldn't bring herself to actually shoot it. Plus, she might have a hard time finding a gun that could actually match bullets to a gun the defendant owned.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It turns out Oregon is one of two states where jury decisions need not be unanimous—even when the outcome will result in a person spending 50 years in a cage.

    Give them a break. They just recently learned how to fuel their own motor carriages.

  • James Pollock||

    Fueling your own motor carriage has been practiced in Oregon for several decades. It's only been restricted amongst retail establishments.

  • Agammamon||

    Blah blah blah.

  • James Pollock||

    No shit?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You really showed his joke up with that. You really got him.

  • James Pollock||

    After 50 years or so, a joke isn't a joke any more. It's just a cliche.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Normally agreed, but there are exceptions... such as - if you continue making statements as you do here and do so for 50 years, it'll still be funny how stupid you are.

  • James Pollock||

    I wish I was 10% as clever as you imagine yourself to be.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Never claimed to be clever, just smarter than you on this single point. She lied, it's beyond obvious.

  • James Pollock||

    'wrong on both counts.

  • NashTiger||

    So do we

  • NashTiger||

    So do we

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, well, Oregon is still called the Beaver State. I mean, come on.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We all know what that's slang for.

  • Warren||

    Byline Lenore Skenazy? You're out of your lane here aren't you?

    So what happened to the dog? How did they find it?

  • James Pollock||

    "So what happened to the dog? How did they find it?"

    Flyers stapled to telephone poles.

  • eat the gristle||

    But she testified that she saw the dog shot and killed.

  • James Pollock||

    None of the telephone poles was called to testify.

  • eat the gristle||

    But, how can putting up flyers find a dog that we have sworn testimony about, definitively asserting that said dog was killed?

  • James Pollock||

    "how can putting up flyers find a dog that we have sworn testimony about, definitively asserting that said dog was killed?"

    Turns out the dog's at the beach, and NOT at a farm upstate.

  • eat the gristle||

    According the sworn testimony of the witness, under penalty of perjury the dog is dead.

  • James Pollock||

    "According the sworn testimony of the witness, under penalty of perjury the dog is dead."

    Yeah. Sorry this came as news to you at this late moment.

  • eat the gristle||

    So, is the dog not dead? The sworn testimony under threat of perjury said it was.

  • James Pollock||

    Well, I couldn't swear whether or not the dog is STILL alive, but he was at last report.

  • Dillinger||

    good dog.

  • rxc||

    But no woman (victim) would ever lie about an accusation of sexual misconduct, would they?

  • Longtobefree||

    Certainly not. That is why this is a newsworthy miscarriage of justice.

  • Eddy||

    Technically, we can imagine a scenario in which the guy is guilty even though the (unnamed) accuser lied about a key element of her story. Maybe she was really molested and thought she'd add the dog part to add pathos to the narrative.

    Anything is possible, but not everything is probably.

    As I said, it's *possible* the prosecutor likes to relax by screwing sheep, his innocence hasn't been proven. But to *convict* him there needs to be *reliable* evidence.

  • Eddy||

    Anything is possible, but not everything is *probable.*

  • James Pollock||

    "probable" and "proven" remain different concepts.

  • eat the gristle||

    Well, she testified that she saw the dog shot, so her perjury is proven if nothing else.

  • BYODB||

    Is it possible to prove something in your universe? How would one go about proving anything to you?

  • Eddy||

    So a lawyer thinks his wife is cheating on him, so he parks himself in the bushes opposite his house when his wife thinks he's away, and watches.

    He sees his wife open the door, look around, then gesture for the pool boy to come in.

    Then he sees through the bedroom window that his wife and the pool boy are taking off each others' clothes and passionately kissing each other.

    Then the wife says "f*&^ me like I've never been f*&^ed before.

    Then she closes the window and draws the blinds.

    The lawyer says, "darn that reasonable doubt!"

  • James Pollock||

    "How would one go about proving anything to you?"

    Providing evidence, instead of just assuming, like you want to do.

  • eat the gristle||

    If this thread were an Oregon jury, she'd be guilty of perjury.

    Sorry, you presented your case and you lost.

  • James Pollock||

    "If this thread were an Oregon jury, she'd be guilty of perjury."

    Nope. She either is guilty, or isn't, which remains unknown to all but a few people who aren't talking.

    If and when it goes to a jury, someone will have found some evidence that supports all the elements of perjury.

  • ||

    If and when it goes to a jury, someone will have found some evidence that supports all the elements of perjury.

    And the retreat begins.

  • James Pollock||

    "And the retreat begins."

    Sorry to see you go.

    Well, not really.

  • ||

    Well, not really.

    Oh, please. Admit that if not for acting out your hostilities on the internet you wouldn't have any human interaction at all. You're lucky we deign to even make fun of you.

  • James Pollock||

    "Admit that if not for acting out your hostilities on the internet you wouldn't have any human interaction at all."

    I was interacting with you, so... still no human interaction.

  • eat the gristle||

    "Nope. She either is guilty, or isn't, which remains unknown to all but a few people who aren't talking"

    Which has nothing to do with my comment of "If this thread were an Oregon jury, she'd be guilty of perjury."

    "If and when it goes to a jury, someone will have found some evidence that supports all the elements of perjury."

    Which also has nothing to do with my comment of "If this thread were an Oregon jury, she'd be guilty of perjury."

    You made your case. You lost.

  • James Pollock||

    "Which has nothing to do with my comment of 'If this thread were an Oregon jury, she'd be guilty of perjury.'"

    Let me try again, slower this time for the slow.
    Being guilty (or not) is a quality that exists entirely independently of court proceedings, jury, or public opinion. Because of this fact, "if this thread were an Oregon jury" is a conditional that has no impact on whether or not she is guilty of perjury. She either is guilty, or is not guilty, as an objective fact. The people who know the objective truth to that matter have chosen not to express a statement on the matter.

    Now, that objective truth exists. It can be discovered, by those who choose to make the effort. The fact that the uninformed have already made up their minds will not have an effect on any actual court proceedings, or on the objective fact.

    "You made your case. You lost."
    Similarly, that you choose to obfuscate what is "my case" also does not change objective facts.

    You seem to think it important that I know your opinion of me and (your badly misapplied understanding of) the argument I made. That opinion is incorrect., as is your impression of its importance.

  • ||

    See, the standards we use for proving things in court applies to other people's statements, not the Wise and Powerful Pollack's!

  • eat the gristle||

    "Let me try again, slower this time for the slow."

    No one cares about your pillow talk.

    You made your case, and IF THIS THREAD WERE AN ORGEON JURY you would have lost.

    Now excuse me I have to laugh at you more.

  • BYODB||


    Providing evidence, instead of just assuming, like you want to do.

    Yet, we have already established that empirical evidence exists (the dog being alive) and you have summarily discounted that evidence as proof of a lie under oath.

    Since you refuse to clarify on that point, it becomes obvious that you're simply a troll. I do note you got more than a few people to froth, so a successful night for you I suppose.

  • eat the gristle||

    I wouldn't say froth so much as "kick you around"

  • James Pollock||

    "Yet, we have already established that empirical evidence exists (the dog being alive) and you have summarily discounted that evidence as proof of a lie under oath."

    The dog is alive. This is proof that the statement "the dog is dead" is wrong. It's not proof that anyone lied, under oath or otherwise. A lie is one explanation, and might be the explanation. But "might be" and "is" are different things.

    "Since you refuse to clarify on that poin"
    Srsly?

  • CE||

    If you get 50 years in jail for killing a dog, there are some Detroit cops who will be getting out around the time we colonize Alpha Centauri.

  • Longtobefree||

    He got 50 years in jail because socialists deny science.
    The dog is a distraction.

  • James Pollock||

    Not a lot of socialists in Deschutes County, Oregon.

  • Agammamon||

    And here you go making declarative statements without evidence backing it up.

    Just because someone doesn't say they are a socialist doesn't mean they aren't one.

    I mean, you've spent this whole thread smugly pointing out that sort of shit and here you are, free of nuance or completeness.

  • James Pollock||

    Look it up for yourself.

    https://data.oregon.gov/Administrative/ Voter-Registration-Data/6a4f-ecbi

    Not a lot of socialists in Deschutes County.

  • ||

    Yeah, well you declare that, but there could be lots of socialists who are unregistered, or there could be lots of socialists who register with other parties to influence their primaries, or there could be lots of socialists who have been rounded up in secret detention camps.

    Who are you to so recklessly jump to conclusions, hmm?

  • eat the gristle||

    Boom.

  • James Pollock||

    Well, there's also the fact that there aren't a lot of people, of any kind, in Deschutes County.

    I mean, unless a lot of people moved there since I left the state. There were the Rajneeshees, back in the day. No, that was a different county, never mind.

  • Longtobefree||

    Note: that is not a lab in the picture.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If you squint really hard, you can make out a meth lab off in the distance in the woods/

  • James Pollock||

    They grow weed in the woods. The meth gets imported from Mexico.

  • eat the gristle||

    The fact that you know this answers a lot of questions about your behavior in this thread.

  • James Pollock||

    The weed growers in the woods aren't exactly a secret. That meth comes from Mexico is so widely known that even the President knows about the bad hombres bringing drugs.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    This guy is a cornucopia of useless knowledge.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    A case of ruff justice all around.

    jfc

  • Shirley Knott||

    ^This

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The dog's existence showed the complainant was lying in her testimony

    #IBelieveHer

  • Murray Rothtard||

    All I learned from this is that James Pollock is awful.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You can say that again.

  • James Pollock||

    "All I learned from this is that James Pollock is awful."

    Shit, I could have told you that right at the beginning.

  • eat the gristle||

    You did, actually.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed- though glad they did the story. While it's unsurprising the justice

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Sorry... trying agian:

    Agreed- though glad they did the story. While it's unsurprising the justice legal system failed so miserably here (including the jury), it's still saddening and people like Jame Pollack apparently need reminders of the true dangers of believing accusers without other proof.

  • James Pollock||

    So, you're showing your support for condemning jumping to conclusions, but showing your ability to jump to conclusions?

    (Whining about people who believe things without other proof, by complaining about the one person who's refusing to believe something without proof.)

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Jumping to conclusions?

    And you call me clever - I will never be as clever as you as the facts are this:

    She stated definitively he shot her dog, yet dog lives without bullet holes. Also, in the past she has made prior molestation complaints against others her mother was involved with. Lastly, she didn't respond to, prosecutors requests to clarify her testimony.

    It's very clever how you think that doesn't equal a lie, but for most others, the conclusion is apparent.

  • eat the gristle||

    He knows he's wrong, he just can't admit he bloviated without reading the facts in the article. It's kind of pathetic watching a grown man act like that.

  • James Pollock||

    If you repeat it enough, it'll magically become true!

  • eat the gristle||

    I didn't even have to say it for it to be true, I just have to get out of your way.

  • James Pollock||

    "Jumping to conclusions?"

    Yes. Repeatedly.

    "She stated definitively he shot her dog, yet dog lives without bullet holes."

    True enough. Also not disputed. And proof she was wrong, but not proof she lied.

    " Also, in the past she has made prior molestation complaints against others her mother was involved with."

    OK. I guess THAT proves she's lying about this guy...(Hint: sarcasm)

    " Lastly, she didn't respond to, prosecutors requests to clarify her testimony."

    OK. Since this ALSO is not evidence that she lied, and it's all you choose to offer, the conclusion is that you can't find evidence she lied, and continuing to insist that she did is a conclusion that you have jumped to.

    "It's very clever how you think that doesn't equal a lie, but for most others, the conclusion is apparent."

    So it's peer pressure, then? You may grow some resistance to peer pressure when you finish Middle School, although some never do outgrow it.

  • ||

    You may grow some resistance to peer pressure when you finish Middle School, although some never do outgrow it.

    And when you get to college, like Pollack here, you'll get to read the first several pages of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and it will blow your mind!

  • BYODB||


    And when you get to college, like Pollack here, you'll get to read the first several pages of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and it will blow your mind!

    Ugh, never again. We had to take a freshman course that made us write a 20 page essay on that, and I still wonder what the professor was thinking with that choice.

  • eat the gristle||

    "James Pollock|9.12.18 @ 5:22PM|#

    "Jumping to conclusions?"

    Yes. Repeatedly."

    Like you did when you bitched about my bold tags?

    Lol you're a hypocrite and too stupid to hide it.

    Go ahead and post another of those argument free spell checking posts you get so upset at us laughing at you for.

  • BYODB||

    It's just that Pollock doesn't believe in evidence or the possibility of proof, that's all.

    After all, a lie is someone's truth. Perjury isn't a crime that is ever provable to Pollock. Note that they have yet to acknowledge under what circumstances perjury could be proven. They avoid this as their arguments nullify the potential for provability in all circumstances.

    Even if the witness says 'I maliciously made up this story specifically to harm this individual' you can't really know if they're telling the truth. That is Pollock's weak first-year philosophy student argument, and it rests on 'reality isn't knowable'.

    Yeah, I'm sure that'll work in court.

  • eat the gristle||

    Or, it's Tulpa being Tulpa. Or, both.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Dog gone good story!

  • Wizard4169||

    To say nothing of the dog...

  • Tionico||

    Find the alledged victim and charge her with perjury, lying under oath. SHE should be meted out the biblical penalty for bearing false witness against another.... SHE should get the same sentence HE would have got had her statements been true. That is, fifty years in the slammer.

    Until THIS begins to happen on a regular basis, people will continue to lie under oath and others will be sold down the river by the lying "witnesses".

  • James Pollock||

    Would it be OK with you if we held off on punishing her for lying under oath until AFTER we sort out whether she was lying or just wrong?

  • Eddy||

    Yes, it could have been an honest mistake when she said "[Mr. Horner] shot my dog Lucy right in front of me."

  • BYODB||

    Pollock, to their minuscule credit, is correct that a trial is the necessary precondition for punishment. That this hasn't actually been a question or contention of anyone at all makes it an open question on why they felt like bringing it up.

    No one that I've seen has made the claim she shouldn't be tried and should be punished without a trial, but rather than she should be tried given that she appears to have successfully used the legal system to punish someone for a crime that was never proven in the first place.

    Lying under oath is itself a fairly serious crime, especially when it results in someone who should be presumed innocent being jailed sans any actual proof of any crime. What would be curious if not for their open trolling is why someone wouldn't be outraged at a girl making serial complaints of sexual assault against people without any evidence.

    Pollock likes evidence, or so they claim, yet didn't find it worthwhile to note that someone in this particular case went to prison without evidence. He's one lucky son of a bitch that they found the dog to wreck his accusers credibility, but it's absurd it came down to this at all.

  • James Pollock||

    "Pollock, to their minuscule credit, is correct that a trial is the necessary precondition for punishment"

    All of us thank you for your concession of the obvious.

    "Pollock likes evidence, or so they claim, yet didn't find it worthwhile to note that someone in this particular case went to prison without evidence"

    Two things:
    1) nobody went to prison
    2) you assert "with no evidence"... did you review the trial transcript to see what evidence the jury considered?

    "He's one lucky son of a bitch that they found the dog to wreck his accusers credibility"
    In the sense that his conviction had already been overturned in the appeals court when they found the dog?

  • James Pollock||

    "Yes, it could have been an honest mistake when she said '[Mr. Horner] shot my dog Lucy right in front of me.'"

    Yes, or it could have been a not-at-all honest mistake, or even a not-at-all honest but still not criminal thing. These are the sorts of things you want to nail down before you decide how best to punish the alleged criminal.

    Heck, these are the things you want to have well in hand when you decide what, if anything, to charge.

  • jdgalt1||

    +1

  • tommhan||

    So Reason could not find a pic of a black Lab?

  • majil||

    I always hear the Oregon was "The Kentucky of the West" . This is just more proof.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    #BelieveTheVictim #MeToo

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online