Clueless Coulter # 3

• Report rights infringement
• published: 25 Mar 2008
• views: 8429

Professional lunatic Ann Coulter spreads her special brand of idiocy during a televised discussion about the death penalty, wrongful convictions and the possible executions of innocent men. In this final segment, author Michael Butterfield calls in with a remark about Coulter's attempts to trivialize the issues and questions her statements regarding the trial of executed inmate Joe O'Dell. In a final disgraceful display of desperation, Coulter resorts to one of the most common and ridiculous arguments often heard in these debates - that the DNA would not exonerate O'Dell because it was possible that the semen found in the victim could have belonged to some unidentified individual with whom the victim had consensual sex before the murder. O'Dell's attorney is quick to point out that the state's version of the crime had O'Dell raping and murdering the victim, and that the aggravated circumstance of rape was the basis for the sentence of death. If O'Dell did not rape the victim, the state's version of the crime was discredited - a fact that may have influenced the jury in their deliberations. If O'Dell's DNA did not match the DNA from the semen, then the entire scenario in which O'Dell allegedly committed the crime cannot be true and therefore the state's case was much weaker than the jury was led to believe. Excuses of mysterious and unknown lovers cannot be considered a credible response to this extremely troubling contradiction, yet even the host of the broadcast desperately searches for a scenario to explain O'Dell's guilt. She suggests that O'Dell may have committed rape yet did not ejaculate - another unbelievable departure from facts into wild, unsubstantiated speculation used in order to justify the execution of a human being. As O'Dell's attorney points out, no evidence existed to support this scenario and such speculation ignored the obvious fact that this was not the scenario presented by the prosecution at trial. Advocates of the death penalty will continue to defend their beliefs, yet the arguments offered by Coulter in this broadcast serve as a classic example of unfounded and uninformed opinion posing as compelling rebuttal, and highlights the methods used by some to avoid the central issues. Coulter's behavior - laughing and mocking - is hardly appropriate during such a discussion and a strong indication of her own insecurity. In one of her final remarks, she says that people were telling stories to make O'Dell look innocent yet this claim had no basis in fact and was not even part of the discussion. O'Dell's attorneys cited specific examples of problems with the first trial and the evidence, and also mentioned other issues, such as the fact that O'Dell had defended himself, that the testimony of the state's expert was most likely flawed, and that the witnesses who had originally linked the pellet gun to O'Dell later made statements that cast doubt on that link. These are not "stories" told by people trying to make O'Dell look innocent - these are important facts that are entirely relevant in any discussion concerning the possibility that O'Dell was wrongfully convicted and executed. Ann Coulter's behavior during this broadcast is typical of her public appearances. Known for her inflammatory, partisan writings and outrageous statements, Coulter has developed a following in the right-wing world where she is viewed as some great speaker of truth rather than a walking absurdity, an opinion on stilts. Her defenders were quick to start posting comments in response to this YouTube posting, including a brilliantly ignorant note from one viewer. This person wrote that the Stanford study (cited in the video) did not say that innocent men had been executed but, instead, said that innocent men MAY HAVE BEEN executed. This person was obviously very satisfied with this carefully crafted retort, however, like the others who posted critical responses, this person had jumped to criticism before taking the time to actually read and comprehend. The Stanford study is only mentioned at the end of segment # 1, when a title appears on the screen and states that the Stanford study concluded that at least 23 innocent men MAY HAVE BEEN executed - the very distinction that the complaint claimed the video failed to address. Like Coulter, this person quickly launched into an adversarial argument with absolute certainty and confidence despite the fact that this position was not supported by facts - familiar behavior from Coulter and others who are hell-bent on contradicting anyone and anything that challenges their beliefs or opinions.

Clueless Coulter # 3

• Report rights infringement
• published: 25 Mar 2008
• views: 8429

Professional lunatic Ann Coulter spreads her special brand of idiocy during a televised discussion about the death penalty, wrongful convictions and the possible executions of innocent men. In this final segment, author Michael Butterfield calls in with a remark about Coulter's attempts to trivialize the issues and questions her statements regarding the trial of executed inmate Joe O'Dell. In a final disgraceful display of desperation, Coulter resorts to one of the most common and ridiculous arguments often heard in these debates - that the DNA would not exonerate O'Dell because it was possible that the semen found in the victim could have belonged to some unidentified individual with whom the victim had consensual sex before the murder. O'Dell's attorney is quick to point out that the state's version of the crime had O'Dell raping and murdering the victim, and that the aggravated circumstance of rape was the basis for the sentence of death. If O'Dell did not rape the victim, the state's version of the crime was discredited - a fact that may have influenced the jury in their deliberations. If O'Dell's DNA did not match the DNA from the semen, then the entire scenario in which O'Dell allegedly committed the crime cannot be true and therefore the state's case was much weaker than the jury was led to believe. Excuses of mysterious and unknown lovers cannot be considered a credible response to this extremely troubling contradiction, yet even the host of the broadcast desperately searches for a scenario to explain O'Dell's guilt. She suggests that O'Dell may have committed rape yet did not ejaculate - another unbelievable departure from facts into wild, unsubstantiated speculation used in order to justify the execution of a human being. As O'Dell's attorney points out, no evidence existed to support this scenario and such speculation ignored the obvious fact that this was not the scenario presented by the prosecution at trial. Advocates of the death penalty will continue to defend their beliefs, yet the arguments offered by Coulter in this broadcast serve as a classic example of unfounded and uninformed opinion posing as compelling rebuttal, and highlights the methods used by some to avoid the central issues. Coulter's behavior - laughing and mocking - is hardly appropriate during such a discussion and a strong indication of her own insecurity. In one of her final remarks, she says that people were telling stories to make O'Dell look innocent yet this claim had no basis in fact and was not even part of the discussion. O'Dell's attorneys cited specific examples of problems with the first trial and the evidence, and also mentioned other issues, such as the fact that O'Dell had defended himself, that the testimony of the state's expert was most likely flawed, and that the witnesses who had originally linked the pellet gun to O'Dell later made statements that cast doubt on that link. These are not "stories" told by people trying to make O'Dell look innocent - these are important facts that are entirely relevant in any discussion concerning the possibility that O'Dell was wrongfully convicted and executed. Ann Coulter's behavior during this broadcast is typical of her public appearances. Known for her inflammatory, partisan writings and outrageous statements, Coulter has developed a following in the right-wing world where she is viewed as some great speaker of truth rather than a walking absurdity, an opinion on stilts. Her defenders were quick to start posting comments in response to this YouTube posting, including a brilliantly ignorant note from one viewer. This person wrote that the Stanford study (cited in the video) did not say that innocent men had been executed but, instead, said that innocent men MAY HAVE BEEN executed. This person was obviously very satisfied with this carefully crafted retort, however, like the others who posted critical responses, this person had jumped to criticism before taking the time to actually read and comprehend. The Stanford study is only mentioned at the end of segment # 1, when a title appears on the screen and states that the Stanford study concluded that at least 23 innocent men MAY HAVE BEEN executed - the very distinction that the complaint claimed the video failed to address. Like Coulter, this person quickly launched into an adversarial argument with absolute certainty and confidence despite the fact that this position was not supported by facts - familiar behavior from Coulter and others who are hell-bent on contradicting anyone and anything that challenges their beliefs or opinions.