I meant I thought Scott Petersen was guilty prior to the trial, not that the jury also believed he was guilty prior to the trial. I don't know if they did or not. What I meant is, it is cool that they found him guilty at the trial, which jived with my initial assumption. I guess my basic question is, if the trial determines that someone isn't guilty, does that mean they aren't?
--- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, there's clearly a language gap going on. You are using words that I > take to mean one thing and using them with a definition I don't wholly > accept. > > e.g. Guilt: the concept of guilt is not the same as sin or accountability. > It is closely linked with the law of a state and customs of a people. There > must be a crime to have guilt. You cannot know another person's guilt of a > crime without evidence. Of which you only have the word of govenrment > officials. (BTW, it's NOT cool that the jury thought Scott Peterson was > guilty beforehand. It severely compromises his right to a fair trial. His > motion to be moved to another locality was rejected because it was not > believed that he could receive a fair trial anywhere in the state of > California.) > > know, believe, think and feel - you used them all interchangably in your > second to last response. You are welcome to believe, think or feel all you > want that the people arrested in connection to this plot are guilty. You > are welcome to an opinion. But you don't know. You can't know. > > I wish to say that I have no reason to doubt that there was a plot, and that > the various governments had good reason to suspect the people arrested. But > as human beings tried under British or international law, they are entitled > to a fair trial. And a fair trial depends upon the presumption of innocence > until the state has proven guilt. > > Do I think you're being unreasonable? Yes, in the sense that I don't see a > lot of logic in your responses. I think you want your feelings to be > validated by the group, and some of us responded to your statements at face > value and engaged you in a discussion when that's not really what you > wanted. As for the validation, my earlier response about gratitude and > celebration pretty much is the antithesis of what you feel. So I cannot > offer it. However, I'm certain there are other people on the group who do > feel the same way as you do. > > On 8/13/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@> > > 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]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "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> > > <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> > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > "denisesudell" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <dsudell7781@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > <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/
