Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ May 29, 2012 -> 08:34 AM) It just keeps getting better. So, That's my fear. I'm guessing she's done for this season (only 2 episodes left) but she'll be back next year. They can't possibly be done with the second most important character in the show right?

Yeah you'll definitely want to show up. How bad is the scar? Might be worth some $ in a civil suit depending on the circumstances.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 25, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Wanderlust was very meh. Watch it when it's on HBO. And, um. MIB3 is really really good. Ended up seeing Wanderlust because we missed The Five Year Engagement. I thought it was pretty good actually. Whoever played Paul Rudd's brother was great. Plus Malin Akerman talking about getting wet? Yes please.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 25, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) I was commenting more on the fact that he's projecting his complete disinterest in something onto others. No one should care about watches because he doesn't. Yeah I stand by my statement. There's no way anyone can tell a difference unless they're right up on you. A silver watch is a silver watch from 15 feet away.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 25, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Many high profile people dont wear watches these days. I never wear any form of jewelry, watch, necklace, etc. I personally think that is the classiest business look, although once in a while I am tempted to get a nice watch for social functions. But that would just be for status symbol only, and I wouldnt wear it on a daily basis. I have a friend who brags about his $3-4k watch. I just laugh. Who notices watches anymore? My classy $75 Fossil looks just as good from afar.

So I have to see either The Five Year Engagement or Wanderlust. Anyone see both? Which is better? Both get about the same reviews on rotten tomatoes.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 25, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) Boring book, but the movie makes it seem much more interesting.

Lol, Midge. I keep thinking it's Mitch. Anyways, yes, terrible scenes. I also can't believe that they didn't come up with a decent way for Linden/Holder to get into the casino....except for Holder to try, almost die, then reenter the casino as if nothing happened. All while Linden "sneaks" (so easy to do in a casino!) into an elevator that for some reason is still going to an empty floor (yes, even though she had a key, it makes no sense that if someone is murdered up there that they would change the key and/or make the 10th floor totally off limits by elevator). And then the bigger shocker of all - she gets caught! Didn't see that coming... Ugh.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 25, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) The technology wasnt there back then. Trust me, a universal identity store is a total feasible future and facebook etc are racing to be that store. Its incredibly valuable. I guess I don't see how that creates $ for a business at the end of the day.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) As an end user thats true, there is a much bigger story to having a universal identity store out on the internet that other companies can leverage. It's a HUGE value push for these companies to own the identities on the internet so that large organizations can link into them. But does that actually work? Does anyone remember "keywords?" How's that fairing for AOL these days?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 25, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) I actually enjoy the mood of the show and the tone they're trying to set. Imagine how much more awful it would be if it were 90 and sunny everyday and they always wore tank tops and surf shorts. This is a murder mystery after all. Why would they try to make it cheerful? 10 minutes scenes with people crying or complaining about how tough life is are made worse by that setting though. There's very little momentum from scene to scene. It's all too depressing and not entertaining.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:37 AM) One area I see FB leveraging better are business customers. More and more businesses are seeing FB as basic a necessity as the yellow pages were to our grandparents. Also, our grandparents all have FB accounts. Having siad that, I could also see them closed in ten years as something better comes along. Facebook is so vastly overrated. It's useful to share pictures and news about yourself, but who honestly goes onto facebook to view a product or business? I mean, I hate facebook and the entire idea behind it ("Look at me! Look! Look! Over here!") so perhaps i'm a little biased in thinking this way.

It just adds to the slow and depressing feel of the show.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 25, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Where are you going camping on Sunday? I have to say, I'm pretty hardcore and I could handle it...but I don't know many people that can. It's going to be about 100 on sunday. We camped last year along the Illinois river when it was 95-98 both days. It was absolutely brutal. I will never do that again.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ May 25, 2012 -> 06:35 AM) I realize this thread is basically nothing but opinions, so I'll offer an opinion of my own. I'm surprised by the amount of hate towards The Killing. I am still really enjoying it. I am wondering, however, what sort of role Richmond will have, if any. Seems like an extra character now. Last week's episode was very good. Stan's son and then Stan himself losing it was a long time coming. Linden should get the worst mother of the year award. The problem is they f***ed around with the audience way too much. Throwing out red herrings that are clearly red herrings just for the sake of extending the story is annoying (remember the whole terrorist angle?). Add to that the pretty awful set up of the characters, the dark, rainy, and gloomy look of the show; it's just not very entertaining. If the show had stuck to the murder investigation, it would be fine. But it tried to be all dramatic too, and that just never worked. One show that did this mix the right way was Rubicon, but unfortunately that got the ax just as it got going. I'll admit season 2 is light years ahead of season 1. But it still has lots of issues. They keep throwing us into scenes that make little to no sense (Mitch's entire absence from her family, Stan and his sister-in-law, why Duck Phillips is all over Holder/Linden when there's clearly something bigger going on [and it appears in the next episode he's going to suddenly realize they're right], etc.). What's worse IMO is that they're going to tell us who Rosie's killer is (the triumvirate of the chief, the building contractor and the mayor) and then spend all of next season doing what we were doing this season - building a case to charge them.

That's his character though

QUOTE (knightni @ May 24, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Using the ( ) is going to get someone in trouble if that's real. why?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) No, I haven't equated ALL ewt. I've specifically excluded some such as identifying someone you know. What is the source for your "99%" statistic? Does it come from the peer-reviewed literature on eyewitness testimony? Yeah, because that's a study someone can accurately do. I'm done wasting my time with you on this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Yes, you have. You said that the "common sense" of jurors negates this and that you can impugn the credibility of a certain eyewitness. You cannot say that and simultaneously agree that jurors often rely too heavily on eyewitness testimony and are often unaware of the biases and deficiencies of human memory, even of highly credible witnesses. I'm saying it's common sense that sometimes eye witness testimony is questionable. You don't think an average juror knows this?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) How about any number of cases where people have been convicted based on eyewitness testimony but later exonerated based on DNA evidence? Like Ronald Cotton? Lol, it's not "any number." It's a "small number." GMAFB. Again, police f*** up evidence. We should instruct jurors that evidence recovered by police is unreliable because of "any number of cases" that have been overturned due to police f*** ups.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 24, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) I made this distinction in one of the first posts. Identifying someone whom you know is a different case than identifying someone you have only ever seen briefly. Better police procedures when gathering evidence and questioning witnesses was one of the major recommendations from the DoJ report. It summarizes some of the issues and offers guidelines for establishing procedures. I am not pretending to know the answer myself; my issue is with jenks' insistence on eyewitness testimony being the best possible evidence period and that 'it's not a big deal' when legal and psychological academia clearly and resoundingly disagree. My personal opinion is that widespread awareness of the unreliable nature of human memory would be greatly beneficial in reducing the undue weight juries tend to place on eyewitness testimony. A problem being difficult to solve doesn't mean it "isn't a big deal" and we should ignore it or pretend that it isn't really a problem after all because juries have "common sense." In one sense, jenks is correct in that juries do treat eyewitness testimony as the best possible evidence. In that regard, from the litigator's POV, it is the "best possible" evidence they can present. But from a neutral point of view, it is far from the best possible evidence in determining what actually happened. That disconnect between how juries view EWT and the unreliable nature of EWT is the source of the problem. IT IS. Having someone watch someone commit a crime and testify about it is 100% the best possible piece of evidence you can have. Name me something better! Yes, sometimes it's unreliable. NO ONE IS DENYING THIS. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. But that's SOMETIMES. You're equating ALL eye witness testimony with the type where people are 100 yards away in the dark and they don't REALLY get a good look at the person. That's not the case in 99% of cases. And again, reliance on JUST that type of bad eye witness testimony is incredibly rare since other physical evidence comes into play. Studies have established that not all eye testimony is good, that jurors often rely too heavily on eye witness testimony in rendering their verdict. Fine. I haven't disagreed with you there. But absent a ban on eye witness testimony all together there isn't much you can do about. Even giving a jury an instruction like "hey just so you know, X study found that X percent of witnesses are full of crap" is INCREDIBLY prejudicial. You've just planted a seed of doubt in a jurors mind to question every piece of evidence absolutely, to expect CSI-level, fool-proof evidence. That's not reality. Jurors are supposed to come in as normal people with normal thoughts and behavior. There's questioning the credibility of evidence and then there's ignoring plain facts because you heard about this one case where someone is misidentified. That's NOT how the judicial system should work.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 07:21 PM) No it isn't. That's the point. I'm going to rely on legal academic research instead of "My Cousin Vinny." You're arguing against a substantial body of work with appeals to 'common sense' while missing what the issue actually is. Dude, you're out of your element here. Eye witness testimony is the best evidence available, period. Citing a study that says eye witness testimony isn't always reliable doesn't refute that. You're talking about a small number of cases, and you're ignoring how attorneys and jurors combat that problem. I'll ask for the 3rd time: what are you going to do about this problem? The answer is that it's already been taken care of - you attack the credibility of the witness. Absent that, there's nothing you can do, so it's "not a big deal."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) Have you read any of the papers on this issue? It's not "basic common sense" but an actual problem that leads to bad verdicts by juries. I seriously believe that decades of research has shown that juries rely far too much on eyewitness testimony, that the average person isn't a particularly great judge of the sincerity of a witness, that the average person has a very flawed understanding of human memory and that numerous people have been falsely convicted based on eyewitness testimony. I don't know why you think this isn't a possibility or a real issue. It's an active area of research and concern. What do you have to say it's "basic common sense" and that people aren't overly reliant on eyewitness testimony and that eyewitness testimony itself isn't often reliable? So far you're just saying "no it isn't" without actually supporting your claim. Come on, stop being disingenuous. I never said it's not a possibility or that it's not an issue. I'm saying it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. You're pointing out a problem that arises in very few cases because by the nature of the trial system eye witness testimony is just one of MANY forms of evidence that leads a juror to conclude guilty/not guilty. Numerous people have been falsely convicted because of s***ty jurors, faulty police investigations, whathaveyou. Yet people don't make blanket statements like "police evidence is unreliable" or "jurors are unreliable." It's still an acceptable form of evidence, even if it's shown that SOME eye witness testimony is wrong. That's my point. No study is going to establish how a juror weighs eye witness testimony in rendering a verdict because it's done on a case by case basis. Great, you've provided a study that eye witness testimony is important. Of course it is, it's the best evidence you can have. But what's the end game here? You've argued that eye witness testimony is faulty on occasion. So what? Are we excluding all of it now? What do you want to happen? Jurors need to be apprised of the fact that eye witnesses can be wrong? You're completely ignoring the fact that credibility of eye witness testimony is already an issue. Go rewatch My Cousin Vinny to see how attorneys can address this issue and let the jurors know that just because someone says they're 100% certain doesn't mean they truly are. You're pretending like people don't understand that sometimes they see something they don't really see. That not all eye witness testimony is 100% accurate. That's common sense.

Yeah that sounds wrong on all sorts of levels.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 23, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) 1.) I was thinking 4-5 beers a normal 9 inning game for a person who likes beer is about right. So my question to those who are so appalled by DUI ... have you ever had 4 beers at a Sox game and driven home?? You likely would get a DUI. You are not necessarily a horrific person, are you?? 2.) Drunking boating and you were anchored?? You must have been FURIOUS at the cop. 3.) Very nice post, but again, what about 4-5 beers? Likely you can drive fine. So is the perpetrator a person who should be thrown in jail 2 years?? I tell you, the campaigns worked on me. I just don't drink and drive. I won't have ANY beers at a friend's party or a game or anything if I'm driving. And I like a cold beer. If it's cold and not named "Bud" I love beer. As to 1), I think you're irresponsible the first time, but your life shouldn't be over for one mistake (but a heavy punishment is 100% warranted). But 3 mistakes? Come on. That is inexcusable.