--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote:
> > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of multiple women. Each had > > their own "events". Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that several different events > happened, apparently always in private. Still not anything more than he-said, > she-said. > > > Lawson Using he said she said in this context is an interesting demonstration of the quality of "shaping" that our minds do unconsciously when dealing with cherished beliefs. This is not a case of "he said she said", it is an example of "she said". We don't have the strength of Maharishi's denial on the other side do we? And yet it felt like we did, didn't it? Your strong mental bias added it. And if you had it for real, it would have been a stronger case of Maharishi's possible innocence in the form of "he said she said". What we have in Judith's account is more like an historical record. She does attempt to include some supporting evidence that you might find in a sex story. People seeing her going to Maharishi's room in the middle of the night, people who saw her clothes disheveled when exiting. And if this was a crime rather than an account of her own personal history with Maharishi those people would be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath. I'd love to hear Jerry on the stand under those conditions. But that isn't going to happen both because Maharishi is dead and because this was not a crime. It was an ethical violation and abuse of Maharishi's position over her as well as an indication that Maharishi was not who he presented himself to be and who he directed his closest people to be, sexless. So if you read her account you would judge it as you judge any other historical record. But your attempts to make it seem as if you can write it off without reading it because of he said she said is nonsense. You just don't want to read it. Fair enough. Your choice. But assessing credibility ahead of time just reveals how our minds protect cherished beliefs from counter evidence. You are not upholding some principle of not taking he said she said stories seriously. Thank goodness prosecutors don't allocate their time according to this simplistic standard or we would never convict child molesters. And in those cases you actually DO have HE said she said. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of sparaig > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:02 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was > > Re:Two...questions from Turq] > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > The degree of evidence imo doesn't rise to the level of a criminal > > conviction; (unanimous agreement among jurors); but rather a "preponderance" > > of evidence as in civil cases. (or the ancient Roman system which had a mere > > majority for "guilty"). I'd say guilty, 95% but why bring this up again and > > again. It's about as water under the bridge as "Weiner-gate". and no longer > > of much interest. imo. > > > > I haven't read the book, and don't intend to, but for "preponderance of > > evidence" to apply, you would need more than one witness to the events > > because the consisted of personal interactions of two parties. There's no > > stained shirt, for example. > > > > > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of multiple women. Each had > > their own "events". Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that several different events > happened, apparently always in private. Still not anything more than he-said, > she-said. > > > Lawson >
