[WhiteDove]

GarthP2000, on Jan 18 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

And speaking of juries and persons in related areas (ie., lawyers, judges, and the like), in many (if not all) of the cases/situations of the alleged rapes/sexual abuses in TWI (since you and I know that is what we all here are alluding to), verbal/visual witnesses (mainly the victims themselves) _have been_ regarded as valid and 'documentable' sources that have been validated claims, enough to make a conviction stand. You show any lawyer/prosecuting attorney all the verbal/eye witnesses illustrated here on Greasespot, and ask them if they have a solid enough case to present to a jury, and I'd be willing to bet even $$$money$$$ that _all_ of them would respond with a resounding "Yes!"

I never said that they would not have a case to present, in fact I'm all in favour of one .But presentation and guilty is a far far space apart. Do I hear OJ....... Personal testimony without facts would last about.... yep that long.....

You, on the other hand, have failed _miserably_ to prove to any of us here why all the claims of rape/sexual abuse are without merit (and not meeting the legal standard of proof), your claims of them "not being backed up by facts" notwithstanding. ... Totally. Hell, and I'm not even an attorney. (Are you?) But I do know, that if I were sitting on a jury of my peers, and I was presented the testimony presented here on GS, I would convict. ... in a heartbeat.

Now see There you go again ,why do you asume I think they are without merit? I don't recall that I stated that .What I said is they are not doccumentable. not the same.
(see above posts)
First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts. Each party will have their own first hand story. rarely does one coincide with another. Evidence helps in determining which is truthful. we have no factual evidence to compare with the testimony as such it is simply he said /she said.

No doubt you would convict based on an agenda.

This post has been edited by WhiteDove: 18 January 2009 - 07:32 PM

[GarthP2000]

Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony.

Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony?

Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts?

See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation.

BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would.

"First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts."

Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses.

Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm?

And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.

[Bolshevik]

yeah, you are all guilty of cult building and weirdo following.

[GarthP2000]

The only weirdo I follow is myself, thank you very much.

That way, I know how weird I can be.

[WhiteDove]

GarthP2000, on Jan 18 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony.

Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony?

Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts?

It's simple show me a guilty charge in a court of law and you can pronounce a man as so until then they are innocent, thats the law.

See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation.

BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would.


hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies Please .........

"First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts."

Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses.

Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm?


I think we had that discussion here Some people are of the opinion that families of dead people can't file lawsuits.

And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.

By the way this has nothing to do with torturing dogs which is the subject so now back to our regularly scheduled program.

This post has been edited by WhiteDove: 19 January 2009 - 05:57 AM