He implores the jury to look into the face of the accused man to determine his innocence. Here he is discriminating Kabuo for his nationality. The jurors tend to side with him accept for Alex Van Ness. In my opinion I don’t see the support or any evidence in his saying and don’t side with his facts. Nels Gudmundsson closing statements says he notes that there is no evidence to suggest Kabuo plotted a murder or had a motive to murder.
Source 2 offers very little evidence to say that the disaster wasn’t Captain Nolan’s fault other than blaming Lucan for acting according to the captain’s enthusiasm. Whereas source 1 does offer a fairly good reason as to why the sole blame can’t be put upon the late captain’s shoulders, it states that the charge was so opposed to Nolan’s own theories on tactics that he would have never suggested it, even under excess of enthusiasm. Source 3 on the other hand shares the blame around no one man is solely responsible for the failings that day. This is the only source that does put some blame onto Nolan. There is a varying
But all in all what most historians debate is not why Leonidas stayed but whether or not his decision to stay was the overall right choice. My perspective on the situation is that Leonidas’ decision to stay was not the right choice. I postulate this because the whole goal was to protect the pass so that the Persians could not reach Athens, but after the defeat of the Spartans the Persians pushed forward and burned Athens to the ground. So in essence the last stand of the Spartans was pointless because the Persians completed their goal of the ransacking of Athens. Themistocles was the true hero; he evacuated Athens before the Persians came and defeated the Persians in a naval battle at Salamis, which forced the Persians to flee back to Asia.
In my opinion, Joe Paterno was wrong. Mr. Paterno should have reported the incident further to the police when the University officials failed to take action. It remains unanswered as to why Mr. Paterno remained quiet. If it was to protect the reputation of Penn State, then he was wrong. Given the stature of Mr. Paterno, he would have enhanced it by going out in public.
After analyzing the case and calling for several holdings, on June 19th of the year 2000 the Supreme Court decided that these practices were indeed a violation to the United States Constitution. In a six to three verdict, the Court stated that the pre-game prayers induced denizens to believe that the government supported these public religious events. At such conclusion, the acceptance of these actions disobeyed the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the fact that the student speech was not a private event gave the Supreme Court to further abolish its continuation. Along
President Nixon also lied when asked about the incident by the press stating that “no one in the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.” President Nixon betrayed the peoples trust as president in my opinion. He made misleading public statements in order to deceive the people of the U.S.A and protect those who were involved in the crime. The house of Judiciary Committee approved the second article July 29, 1974. This article accused Nixon of Abuse of Power. Nixon used his power as President to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.
FACTS this lawsuit was brought to the courts for a second time as the plaintiff alleged that because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The first appeal on this case the defendant court affirmed judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The district court found that the plaintiff had not sustained his burden of showing that this was abuse. So the plaintiff appealed. ISSUE the district court stated that the books the plaintiff wanted was not necessary for the practice of Cooper’s faith.
Neither Carter nor Artis were given a paraffin test. Additionally, one would expect that a suspected murderer would have a fingerprint test to see whether the fingerprint is on objects around the place in which the murder took place. The fact that two major tests that could quite easily have been taken, weren’t, shows the evident lack of investigation in this case. Despite all this, both men were put on trial and found guilty both times. It wasn’t until a group of Canadians went out of their way to make Carter a free man, was he found innocent for the crime he never committed, but was yet punished for.
Carpet bombing had been going on in Japan for the last couple months and these incendiary bombs were killing civilians. This was something that the US never wanted to happen. Roosevelt would not have had it happen; yet Truman did it anyway. This was one of the morals that Truman went against.”One of the most dangerous forms of human error is forgetting what one is trying to achieve.”(Paul Nitse) He did not want to see innocent civilians killed because Truman was making a rational decision. Furthermore, Truman went against the one war doctrine that should be used when making decisions in a war.
Her cowriter, unaware of this fraud, supports Imanishi-Kiri by making strong and hostile statements defending Imanishi-Kiri to the NIH investigating board, damaging his own credibility. Dr. Baltimore ended up resigning as president of Rockefeller University, because of this incident. If Baltimore had actually enforced his ideas about fraud and misconduct and had given Imanishi-Kiri a set of moral guidelines, the situation may have turned out differently. The deliberate misconduct, as exhibited in “the Baltimore case”, is only one type of scientific transgression. The other type is negligence.