Is the consensus truly that I'm being unreasonable to think that these people are guilty of planning a plot to blow up 10 planes over the Atlantic? If you really think I'm being unreasonable to think this, I will take that under advisement.
--- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me try this again. I thought Scott Petersen was guilty in > advance. So did they jury, so that's cool. But I would have thought > he was guilty even if the jury didn't. I though OJ was guilty. The > jury didn't. I still think he's guilty. I think these people were > planning to explode 10 airplanes over the Atlantic. There hasn't been > a trial. I still think they're guilty. Who specifically? The > majority of the people who were arrested, plus a few others. I can > come to the conclusion that someone is guilty without a trial, or even > if the trial says otherwise. It won't necessarily change how I feel. > I mean it might, but it won't automatically. People often know who > murdered people, even if the police don't have enough evidence to > bring someone to trial. They know who is guilty, even if there is no > trial. I truly believe that just because you may not have enough > evidence to bring someone to trial or win or whatever doesn't mean you > don't think they did it. I was pretty sure the DC snipers did it, > even before they went to trial. I'm sure I'm not alone. And I don't > think it is a bad thing, necessarily. It's not illegal to have an > opinion. I don't think it is necessary to jump down my throat just > because I think these guys were planning to blow up 10 planes over the > Atlantic, even though they haven't had a trial yet. No it hasn't been > proven, but I think they did it anyway. So did the government of both > the US and the UK, obviously, along with Pakistan and a few other > countries. We'll see how this plays out, but I haven't read anything > to make me believe otherwise yet. Sure if I had been on the OJ trial > I would have been more than happy to tell them in advance that I think > he did it. I would have been kicked off the jury. Oh well. Boy > getting out of jury duty is easier than I thought, I don't even have > to lie! If I don't know whether the person did it or not I wouldn't > say they did just to get out of jury duty, but if I have already > formed an opinion you bet I would say so. Sometimes whether a person > did it or not isn't the issue, but whether it was intentional or if > they were aware of what they were doing or whatever. Like Andrea > Yates. So that's a different story. > > > --- In [email protected], "Daria Akers" > <daria.akers@> wrote: > > > > "If someone watches someone else murder a third person, and says > > that's who did it, I'm pretty sure they're guilty, regardless of what > > the trial says" > > Are you kidding? 3 people are in a room. 1 died. Person A says > Person B did > > it and you believe them. What if Person B says Person A did it at > the same > > time. Or you didn't mean that? > > > > All I have to say is: > > 1) I find it hard to believe I'm alone in this.- I unfortunately > agree with > > you. I believe a lot of people rush to judgement before all the > facts are > > know. > > 2) I hope that if you truly have these feeling and you are ever > called for > > jury duty that you would be open and honest about them. > > > > I also think that nothing we say to you about this will change your > mind.... > > But I believe that every day there are people incorrectly jailed because > > they are railroaded by prosecutors and the police. Don't believe it? > Check > > out http://www.innocenceproject.org/ > > > > Daria > > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > OK do you believe someone or multiple people are guilty of this > plot? > > > I do, and I want them to rot in hell. You want them to rot in jail. > > > I think jail often doesn't do the trick, especially for something > > > like this. I never said they don't need a trial. I just meant I don't > > > need a trial for me to believe that they're guilty. I believe OJ was > > > guilty. The trial didn't prove he was guilty, but I still believe he > > > was guilty. If Scott Petersen had been found not guilty I would have > > > still believed he was guilty. I find it hard to believe I'm alone in > > > this. If someone watches someone else murder a third person, and says > > > that's who did it, I'm pretty sure they're guilty, regardless of what > > > the trial says. So I rush to judgment. What I think doesn't really > > > matter in the long run. I can think these people are guilty as hell. > > > What the trial says won't change my opinion. If there isn't enough > > > evidence to convict someone that doesn't necessarily change the fact > > > that I think they're guilty. > > > > > > --- In > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The operative word in your quote is 'prove'. The only way to 'prove' > > > > someone's guilt is in court. Using evidence. A confession cannot > > > be the > > > > whole sum of evidence. An investigation must still be done to > > > correlate the > > > > information, because sometimes people make false confessions or lie > > > about > > > > pertinent facts in their confessions. And sometimes the police beat > > > people > > > > into false confessions. > > > > > > > > A trial is not needed to determine punishment. A trial is to > > > determine the > > > > guilt or innocence of the person charged with a specific crime. The > > > > determination of punishment is the sentencing, which happens after a > > > person > > > > is convicted of the crime with which s/he has been charged. > > > > > > > > You have an awful lot of faith in the state. But if the state is not > > > > obligated to prove it's case before an impartial judge and jury, the > > > > potential for abuse already inherent in the system becomes a solid > > > reality. > > > > We have to have the balance of the trial process and the protections > > > of a > > > > defense. It is vital for a stable democratic society to have > > > protections > > > > for its citizens against the predations of its government. THAT is > > > why we > > > > have the rule of law. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I said, " I'm getting the impression that they have good reason to > > > > > > > > > > believe the majority of them are guilty. Sorry, I'm convinced. You > > > > > don't need a trial to prove someone is guilty." You said you are > > > > > using guilt and evidence interchangeably. So guilt can be > determined > > > > > prior to the trial? I agree a trial is needed to determine > > > > > punishment, but sometimes it isn't needed to determine guilt. > How can > > > > > there be instances of overwhelming guilt without a trial? I still > > > > > think people can be determined to be guilty without a trial. > > > > > Determining punishment maybe not, but determining guilt yes. > Hmm, I > > > > > wonder if OJ would have had a trial to determine guilt if he > had said > > > > > yes I killed my ex-wife and Ron Goldman that night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > [email protected] > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant guilt and evidence interchangably. You still have to > have a > > > > > trial. > > > > > > As for the terrorists rotting in hell? I'll take rotting in a > > > maximum > > > > > > security prison for the rest of their natural lives - provided > > > they are > > > > > > convicted in as fair a trial as is possible under the > circumstances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I started writing this before, but I couldn't quite > say it the > > > > > way I > > > > > > wanted. I am not angry that a plot was thwarted. I am incredibly > > > happy > > > > > > that a plot was thwarted, particularly as it was due primarily > > > to legal > > > > > > surveillance and communication across several countries. > Good solid > > > > > police > > > > > > work and international cooperation meant that hundreds of people > > > > > kept their > > > > > > lives. So nobody died, and it turns out we now have proof that > > > we don't > > > > > > need to sacrifice personal liberty and the rule of law to be > safe. > > > > > These > > > > > > are things to celebrate. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I went and saw "Little Miss Sunshine." Effing hilarious. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > did you mean overwhelming guilt, or overwhelming evidence? I > > > think I > > > > > > > may have worded my original statement incorrectly. Not "those > > > people > > > > > > > they arrested" but "the people who did it." It's possible they > > > > > > > arrested innocent people, and even more likely that not > everyone > > > > > > > involved was arrested, but I have no doubt there was a plot, > > > and the > > > > > > > people who were planning it should rot in hell, whether > they are > > > > > > > convicted or not. Is that better? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh. I'm going to bullet-point this one: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) No one's arguing that these people were arrested without > > > cause. > > > > > > > We're > > > > > > > > taking exception with your implied belief that a trial is > > > > > unnecessary in > > > > > > > > instances of overwhelming guilt. The rule of law > dictates that a > > > > > person > > > > > > > > suspected of a crime be charged under the stated laws of the > > > land > > > > > > > and that > > > > > > > > the state must marshall evidence to prove beyond a > > > reasonable doubt > > > > > > > that the > > > > > > > > person under trial has in fact committed those crimes and > > > should be > > > > > > > punished > > > > > > > > for them. The burden of proof is on the state, not on the > > > > > > > defendant. And > > > > > > > > it's certainly not in the court of public opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Claiming responsibility (i.e confessing) is not proof in > > > and of > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > > that the group was behind it. There are many reasons why an > > > > > > > organization > > > > > > > > might claim false credit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) A criminal trial should follow the dictates I set out > > > earlier. > > > > > > > The farce > > > > > > > > that is Saddam's trial should not be held up as an > example of a > > > > > working > > > > > > > > system of justice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) In the article cited, the writer does not use the word > > > > > 'allegedly' > > > > > > > > because the word 'suspect' is used appropriately to > describe the > > > > > > > individuals > > > > > > > > arrested and accused of the crime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that you're upset, but you're also wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/12/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, am I the only one who is pretty sure that at least > some of > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > people did something wrong? This is pretty extreme action > > > if they > > > > > > > > > didn't. Tough call, I know, but if they had blown > themselves > > > > > up they > > > > > > > > > would have been pretty guilty and there still wouldn't > > > have been a > > > > > > > > > trial. I read some group claimed responsibility. If a > > > group takes > > > > > > > > > responsibility for something, they are pretty much > admitting > > > > > they did > > > > > > > > > it without a trial. Sometimes a trial is just to determine > > > > > > > > > punishment, not prove guilt. Did Saddam Hussein go to > trial to > > > > > > > > > determine if he was guilty or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053_pf.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed an unusual absence of the word "allegedly" > in this > > > > > article, > > > > > > > > > usually used when reporters don't want to be accused > of making > > > > > false > > > > > > > > > accusations. They seem pretty sure that these people were > > > planning > > > > > > > > > something big. If you really think I'm jumping to > > > conclusions, I'm > > > > > > > > > willing to entertain that possibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's kind of the whole point of a trial, Ellen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/11/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm getting the impression that they have good > reason to > > > > > > > believe the > > > > > > > > > > > majority of them are guilty. Sorry, I'm convinced. You > > > don't > > > > > > > need a > > > > > > > > > > > trial to prove someone is guilty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > "denisesudell" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <dsudell7781@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Those people they arrested should rot in hell. > . . . > > > > > Yes it's > > > > > > > > > > > > possible they arrested some people that were > innocent, > > > > > but I am > > > > > > > > > > > > certain they aren't all innocent. . . . This is > sick and > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > > > deserve whatever is coming to them." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Boy, if I ever get arrested and charged with a > crime, I > > > > > hope you > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > > serve on the jury. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weingartenchatters/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
