https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-m...
It's also the main headline on the frontpage of the BBC atm:
Some people are mistaking not reading with it not being covered.
But you're right: The topic of discussion all over Twitter and Reddit is about the lack of mainstream news coverage, which is such a weird claim to make when it can be disproven with 60 seconds of loading any news website.
- NYT has one 100px tall box, 4 pages below the fold
- WaPo has coronavirus, acai bowls, Biden, Sydney Powell above fold, Ghislaine 2 pages down
- CNN I don't see Maxwell or Ghislaine anywhere but one Epstein box bottom 1st page
- Fox has two boxes, both below fold
Is this known or a guess?
Reading Manufacturing Consent (as well as @nyt_diff) has led me to believe that we should not jump to come up with charitable excuses for why media does not cover stories in the way we think they should.
If Joe Manchin and Susan Collins teamed up to make a bipartisan death ray pointed at us from outer space, it would get less media coverage than the Rittenhouse trial, because bipartisan stuff is not engaging news.
That was your mistake right there. Bill Gates has been a criminal for longer than I can clearly remember, the only thing that kept his company from being split up was his political connections. Bill Gates did not deserve anybody's respect past the point where he started to use his wealth to buy access and cover for his misdeeds. And make no mistake: the rot that this caused has never really left Microsoft, it has only caused it to get smarter about how it presents itself.
But there certainly isn't some suspicious media blackout on it. You can readily find coverage.
The media didn't tell people to get interested in it.
That said, it is hardly a conspiracy theory to point out that the media has a disincentive to give this story the attention it deserves because of the amount of prominent figures implicated. Amy Robach of ABC even claimed that they squashed the story initially because they were worried that covering it would impact their ability to air the Harry/Markle wedding.
Edit: Not sure why I am being downvoted for pointing this out, but if anyone thinks this is baseless or conspiratorial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Robach#Jeffrey_Epstein_sto...
Even now, that leak is mostly reported by unreliable sources like The Sun above and Project Veritas rather than more established news organizations despite the video's apparent legitimacy.
The accusations against Epstein (and association with Trump/Clinton/Dersh/Prince Andrew/etc) have been reported for like 15 years now but for whatever reason it took the Miami Herald's reporting in 2019 to break through..
I don't expect conspiracy, though; it's far more likely that the Omicron variant is far more relevant to markets. The FT also did publish two stories on Ghislaine Maxwell about 23-24 hours ago, but it's fair to say that the paper isn't emphasizing the story (by comparison, the Theranos Elizabeth Holmes trial had a story on the front page this morning).
https://www.ft.com/content/f58cc9df-98d3-4f11-9d24-e2c4e059b...
1. Moderna chief predicts existing vaccines will struggle with Omicron
2. The inside story of the Pfizer vaccine: ‘a once-in-an-epoch windfall’
3. Powell signals support for quicker ‘taper’ of Fed’s bond-buying scheme
4. Holmes accuses former business partner of abuse in Theranos trial
5. Inditex shares fall after it appoints founder’s daughter as chair
Even if the observation were true, it doesn't contradict my note that the FT omitted it from the front page stories this morning (US edition, FT, iPad app).
However, in the interest of reporting updated information over being 'right,' a new story about Ghislaine Maxwell (published "an hour ago" at the time of this comment) has since been published after my original comment, and now appears on the front page (website and iPad app).
That said, from my observations, it's clear that the Theranos story today was more popular than the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with my inference that it was more widely-promoted. I'm not arguing that there was an effort to suppress reporting, but I am arguing that it's reasonable to conclude that one story may have been marketed more heavily than the other, from seemingly-minor decisions in web design and the stories selected for the mobile apps.
probably because its directly related to finance?
It literally wasn't. It was tried under Wisconsin jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Ritten...
It's bad practice to give-in to the algorithm the way you are suggesting. Just as bad as only reading the headlines.
That page clearly states "Under Wisconsin state law, Rittenhouse was charged as an adult with the following crimes: ..."
If you're interested in learning more about the Rittenhouse trial, Rekieta Law on youtube is a lawyer who had a panel of lawyers analyze the case live with him. Absolutely awesome to get live strategic analysis on a criminal trial.
> For example, the dude who was shot in the arm testified and everyone was like "big win for Rittenhouse, he admitted he got shot only after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse".
This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. The other party in said videos being trapped into admitting that Kyle was right to shoot him was vidicating, both legally and personally for everyone who was rooting for Kyle.
Before anyone gets horrified at my views on the case, Kyle was a good kid, being dumb and idealistic, trying to help, and protecting himself when that went south. I wish he hadn't stayed out that night, I wish his assailants had valued their lives more highly, and I hope that this will be a good example for everyone: don't put yourself in danger unless you're prepared for the consequences, and secondarily, fuck around and find out.
I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so.
But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.
The self-defense standard explained by the judge is simply that the defendant must believe that the level of force used was necessary to terminate an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and the defendant's belief must be reasonable.
However, "a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use.. self-defense against that attack." The judge ruled that it was legal for him to be carrying a gun that night, so while carrying a gun might provoke others, it's not unlawful conduct that provokes others.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhous...
Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
So now people on social media are the standard? People on social media are not objective. They see what they want to see, based on the team they are rooting for. There is a video showing the exact moment of the shooting and facts are facts.
I agree with your last paragraph.
Neither are juries. Trials are about feeding the Jury the story they need to come to a specific conclusion. Removing any possible doubt from that story is vital.
Should the state have even pursued that charge? Probably not, but that has nothing to do with that testimony blowing anyone away.
There is the concept of malicious prosecution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution ), but that only applies when the prosecutor pursues a case without proof of even the basic elements of the crime. If they filed charges that they were incredibly unlikely to prove (which is what I heard from all the commenters on this case: “the prosecution has a hard case to make” or something similar), then they spent a lot of time and money, caused somebody to spend a lot of money for the defendant, etc., but they didn’t cross the line into malicious prosecution.
Unfortunately, for this specific case, I don’t think it qualifies. The judge only dismissed the charge because he couldn’t write clear jury instructions for it ( https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhou... ). I think that could be enough to say “we brought the charge because we honestly thought it applied; the confusion wasn’t malice, it was just difficulty understanding a convoluted law.”
I don’t know about Wisconsin, and I don’t know if Rittenhouse has some way to afford bringing a malicious prosecution lawsuit or some other lawsuit against Kenosha. I get the feeling that kind of reaction (followed by a negotiated settlement) is more common in some parts of the country than others.
I assumed it was similar to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, where you admit you committed a crime but there are special circumstances (that you have to prove) that mitigate it. You can't just stay silent the entire time and force the prosecutor to prove you were insane - you have to actually provide some evidence you were insane.
Is this not true?
People claim self-defense all the time, it rarely works. In this case, where the clear, legally defined standard of self-defense was met, Kyle walked.
An alternative equivalent would be if Arbery was successful at taking away the firearm and killing his attackers.
"You have a mobile device, right?"
"And a mobile device can record images, right?"
"And you were present at the scene, right?"
"And while you were present at the scene you had a mobile device, right?"
"And your mobile device is capable of recording images, right?"
"And you used your mobile device to record images, right?"
Like, fuck, you could have compressed that all into 1 question. I guess lawyers get paid $900 an hour so maybe that's part of it.
"Effective Deposition Strategy and Dealing with the Evasive, Non-cooperative Witness"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830
This section, and the example that follow it, are particularly relevant:
> Second, don’t go immediately for the killer question. Take the time to build toward your ultimate question with multiple questions, each question about one fact.
> Questions that include one and only one fact is the technique that gives you the most control of a witness.[4] You must ask about facts, not conclusions, when you want to control an evasive, non-cooperative witness. The witness will never agree to your conclusions, and their disagreement with you on any point may seem completely reasonable unless there has been the proper “set-up” (see the following questions and the next section dealing with “set-up”). The advantage of the “one fact – one question” technique is that when a witness “runs”, i.e. they try a long non-responsive narrative; the question can be repeated easily again and again. Each “run” makes the witness appear less credible and frequently results in the witness admitting the fact imbedded in the question. Stringing together multiple questions that are “one fact-one question” allows the jury to derive larger, case-critical conclusions that are inescapable, even if unstated.
So you binary search the damn thing, and you find the logical culprit in log(N) time if N is the number of clauses, instead of searching linearly.
Like, if they agree what a phone is, you don't need to drill down all the details of what constitutes a phone.
If they disagree, only then traverse the sub-nodes of that.
Their legal analysis was excellent. You disagreeing with their views doesn't change that.
I got the impression that Barnes would have also made a very good defense for Rittenhouse, but at a very great expense to the Rittenhouse family. To me, it looked like he was an ambulance chaser looking to make a lot of money on a very high profile case. Spend spend spend, then ask for more donations to cover what was spent.
Some of the others were more distracting when trying to hear what was said during the case.
Barnes is obviously extremely smart, worth the big bucks, but definitely requires big money to hire.
Nick Rekieta himself is a fun guy, and I'm really glad he took off. He's re-sparked my nascent interest in criminal law, and it's great to see a lawyer dad who's up on his memes.
The rest of the panel is fun, not always super helpful, but the value of the panel was great. Good to see something new in the world of streaming.