Silent

Absolutely. Before this season I was hoping for an other Dutch speaking player, but no way he could have done better

Pieters _O_

McIlroy is letting the spectators get under his skin. On the other hand it seems to give him that extra something.

Spectacular comeback from the Spaniards.

Kuchar really wants to join that club. At least in the afternoon.

Kaymer is a wasted wild card so far. 'Not good' is an understatement regarding his level today.

Very impressive debut from Cabrera-Bello so far.

congrats to the winning pairings, but damn... My eyes hurt of the bad things I saw. That really was not good golf.

Team Europe will win 14,5 - 13,5. Rory McIlroy will score the most points, going 3.5 for Europe with a 3-1-1 record. Henrik Stenson will clinch the Ryder Cup by winning his match on the 17th hole. You can see my GAME GOLF Profile here: http://www.gamegolf.com/player/Silent

It drops a lot, around halve I guess. If we also take Rose, Stenson and McIlroy away it drops even further. It's nothing more than just some interesting stats.

Irony is a b*tch Ah well, family life is (much) more important and I had a blast at Gran Canaria.

Luiten wins KLM Open!!! on vacation in Spain now, but just got word he won after an exciting battle with Wiesberger and after an amazing last round of -8. And again he wins a tournament right before start of Ryder Cup. His fifth career win. Wow, just wow.

Pieters, Kaymer and Westwood with a wildcard. Well done Pieters!

Thanks, appreciate it.

Cool, thanks. I'm curious that if he thinks the defendant might be innocent, if he proceeds and pushes for a conviction anyway. "Let the jury decide.." I guess you might be right.

According to the rules of ethics for a DA, it is how it (should) work. http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA NPS 3rd Ed. w Revised Commentary.pdf The truth is the primary goal for a DA, not a conviction; so exactly like I said. That's not necessarily the same, even though in most cases (I hope) it is. In the first case (which you don't care about ) there were a lot of factors that should tell the DA as well that the truth is not that Avery did it. Yet to 'win' and get a conviction seemed to be his only goal. In Dassey's case I can understand better that the DA proceeded anyway, yet it's at least a little bit doubtfull; even a blind man could have seen that the confessions was steered, and everybody in the business knows the high % of false confessions in such matters. But I understand here he wanted the judge to look at it, and he didn't trow it out at that time. Anyway, my point is that the DA has a responsibility as well, not only the jury.

You just lost your bet :( Very close game into final set.

South Korea. Next is against China or Russia. Good luck against Japan.

Netherlands just reached the semis! Chances of meeting again just got a little bit bigger.

Excellent choise sir ;) Brouwer/Meeuwsen won the Dutch match, as former world champions I think they are slightly better anyway so that's a good thing. Next a difficult game against the local heroes.

To be honest I don't expect our ladies to reach the final. On the other hand, so far their performance is pretty good. A medal, even bronze, would be far beyond expectation but ofcourse very welcome.

Watching beach volleyball now @Gunther ? Holland vs Holland now (yes, that's possible) in quarter final. Great match, shame one team has to go out.

And I'm not saying you did. What I mean is that what you called 'legal bull' etc. doesn't have to stand in the way to get to the truth. Actually it might be quite important. You know there was more to the story than that. The rape victim 'identified' him from a scetch made from a photo from Avery, instead of from a sketch made from her discription (which was of some big parts different). So yes, she identified him, but in a way you can compare it with Dassey's 'confession': it was steered towards something they wanted to hear. Shady police work to say the least. 1 or 2 episodes I guess, plus I (we) discussed about it here as well. Well, I'm guessing here you know what I mean with it. 2 out of 3 cases are trown out, the third there's a lot of speculation that it's heading the same way. All I'm saying is there's a possibility it will be 3 out of 3, and it doesn't seem to be that unlikely It's part of the story. Considering the (unlikely?) possibilty he was set up, the reason might be very well the first case and as a result the law suit for money. Or just that he would be an easy fall guy. Or in the case that you do think something is wrong in the system, it's a pattern. Yes and no. The DA and invastigators should be like you say you are: only to care about the truth. Investigate and accept 'proof' with an open mind. A good DA would have big doubts in the first case, and big doubts about the confession of Dassey but seemed more interested in a conviction, than in finding the actual truth. I do remember, and you are correct. I'm not blind at all about the fact that the documentary is quite one-sided. That doesn't change that in some parts they are, in my opinion, right. For example about the Dassey confession, his lawyer messing up (even the court said so), yet every request for appeal was denied. That's just very, very strange and now the federal judge said so as well, using the same arguments for it as presented in the documentary. One can argue the cases are (possibly) related in many ways. The murder of Halbach might never have happenend if it wasn't for the first case (if Avery actually did it: 'making a murderer' literally, 18 years in prison might mess anyone up). Or it's related because he was set up because of his law suit for money. Or they are not related, but at least relevant because one would want to make a case that the system as a whole has big flaws and those 3 cases are all possible examples (or a pattern). I'm not saying all that is likely or is true, just that the first case might be relevant in a discussion regarding all this. I'm fine with your opinion as well, and find discussions like this interesting as long as it's with respect and understanding. In my understanding the documentary is about more than this one case, it's an (interesting) example but they are trying to give the message about possible flaws in the system (the same judge that convicted Dassey, had to decide if he had the right for a new trial....), the chances of going down without a fighting chance if you can't pay for good lawyers (Dassey!), possible tunnel vision by police and investigators... so for me the discussion and a big part of interest is everything that happenend in court, in the investigation, procedures. Even if Avery is guilty, if you can't prove it (in court) within the rules he should walk free. That's a shame in this case, but otherwise a conviction is more like a lucky shot and next time someone who is really innocent will be locked up. And on that bombshell... But yeah, we both know nothing about what really happenend ofcourse. But in speculation we are quite on the same page (guilt Avery). It's just hard to imagine someone would drive burned remains around, drop the victims car on the property, plant blood in it, throw a bullet in the garage, leave a key behind a closet in his bedroom, and all in a timeline that fits Avery's. But to end with a movie quote from Law Abiding Citizen which might be relevant here: It's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove in court

Three round below par, but all -1 and a first round of +1 result in a 27th place for Luiten. A little disappointed, and he's looking forward to his vacation. No golf for about a month, next tournament for Joost will be.... KLM Open!