To be convinced of something doesn't mean that you know that thing. It means you firmly believe it. If you are convinced there is a God, that means you firmly believe it, not that you KNOW that there is one. I have never said anything about KNOWING anyone was guilty about anything. People are convicted of being guilty when they aren't, people are found innocent when they are guilty. What the jury determines doesn't necessarily affect my opinion, although it can. Usually I haven't formed an opinion in advance, contrary to what you may have inferred. But in certain cases I have come to my own conclusion regardless of whether there is a trial, or the person was found not guilty, or whatever. You really haven't told me anything I don't already know. Probably most people in certain cases decide for themselves whether they think someone is guilty or not. Whether the trial determines the same thing probably won't affect their opinion unless information is released in the trial that wasn't initially available.
Here's a good example--a man has been accused of killing his wife and 9 month old daughter at their home in Massachusetts recently. It made the news all over the UK and here in Boston because he was from the UK and he met his wife when she was studying abroad. There hasn't been a trial yet. The general consensus, as well as my opinion, is that he is guilty. There is very little that can happen that would convince me otherwise. I don't think that is a bad thing. That's all I'm trying to say. --- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, I see what you meant about the Peterson thing. > > The verdict of "Not Guilty" means that the state has failed to prove the > case it set out to prove. The person very well could have committed the > crime with which s/he has been charged, but the state failed in their > burden. The person could also have been innocent of the crime in question. > > To answer your question 'guilty' people sometimes receive the verdict of > 'Not Guilty'. I was always talking about the ramifications of your > attitude on societal strucures that are set up to temper the instincts of > mob justice and the abuse of the power of the state over its citizens. > > Now, if you believe that there's a Grand Accounting in the End, then we are > talking about an entirely different set of rules, with which I am > unfamiliar. > > On 8/13/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I meant I thought Scott Petersen was guilty prior to the trial, not > > that the jury also believed he was gu ilty 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]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > <hjrobinson@> 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 <ellengoodman6@> 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> > > <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> > > <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> > > > > <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> > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <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/
