The 2005 Grand Mayne has been uncorked and other news...

[JimHow]

I have not touched this wine since I drank one bottle on release.
My recollection is that I did not like it quite as much as the superb 2000, which I did not like quite as much as the stellar 1998.
Let's see how this puppy is showing at the 17 year mark.
Seems to be pretty definitive Merlot on the nose, I wonder what the blend is in this wine?

Have been getting entreaties from the Party mucky-mucks to run for District Attorney, the incumbent is vacating the seat. I'd be tough to beat.
But no thank you.
I think I would rather give up Bordeaux than go over to the dark side of law enforcement.
Still, being the top law enforcement officer in the District 3 prosecutorial district -- the second most populated area in the state -- would be pretty keen. Ah, it's fun to fantasize.

[JimHow]

It seems a little heavy and monolithic at the outset, but it's early. Is this a wine like Barde Haut, that should just be drunk upon release? Or is this something more?

[JimHow]

Reading about Cat Stevens in today's Rolling Stone.
I was just thinking today about his ex-girlfriend, Princess Cheyenne, who we saw dancing at the Naked Eye in the old Combat Zone in Boston back, oh, it must've been about 1977. She was something. She's still in the Boston area, last I heard, she had a daughter who was killed in a car accident a few years back.

[JimHow]

This seems to hold up better with the food, a tenderloin and some coleslaw.

District Attorney is a common path to the governorship here in Maine.... Hmmmm.

[JimHow]

I was within arm's reach of Princess Cheyenne in Boston in 1977....

Now, all these years later, I'm reading about her boyfriend in Rolling Stone.

As beautiful as she was, there was this local gal from Revere...
Let me tell you the story about what happened when she came to hustle a drink from me one late weekday afternoon, and made the mistake of falling in love....

[JimHow]

While you're contemplating that, let me ask you a question.

What's worse:

1. Someone who "gets away with murder" after a trial, or

2. Someone who is convicted of murder by a dirty cop who lies on the witness stand?

Assume the facts above are true: (A) In one case, a sadistic, torturing rapist/murderer goes free after a fair trial, or (B) A person charged with a sadistic torture/rape/murder gets convicted, whether he did it or not, because a dirty cop lies on the stand.

Which is worse?

[JimHow]

Listening to Beethoven's Ninth as I write this because of Yusuf Islam's Rolling Stone interview, because I wanted to listen to what he described as "the best pop song ever."

I'm sorry, my man Cat.... I'll go with "Fly Robin Fly" any day of the week....

[JimHow]

We filed our motions for new trial yesterday within the required five day time period post verdict.
Not that these motions will go anywhere -- our best options are on appeal, after the September sentencing, when my client will get 1.5 gazillion years in the Alaska Buttfuck State Prison in Seward, AK.
Suffice to say we are raising concerns in these post-verdict motions about a certain lead detective who lied his ass off on the witness stand.
A little fudging here, a little exaggeration there, hey, what's the big deal.
So what if that's how innocent people get convicted of serious crimes.
But now I'm sounding like a whiner, so I will stop.
In all seriousness, the judge I was concerned about in the end gave us a VERY fair trial.
Some of his pretrial rulings, however, came back to bite us, especially in this case, where the jury was clearly divided.

In any event...

At least the 2005 Grand Mayne seems to be showing improvement as the night goes along.
Good strength, lovely chocolate nose, turning into a nice little finish with dessert.
A definite positive evolution over the course of two hours. Okay, definitely in a class above Barde Haut!

[marcs]

While you're contemplating that, let me ask you a question.

What's worse:

1. Someone who "gets away with murder" after a trial, or

2. Someone who is convicted of murder by a dirty cop who lies on the witness stand?

Assume the facts above are true: (A) In one case, a sadistic, torturing rapist/murderer goes free after a fair trial, or (B) A person charged with a sadistic torture/rape/murder gets convicted, whether he did it or not, because a dirty cop lies on the stand.

Which is worse?

The second is worse. An actually innocent person in jail and disgraced for life is worse. I suspect people have strong intuitions on this.

But it’s only worse if the person is actually innocent. If they were guilty but convicted because of a lie or procedural violation my moral intuitions are totally different

[JimHow]

By the way, if you're interested in the Cat Stevens interview, it's here:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... 118f47115b

Myself, I don't believe in "god," haven't since the earliest days of Catholic school when I was 5 years old. I thought this was bullshit then, even though in my protected situation I had never heard the word bullshit. That didn't come til a year later, in first grade, when the nuns forced us to rat on each other and say whether we had heard any swear words in the school yard. I remember Sister Mary asking me: "Did you hear the "S" word in the school yard, Jimmy?" No, Sister Mary, but I remember Davie saying "Fuck."

I was sent back to my seat.

I remember when we went to the chapel adjacent to St. Patrick's Church, which was adjacent to the elementary St. Patrick's School, for the "Signs of the Cross" <rolls eyes>, especially during Easter season. I distinctly remember, at about age 6, this would've been about '64, saying to myself: "This is bullshit, bro."

Jump forward like, I dunno, 60+ years...
We're having a bottle of wine at Lavelle's last week with my impressionable number 2 chair Jesse Archer, like in day 3 of jury deliberations.
And of course at this point we are talking about god...
And Jesse, a VERY sensitive millennial, who claims he is an "agnostic" <rolls eyes>, says, Oh come on, Jim, if you are on your death bed, you are like not at least going to question the existence of god?

Omg.

Au contraire, mon ami. When I am ready to die... I want no music. I want no prayer. I want no conversation. I don't want to hear no Bob Dylan, no Paul McCartney, no Chopin, no Fly Robin Fly, no beauty, no hate, no pain, no hunger, no joy, no art, no sex, no rock and roll, no war, no "God", no Mona Lisa, I don't want to see my beautiful girlfriend, I don't want to see even my beloved brother Tom, the last of our immediate family, I want... silence.... I want to hear the breathing tubes. And I want morphine, and as LITTLE pain as possible. That's ALL I want. I don't care about no music, or prayer, or Ave Maria, or NOTHING else. Not even my beloved Bordeaux. Just keep me out of pain.

In the end, as I have said here before, it is not death that I fear....

It is the end of life.

I have enjoyed this life beyond any expectation or dream. It is only the end that concerns me.

But, alas.... I still have a quarter bottle left of 2005 Chateau Grand Mayne.

And if there is wine left to be drunk, there is still life left to be lived....

I'll give this wine 92 points tonight, it rebounded nicely, after a slow start.

Kind of like this tired, old soul.

Life is good, my friends....

Life is good!

[JimHow]

Howisms:

"If there is wine left to be drunk, there is still life to be lived."

Jim Howaniec, February 2022



"It is not Death that I fear, but rather the end of Life."

Jim Howaniec, February 2022

[JimHow]

I think Nietszche started doing this shit like 150 years ago... before he went insane....

[marcs]

Tell me what you think of my answer to your question above.

[JimHow]

I read your thoughtful answer very carefully, Marcus, and I have an answer, but I’m going to go to bed first. But I will give you an answer.

[Chateau Vin]

While you're contemplating that, let me ask you a question.

What's worse:

1. Someone who "gets away with murder" after a trial, or

2. Someone who is convicted of murder by a dirty cop who lies on the witness stand?

Assume the facts above are true: (A) In one case, a sadistic, torturing rapist/murderer goes free after a fair trial, or (B) A person charged with a sadistic torture/rape/murder gets convicted, whether he did it or not, because a dirty cop lies on the stand.

Which is worse?

For me, the second case is worse.

In the first case, if it’s a fair trial and the murderer goes free, that means there is not enough evidence or can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is exactly what the law requires and shows that the justice system is working as designed.

In the second case, if the person is innocent or not innocent, but gets convicted because a cop lied on the witness stand, then it is more troublesome. It means that system can be manipulated by some people, which implies justice can’t be delivered equally to all people. Moreover, it shows that law is not being followed as it was intended to. That spells trouble for every one of us.

The end result of conviction for an actual murderer obtained through witness lying under oath, even if it’s the only means of obtaining a conviction, shows that it’s as bad as a jungle law. It’s not justice, but how that justice is obtained also matters.

In the first case, I can sleep well knowing that everyone is treated according to law. In the second case, I don’t have that peace of mind as I don’t have confidence in the judicial process.

P.S. But I can certainly understand the angle of moral intuition for some in the second case if the alleged is not innocent...

[AKR]

I was thinking that - after JimHow posed the question - how difficult it would be for me to compare Grand Mayne and Barde Haut, especially when thinking about which is better when its not a glass side by side.

Both are wines I like and have cellared in some years. A long time ago these were all probably considered on the richer, bigger side of the AOC. But perhaps now they are not so much, compared to some other properties (Perse etc.)

[JimHow]

I always thought Grand Mayne was a notch or two above Barde Haut in status but now I'm not so sure. It definitely doesn't seem like a very age worthy wine.

[JimHow]

Marcus:

Yes just to clarify, rephrase my question...

Assume for a moment that Joe Smith ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME OF MURDER....
(I'm not saying my client did here, he has denied it from the beginning, although there is certainly evidence that connects him to the crime scene.)
But just assume, for a moment, that Joe Smith ACTUALLY committed a murder...

What is worse....

1. Joe Smith, who actually committed the murder, is found not guilty; or

2. Joe Smith, who actually committed the murder, is found guilty not because the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather because a crooked cop fudged evidence and Joe, who actually committed the murder, gets convicted.

It sounds like your answer would be #1 is worse....

(Not so saying there is any right answer, but my answer would be #2 is worse.)

[JoelD]

I really like how you clarified this question, Jim. It makes it easier to debate in my head.

I totally respect your side and agree with it because the system matters. But the system is also broken in many ways right?

Here's my follow up question that would make me able to confidently choose an answer. I still can't as it's posed currently.

Can we guarantee that Joe Smith will never do anything like this again? No serious felonies, definitely not rape or murder? If so, then I agree that number 2 is worse. If not, then I would argue that number 1 is.

In relation to your case, it sounds like we could basically guarantee this, but I don't know enough to say for sure.

[JimHow]

I would say assume he is a danger, Joel (even though my client is not).
I just think we can't have dirty cops, no matter what.
Once we start tolerating that we are going down a dark road.

[JoelD]

I would say assume he is a danger, Joel (even though my client is not).
I just think we can't have dirty cops, no matter what.
Once we start tolerating that we are going down a dark road.

That's a fair point. I didn't factor the possibility of the cops doing that do other innocent people.

That does make me rethink my position, however that just puts me back at a dead 50/50. It doesn't push me to the other side. It is hard for me to decide what is worse between a potential murderer, murdering again. Vs cops lying and potentially convicting innocent (or more likely guilty people)

As an aside. In your opinion/experience: What percentage of people accused of murder, to the point of actually getting past a grand jury, are actually guilty of the crime? I know this is a tough thing to gauge but I would love to hear your best guess on this if you could.

[marcs]

I always respected Grand Mayne because my only experience with them has been their 2000, which I thought was really good and punched well above its weight. It is still going strong too, I think I have a TN on it posted here from sometime within the last two years.

On the "Joe Smith" criminal question, the dirty cop concern and the effect that might have on later innocent suspects is the one thing that switches my intuition about which is worse, the guilty person going free or the guilty person being convicted because of a procedural violation. Without that I tend to feel like the guilty person going free is worse, although I recognize this is a problematic intuition.

Note that this is a classic setup for a thousand Hollywood police procedurals which shows that it is a question that people truly feel conflicted about. Let me ask Jim his intuition for what the classic Hollywood setup would be. Suppose that the "dirty" cop who breaks the rules is generally a good and ethical person, but KNOWS for certain that the guilty person is guilty, perhaps because of some evidence that is not admissible. So the cop faces the choice between bending the rules and letting a person he KNOWS is guilty go free. He is ethnically conflicted, promises himself he'll never do it again, but breaks the rules because he KNOWS this guy is really guilty. Does that change your intuition?

I would tend to think that Jim's intuition is better informed than my own since he is a real part of the criminal justice system where the rest of us aren't. He understands and feels intuitively the dangers of the system being corrupted. Those of us don't work in the system don't have a visceral sense of the importance of procedure, but we do have a visceral sense that it's bad to be a murderer, hence our intuition of "fuck procedures, convict the murderer". But the truth is it's very rare to KNOW someone is guilty and all too easy once the system is corrupted to argue yourself into the idea they are. Of course, the system is already far from perfect regardless of this single cop violating the rules -- another trope Hollywood uses to set up these movies.

[Dom_P]

I think Nietszche started doing this shit like 150 years ago... before he went insane....

This made me spit up my coffee...

I've really enjoyed this thread, Jim... thanks.

As for what is worse, in my opinion, it's #2. That said, neither is a great outcome. But, that is how our system is designed, and while it has its flaws (as described in both hypotheticals), it has generally served us well up to this point

[marcs]

(I'm not saying my client did here, he has denied it from the beginning, although there is certainly evidence that connects him to the crime scene.)
But just assume, for a moment, that Joe Smith ACTUALLY committed a murder...

Side question re your client -- I thought the only evidence was his DNA in her body, that there wasn't actually evidence that connected him directly to the crime scene where she was killed? (The gun clearly wasn't the murder weapon).

[AKR]

I've tasted Grand Mayne in a lot of their good/great vintages, although probably not older than age 20, and I never found them faded. I pulled a 2000 from the offsite a few weeks ago and am looking forward to checking it out.

It is always so amazing how well good Bordeaux keeps it fruit and evolves over time, even when they are not the glamour properties. One expects this from rates Ausone or Cheval Blanc command, and its such a lovely surprise to get such long runners in other carefully made St Emilion.

[JimHow]

That’s a nuanced question and answer, Marcus, the gun they presented in court was clearly not the gun, we tried to keep that out of the trial but the judge ruled against us, we feel that’s an appeal issue. Also, my client’s statements were played in court, he denied knowing her, that was used against him. At one point he said he wanted a lawyer, so about 2 hours of the three hours of interviews should have been suppressed due to what we thought was a pretty clear Miranda violation. Otherwise, the evidence was pretty weak. They made an issue of the lack of drainage of semen but, man, I just thought they never were able to quantify the amount of sperm and thus never were able to establish that the sexual contact occurred contemporaneous with the homicide. They found three sperm molecules a month after the homicide in 1993, then about 300 more six years later in 1999… out of an ejaculation of between 40 and 900 million. There was a sideshow about flagella and how quickly sperm tails degrade in the acidic environment of the vagina, but I don’t think any of that hurt us. I think in the end the jury struggled with his denial of knowing her… Let this be a lesson to all…. Don’t EVER talk to law enforcement if you suspect you are being investigated for a crime. Just politely tell them you want to talk to a lawyer. You have an absolute right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[JimHow]

Note that this is a classic setup for a thousand Hollywood police procedurals which shows that it is a question that people truly feel conflicted about. Let me ask Jim his intuition for what the classic Hollywood setup would be. Suppose that the "dirty" cop who breaks the rules is generally a good and ethical person, but KNOWS for certain that the guilty person is guilty, perhaps because of some evidence that is not admissible. So the cop faces the choice between bending the rules and letting a person he KNOWS is guilty go free. He is ethnically conflicted, promises himself he'll never do it again, but breaks the rules because he KNOWS this guy is really guilty. Does that change your intuition?

Yeah, most cases don't involve planting evidence, or cowboy cops out of a Grisham novel or Will Smith movie. But that's the problem.... It's much more nuanced. A little fibbing here, a little exaggeration there, let's not tell anyone about this over here... And next thing you know, an innocent man is sent to death row. There are several hundred documented cases of wrongfully accused being put to death in this country, not to mention the thousands, mostly minority and poor, who have been wrongfully incarcerated for anywhere from one day to life. Part of the problem is we don't know what we don't know. We got an initial dump of discovery of 2,800 pages in this case. After we dug a little deeper, we got another 5,500 pages -- a year and a half after my client was arrested -- that, oops, I guess they were just never planning on sending us. My associate Jesse Archer is good at digging this stuff out. We still don't feel we have everything relevant in this case, and our post-verdict motions have already begun to address what we think was a bad cop lead detective in this case. No, I've seen too many bad cops. I truly believe one of the main reasons why we won that Walmart shooting murder trial last September was because the jury was so disgusted by the incompetence and malfeasances of the Maine State Police, which I have battled for decades and consider to be a rogue agency that should be investigated by the feds. The cowboys we dealt with in Alaska may have been even worse. Ah well, I don't want to whine. In general, the judge gave us a relatively fair trial. We do think we were harmed by some of his pretrial rulings, which we will take up in the Alaska appellate courts, and, quite possibly, SCOTUS itself.

[Nicklasss]

I Like your comment on that 2005, that seems very 2005 classic overdone a bit Grand Mayne. The 2015 Grand Mayne is excellent, even if 15% alcohol, because can't really feel it. This is a good thing as i have just received my 2018 (yeah) and they are all 14.5 % except my two Saint Estèphe that are 15 %.

Regarding your two cases, and which one is the worst, i guess it is hard to say because in both cases people are lying, and lies just serve dishonest people. That being a murderer that lie to be not guilty, or a policeman that lie to have someone guilty. In both cases, the dishonest person is successful, and will continue to think they can do it all the time...

Another dilemma on which is worst:

A. Lynch Bages becoming a Deuxième Cru Classé because some people and market prices believe it is?

B. Ausone and Cheval Blanc quit Saint Émilion classification because Angélus became Premier Grand Cru Classé A and Valandraud became Premier Grand Cru Classé B, because some people and market prices believe they are?

[DavidG]

While you're contemplating that, let me ask you a question.

What's worse:

1. Someone who "gets away with murder" after a trial, or

2. Someone who is convicted of murder by a dirty cop who lies on the witness stand?

Assume the facts above are true: (A) In one case, a sadistic, torturing rapist/murderer goes free after a fair trial, or (B) A person charged with a sadistic torture/rape/murder gets convicted, whether he did it or not, because a dirty cop lies on the stand.

Which is worse?

For me, the second case is worse.

In the first case, if it’s a fair trial and the murderer goes free, that means there is not enough evidence or can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is exactly what the law requires and shows that the justice system is working as designed.

In the second case, if the person is innocent or not innocent, but gets convicted because a cop lied on the witness stand, then it is more troublesome. It means that system can be manipulated by some people, which implies justice can’t be delivered equally to all people. Moreover, it shows that law is not being followed as it was intended to. That spells trouble for every one of us.

The end result of conviction for an actual murderer obtained through witness lying under oath, even if it’s the only means of obtaining a conviction, shows that it’s as bad as a jungle law. It’s not justice, but how that justice is obtained also matters.

In the first case, I can sleep well knowing that everyone is treated according to law. In the second case, I don’t have that peace of mind as I don’t have confidence in the judicial process.

P.S. But I can certainly understand the angle of moral intuition for some in the second case if the alleged is not innocent...

This is exactly how I see it. I wouldn’t change a word.

My opinion doesn’t change even if I possess a magical ability to look into the future and know that the murderer who gets a not guilty verdict in scenario 1 will kill again. What matters most is equal justice for all. We are miles away from that in the US, and are moving even farther from it in many jurisdictions.

[Racer Chris]

I think morally, Nic is right. They are the same. But in terms of American jurisprudence, 2 is worse.

[DavidG]

Chris,

From an individual perspective, I still think 2 is worse. I hold law enforcement to a higher standard than criminals, making the officer’s lie more consequential.

From a societal perspective, we agree that 2 is worse.

[JoelD]

Chris,

From an individual perspective, I still think 2 is worse. I hold law enforcement to a higher standard than criminals, making the officer’s lie more consequential.

From a societal perspective, we agree that 2 is worse.

I wonder. To pose a follow up to this. Where do elected officials lying and doing things that affect the masses negatively fall into these standards? Does it apply to the prosecutors as well?

Sometimes I just feel like life is a big game and everyone does whatever they can get away with to win. So while I actually agree with you about holding cops to a higher standard, I just wonder how this carries over to elsewhere in society.

[DavidG]

Don’t get me started on elected officials…

As to the game of life, George Harrison nailed it in 1970:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seqaTuXkqFI

[JimHow]

There’s good cops and bad, good politicians and bad, etc.

Problem is, who polices the police.

[marcs]

Having a 2000 Grand Mayne with dinner right now, and wow is it good. Unfortunately I have a slight cold/case of the sniffles so some subtleties are lost on me, but I can tell that the texture and smoothness are excellent and it has classic soft merlot flavors with nothing overdone. Body is just the right weight for an aged Bordeaux, not too heavy and not too light. No fireworks but so comfortable and well done, like perfect slippers or a well worn baseball glove. Not like an OFFICIAL 95 POINT WINE but just such a perfect Tuesday night aged Right bank Bordeaux

[JimHow]

Amen, my brother.
The 1998 and 2000 Grand Mayne are superb.
Unfortunately, those may be the heights of that estate?

[Nicklasss]

The 2015 is a very good Saint Émilion too. Stays in control in that vintage.

[AKR]

13.5% abv, regular length natural cork, typical level of sediment, purchased on release, 58F serving....almost 50F lower than outside temps!

to compare color this is presented in a smaller stem, full mature garnet at core with orange rims

marcs motivated me to pull a 2000 Grand Mayne [St Emilion] as mentioned upthread, and this has been delightful the last two days. In casita AKR, this is a nice weekend wine beyond midweek kitchen quaffers so I feel the older wines are worth polishing glasses and the contemplation of decanting. In the end I decided to just pour it through a Vinetto on the first night, and allow the natural breathing of the half empty bottle for the second night. The bouquet is complex: fennel, iodine, seaweed leading into a palate that is on the plummy side. Depending on how sensitive one is to sur maturite, maybe one might find prunes on the palate too (I thought there were hints of it on the second night). There is fruit depth here, far more than some more stern 2000's I've had in recent years. The tannins have melted away, and the acidity is aligned with the fruit but it drinks very well on its own. The texture is of a mature full bodied wine which has shed its precipitates, so no chewy youthfulness, but it does not yet 'glide' like the elite finesse right bank wines. This would have been a very fun rhubarb flavored wine to discuss with the BWE West Coast cadre since it seems like so many of them have a long history with the property. Tough wine to grade: for my tastes it sits at that cruel knifepoint between a B+ and A-, but I'm sure I would have notched it higher five years ago. I don't see it fading at all, but unless there is a compelling reason (one of those long planned but never consummated verticals, year of significance, Voodoo curse etc.) consider bumping the 2000 up in the drinking queue.

Having a 2000 Grand Mayne with dinner right now, and wow is it good. Unfortunately I have a slight cold/case of the sniffles so some subtleties are lost on me, but I can tell that the texture and smoothness are excellent and it has classic soft merlot flavors with nothing overdone. Body is just the right weight for an aged Bordeaux, not too heavy and not too light. No fireworks but so comfortable and well done, like perfect slippers or a well worn baseball glove. Not like an OFFICIAL 95 POINT WINE but just such a perfect Tuesday night aged Right bank Bordeaux

[JimHow]

You guys liked the 2005 Grande Mayne much more than I did. For the most part I found it flabby. I have one bottle left. I don’t know whether yo double blanquito it or throw it into the river.

[Comte Flaneur]

By dint of coincidence, on the way back from my trip to Wales I stopped by at a friend’s country house to pick up some of my wine I had stored in his cellar since about 2008. It was my last chance as he is about to move to Scotland.

Among those wines was two bottles of Ch. Grand Mayne 2005. My favourite vintages of this wine were the 1989 and the 1990 which used to sell in the once ubiquitous UK wine store Oddbins for an ‘Ayrton Senna’ - £9.99 to be precise.

Also two bottles of Ducru 2003, two bottles of La Conseillante 2004 and five bottles of Clos de L’Oratoire 1998…but also the wine I am most looking forward to trying, five bottles of Bernard Baudry Chinon La Croix Boissee 2009

I will report back on the Grand Mayne on this thread. I don’t expect to like it very much, but I expect to like it more than the Clos L’Oratoire 1998, which I expect to be on the downslope. It is always good to keep your expectations in check.