FAIR Conference Highlights: DCP & Hamblin Slam B. Hodges

[_Arrakis]

This reminds me of a case I had a number of years back where I was defending a juvenile accused of possessing psilocybin mushrooms.

He was with a group of peers picking mushrooms in a field behind a barn. One friend was picking mushrooms and putting them into a baggie, and my client was doing the same.

Imagine their surprise when they got to their cars on the road and found the cops waiting for them.

The cops took the baggies from the two guys and put the baggies on the hood of their patrol car. In doing so, they lost track of which baggie went with which guy.

They sent both baggies to the lab and guess what happened?

Only one of the bags had psilocybin mushrooms; the other baggie had normal mushrooms.

The cops were unable to prove which one my client had possessed, and so their case was tubed.

I went over and over my client's testimony with him; which was non-incriminating in light of the fact that the prosecutor couldn't prove which of the baggies he had possessed.

Then, at trial, my client took the stand.

In response to a prosecutor's question (actually, it wasn't responsive at all), my client suddenly announces for the first time that at one point, his friend had given him the friend's baggie, and my client had held both baggies for a while before the cops came.

Needless to say, my client was convicted, and after several weeks, the print of the face-palm on my forehead eventually faded away.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If the prosecution couldn't prove their case, why in the world would you put your client on the stand?

[_consiglieri]

That was a question that occurred to me as I was typing out my recollection Arrakis.

Good catch!

I cannot remember exactly why this transpired the way it did.

I think there must be some other fact of the prosecution's case I am forgetting, it having occurred over a decade ago.

But you raise a salient point.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_malkie]

I take it you don't recall Hamblin's Creed?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25278&hilit=+hamblin%27s+creed

Yes, but Blair is a full-on believer. He meets all four of Hamblin's criteria.

All that means is that Bill didn't do a thorough job the first time - he needs to either refine the four, or add a fifth, otherwise it's much more difficult for him to demonise Blair.

[_moksha]

I take it you don't recall Hamblin's Creed?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... %27s+creed

Yes, but Blair is a full-on believer. He meets all four of Hamblin's criteria.

Liz, think of this as part of the Apologetic Force. Professor Hamblin simply has a higher Niblian count that allows him to bend reality to a greater degree.