They go up yet again if the perpetrator is a sibling. 1 in 36 billion is pure bullcrapola, the equivalent of NASA saying Challenger had a 1:10000 chance of failure (or whatever the nonsense was). http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comments "Two distinct DNA profiles were developed, one from the stockings and the other from the spot of blood. Both turned out to be in the database of arrests in the state. The drop of blood, which had been swabbed from the victim's hand matched a convicted killer who was already in prison and smudge from her stockings matched a man who had been arested on drug charges after he became addicted to pain killers. The individual in question didn't have any convictions (charges were dropped as part of an agreement to get treatment) and he had history of violence. It would seem that the obvious suspect of the two would be the convicted killer, a John Rueles. But at the time of the murder, Rueles was only four years old. He also lived on the other side of the state. Thus, Gary Leiterman, the individual whose dna was matched to the sample on the victims stockings was arrested, tried and convicted. To be fair, there is some circumstantial evidence that Gary Leiterman may have been in the same area and may have owned a gun similar to that used in the murder, but the state never explained how the other DNA could have ended up on the victim."

While this doesn't hurt him much, it can easily lead to great embarrassment and potential destruction of reputation for those men.

I can store my entire net worth in a pile of gold on the sidewalk in front of my house.

When it gets stolen, would you find it in your heart to pity me? If the police are less than enthused at taking a report, would the outrage be forthcoming?

Or would you dismiss me as a total, 100%, freakin' idiot?

Think, my man, think! Emailing private details of you to random strangers is nothing other than completely stupid. It's true! Really!

I can't believe people are arguing this.

If, while minding your own business, you are quietly walking down the street to the inconvenience store, but still manage to get raped, then you'll have my complete 100% sympathy. I would expect a search, prosecution and stiff sentence for the perpetrator.

However, if you choose to walk to the store naked from the waist up, with bull-horn in hand, screaming "I'M LOOKING FOR SOME HOT SEX RIGHT NOW! NO REASONABLE OFFERS REFUSED! COME AND GET IT!!", and are then raped, I'm afraid you'll find no sympathy from me. Yes, a vicious crime was committed and all, but, Christ, what the hell were you expecting?

To lock this sort of thinking to the current situation, Mr. Razor: people who email -- email! -- pictures of themselves, and commentary, to what amounts to a random stranger are idiots of the highest(lowest?) order, and get exactly what is coming their way. I'm truly sorry you are unable to comprehend this kind of logic -- some call it "common sense" -- but, fortunately, that is your problem, not mine.

To take an example of a flaw from Mr. Matticus himself:

A witness, W2 listens to previous testimony by W1, and though you as the attorney are counting on the variation of the events by W2, W2 hears W1 and decides to revise her version of events to match more closely. The case is blown. Or you have a hostile witness who does not actually want to testify, who then arranges to contradict earlier testimony, equally blowing the case based on knowledge they're not supposed to have.

First, is it a problem in the first place? When W2 hears W1's testimony, maybe it will trigger more accurate testimony on his part.

But assuming it is a problem, why not:

1. W1 and W2 are to testify on the same day.

2. if (1) is logistically impossible, W1 and W2 are sequestered at The Ritz, and paid handsomely for the inconvenience

3. W1 and W2 submit written testimony in advance; query them in open court only if necessary (this is essentially what happens today),

But these (and others) are just band-aids, aren't they? They do not address the far deeper problem: that the current justice system places far too much weight on eye witness testimony. In the current instance, if mere public exposure can work to make such evidence worthless -- "case is blown" -- well, just how good is that evidence in the first place?

Contrast this to physical evidence like fingerprints, DNA, contents of disk drives, etc.

Basically, Mr. Matticus, you need to begin questioning the basis of your beloved legal system. Is the structure flawed? Are the sacred Federal Rules of Civil Procedure designed to cover up the flaws ("no broadcasting!"), or actually fix them?

Government does us no favors when they look at one small aspect of a set of laws, and makes decisions in which they are blind to the broader implications. You raise a key flaw in the current justice system: from the narrow, to the broad, special pleading all the way. Unfortunately, Mr. Matticus can be expected to complain about your "conspiracy theories". ;-/

You neglect entirely the fact that the bulk of public involvement with the broadcast would be presented through the media,

I guess it could, but you are the only one saying it would.

An order not enforceable when the level and quantity of media presentation rises to this level.

But you again ignore the fact that the jurors are present in the room: they have no need to watch the broadcast.

Trust me when I say you never know what a witness is going to say on the stand.

Assuming you are a lawyer, why should I trust you about anything? In this case, if you have any doubts about what a witness might say, you simply won't call them. Any deviations from what they said before trial and what they say on the stand, you do as you are doing to me: you attack, you misrepresent, you dismiss, whatever it takes to render the testimony moot to both sides.

A truly bizarre contention when you consider that the transcripts are all already available.

For stiff fees, of course. But let's not get all filthy with money now, eh?

You're alleging an absolutely ludicrous conspiracy [...]

Reading comprehension problems, have you? I allege that

1. the system is deeply flawed,

2. easy and widespread access to the system would make this transparently obvious (if it isn't already),

3. and that permitting the exposure of said flaws is not in the system's interest

I can only note that your dismissive babble about "conspiracy" neatly clicks with item (3). It's only a "conspiracy" in the sense that corporations "conspire" to make money, people "conspire" to breath air, and dogs "conspire" to urinate on fire hydrants.

Transcripts are many times faster to read than listening to dozens to hundreds of hours of trial proceedings.

It's call an "index". You might want to google up the idea. Some day in the glorious future the justice system will be dragged into the 18th century.

Your entire argument is without merit. 1. Media meddling, hounding, and general drowning out of what's actually happening. By "broadcast", one presumes "what's actually happening" will be made transparently obvious. It's almost the definition of the word. Harassment is almost completely orthogonal to this. Indeed, even today, with no broadcast, you can be "hounded" and so forth. 2. Jury contamination. Even today, the Court specifically orders jurors to ignore the media for exactly this reason. But let's consider the current situation a bit. Why would a live broadcast vs. newspaper updates a few hours later be any different? Indeed, given that the jurors are there, in the room, watching the proceedings directly, I have to wonder how broadcast can possibly "contaminate" the jury -- unless you are willing to argue that the entire judicial process is in fact little more than glorified jury contamination to obtain a desired result. It further strikes me that it would be useful for a jury to have a complete video record of a trial for their own use. Examples are too numerous, but here is one: the transcript alone doesn't record things like facial expressions of witnesses and so forth. 3. Witness tampering. What the hell? No one puts anyone on the stand until they know exactly what they are going to say. Deviations are noted, in open court, and often strenuously. My guess is that courts do not want their proceedings broadcast live because it would regularly reveal just how dirty, illogical, and biased the entire apparatus really is. Most people never set foot in court, even fewer are direct participants. The entire scheme is supported only by the unquestioned belief of these people that it is "fair" and "equitable", and any step that may give rise to concerns in this population about the administration of justice will be resisted by the administrators themselves: judges, lawyers, clerks, etc.

I wonder if you even have a job: flexible, adaptable, people are going to get new hardware when they make a reasonable business case for it, and people who just spend money for the sake of being able to spend more money need to be fired. A strange idea these days -- AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc -- but hey, I guess I'm just a simple traditionalist.

What? You say that if you save money on energy, you can't buy new hardware. But if you spend the money on energy, you also can't buy new hardware. So either way, you are farked: you aren't getting new hardware. So why not save the energy?