Tribute to Matt Stone
Episode 201 - Not Without My Anus
Icons provided by Christopher Pirillo at Just South of South Park
AdvertFXApplet provided by Secret Sid
South Park Announcer: Since the last South Park you've waited four long weeks to find out who the father of Eric Cartman is. Now, finally, the shocking truth about Cartman's lineage will not be seen tonight so we can bring you the following special presentation.
[Honk]
HBC Announcer: Now, get ready for Canada's hottest action stars. Terrance and Phillip in the HBC Movie of the Week, Not Without My Anus, based on a true story.
[Canadian Courthouse - 10:18 A.M.]
Scott: Ladies and gentlemen, before you today sits a murderer. On the night in question, this monster entered the home of Dr. Jeffrey O'Dwyer, and struck him repeatedly in the head with this hammer. That monster is sitting right over there, and his name is Terrance.
[Dramatic Music]
[Fart]
Phillip: Uh, Terrance, you farted in court.
Terrance: Yes Phillip, I'm making a case for our defense.
[Laughter]
Scott: All of these things link Terrance to the murder: hair fibers, blood samples, nail clippings, a piece of his shirt
Terrance looks about confused.
Scott: A watch with his initials on it, a day planner with the murder scheduled, a haiku called "Time to Kill Dr. Jeffrey O'Dwyer." "Dr. O'Dwyer, time to have your head smashed in, with my new hammer." Terrance, you may be a famous surgeon, but you're not God. Je accuse Terrance.
Terrance: Would you like a monkey claw Phillip?
Phillip: Yes please.
[Fart]
[Laughter]
Terrance: That's called the monkey claw cause it feels like my colon is being ripped apart by a thousand monkeys.
Phillip: The monkey claw is smelly.
The Judge hammers her gavel.
Judge: Come on, get a move-on, I ain't getting a younger up here.
Phillip: My sentiments exactly Your Honor. I see from your accent that you're Southern Canadian.
Judge: That is correct.
Phillip: Good people of the jury, my client Terrance is an innocent man.
[Fart]
Terrance: Oh ho, Phillip, now you farted during the closing argument.
Phillip: I have, haven't I Terrance.
[Fart]
[Laughter]
Scott: Your Honor, the defense is trying to make a mockery of this court. They think farts are funny, but they're not.
Judge: Sustained.
Phillip: Good people of the jury, my client Terrance is no more a murderer than you or me. He loves puppies and hates mean things. Would a murderer go to the zoo and feed animals like this?
Phillip shows the jury of Terrance with a llama.
Phillip: Of course not. So, in summation, find Terrance innocent, or else he'll kill you.
[Gasp]
[Laughter]
Phillip: Just kidding. The defense rests.
Terrance pounds his fist on the table as he laughs uncontrollably.
Before we get to those details of John Newman’s death lets recap who his supposedly murder was.
Clive interrogates the orderly, who is getting sick… or going through withdrawal. He admits to pawning Scott E.'s personal effects but swears he did not kill him.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Blood was found on Bikerman’s shirt, but according to his statement, which a student on the team confirms; Bikerman cut his hand playing intermural football and wiped his hand on his shirt. Another type of evidence examined was hair. Hair samples were collected from Reveille, Reveille’s handler, Bikerman, and Maroon Flash. Evidence was also collected from Reveille’s collar, Bikerman’s shirt and bike, and Maroon Flash’s shirt and bike. Reveille’s hair was found on her collar, Bikerman’s bike, and Maroon Flash’s bike and shirt. Reveille’s handler has hair that found on her collar and Maroon Flash’s shirt. Bikerman’s hair was found on his bike and shirt. Maroon Flash’s hair was found on Reveille’s collar, his bike, and his shirt. Since his hair was found on her collar and Bikerman’s hair was not, it seems to further point to the conclusion that Maroon Flash is our criminal who hit Reveille. The last type of evidence examined was the DNA evidence from Reveille, Bikerman, Maroon Flash, spots from Reveille’s fur, Bikerman’s shirt, and Maroon Flash’s
Fiber analysis was a major forensic technique that was used to convict Williams. It can put someone at the scene of a crime. According to Locard’s exchange principle, when a person comes in contact with an object or person, a cross transfer of materials occurs. This was very true in the Williams case. The investigators examined fibers found on all the victims. After collecting and examining the fibers, they searched Wi...
What do we know about the criminal justice system? The criminal justice system is a series of organizations that are involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and jailing those involved in crimes; along with the system, regular citizens are summoned for jury duty in order to contemplate whether the defendant is guilty or not. It appears to be a rather secure, fair, and trustworthy system; one that should work relatively well, right? Unfortunately, the criminal justice system is an ultra-costly and ultra-punitive; the system is neither protecting victims nor rehabilitating lawbreakers. For example, trial by jury; there is usually a small amount of people in the jury who actually considered that another being’s life is on the line. In trial by jury, the court is literally trusting the life of another being in the hands of twelve strangers who need to argue with each other like kids until they conclude a verdict. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a group of men are summoned for jury duty and almost all of the men would rather conclude a verdict immediately and leave; except for one, Juror #8. He managed to detain the group by requesting for a discussion of the murder trial before voting “guilty” or “not guilty.” Not once did Juror #8 allow the others to influence him unless they had a valid explanation.
the light on every side of Dr. Iannis, helping us to make up our mind
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to point out to you three pieces of
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The Army CID sent a new, inexperienced investigator named William Ivory to investigate the scene. Ivory decided after looking around the house that MacDonald made up the story of the killers. He also persuaded everyone that he was the culprit. This meant that everyone in Ivory’s chain...
Forensic science has been in practice for centuries; the first textbook on forensic science was printed in China during the 1200's; in the early 1800's, a technique was developed the first test to identify arsenic in the blood stream; the early 1900's lead to the development of using fingerprinting to identify victims and suspects. While these discoveries where important in criminal investigation, they were only the beginning. Only recently has forensic science significantly refined its techniques and accuracy. Today scientists can locate, identify and trace the tiniest of particles, and identify victims and suspects, beyond a reasonable doubt through DNA analysis. This evolution in forensic science is a prosecutor's dream; while a defense attorney's nightmare. Forensic science has made great strides.
The fixation on the old man's vulture-like eye forces the narrator to concoct a plan to eliminate the old man. The narrator confesses the sole reason for killing the old man is his eye: "Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees - very gradually - I made up my mind to rid myself of the eye for ever" (34). The narrator begins his tale of betrayal by trying to convince the reader he is not insane, but the reader quickly surmises the narrator indeed is out of control. The fact that the old man's eye is the only motivation to murder proves the narrator is so mentally unstable that he must search for justification to kill. In his mind, he rationalizes murder with his own unreasonable fear of the eye.
“We’re going to put him on trial, Gerardo, this doctor. Right here. Today. You and me.” (p.26) This is a quote from the play Death and the Maiden by Ariel Dorfman. The play is set in Chile, just after the dictatorship. However, although this is somewhat important to the story, it is not the main focus of the play. The play actually focuses on a women named Paulina who captures a man claiming he was a doctor who had tortured and raped her in the past. However, the man, whose name is Roberto, claims that he is not the doctor. This is essentially the whole play, except for at the end, it leaves us on a cliff hanger. The play never actually says if Paulina let Roberto free or killed him. If I were to come up with my own ending, I would say Paulina