WhiteDove

This is starting to sound a good bit more like dialog from a Monty Python movie than a rational discussion.

Well I can't control that you insert statements that are misleading, misquoting, and have no point to the subject perhaps if you stop and read before you engage it will save us all some time ,then again when one can not prove their point it is the tactic to try to confuse the issue here.

I wanted to misrepresent things?...How so? If something is a fact it's a fact...whether it's a crime or whether it's a dog crapping on the lawn (which, by the way...is a crime in certain areas)...if you witness it firsthand, it's a fact...in a court of law...no...it's a fact to the person who witnessed it.

Nobody is claiming that Wierwille was convicted of a crime...they are simply stating that they witnessed something and that makes it a fact to them...I'm sure you understand that...right?

For example...If you personally witnessed ANYTHING (crime or otherwise)...it would be a fact to you...am I wrong?

Really? cause you might look just up a few posts Rascal post #86 to see that apparently someone has and does not care if I like it.

I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not

So much for your point ,I can find lots more by the way this one was just too easy.

"If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules."

Please supply a specific example.

I think you're blowing smoke with semantic trivia.

It's obvious to most who read your posts what you are implying whether you use the words "guilt" and "innocence" or not.

I gave you an example in the above post. And What you assume is not necessarily the truth that's why they call it assume. I have implied nothing actually gone out of the way to post numerous times what I said it's clear to read you simply misrepresent it. Unless you can show me a place were you read where I made any claim of innocent then you have no logical reason to submit it as logical

"I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable"

I'm not sure how you can cite things that have been documented here and characterize them as being undocumented.

Because they have nothing but someones words to document them. Anybody can state anything I can say peanut butter,or guilty, it means nothing without proof.

By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?

Yes, that is a misrepresentation---but not on my part.

This is what I actually posted.

"Maybe it's just me.

Sometimes I see a post that's written almost entirely in one color ink, such as blue, and my mind wants to pass it right by.Kinda like a bad wreck on the freeway that I really have no desire to even glance at.I guess these old eyes just don't want to be bothered with the strain these days."

Actually it was on your part......

Pass it right by ,no desire to even glance at /sounds like ignoring to me by definition

ignore   

–verb (used with object), -nored, -nor⋅ing. 1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing: to ignore insulting remarks.

issues of libel and the law have already been addressed.

now seems like a good idea to give a real definition of "evidence", because WD persists in pushing his made-up definition (I just love how twi does that, don't you?)

from American Heritage:

ev·i·dence n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

2. To support by testimony; attest.

oh, and how about:

guilt·y adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est

1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.

2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.

3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience.

4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret.

obviously, WD takes only the definition he likes, and adjusts it to make his argument seem the correct one.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion ,unless you have not read as I have written. But I'll be happy to correct your assumption. First I have never said testomony was not evidence, what I have said was it was not automatic proof of guilt just because someone says so, Like all forms of evidence it must first be admissible and then procede through the measures of law to challenge and prove truth or not.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

There are many issues that surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtle nature, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

I suppose I could "cut and paste" a definition for you but what would be the point?

You already know what it would say.

If you want to continue presuming Wierwille was innocent of actions that have been recounted here by first hand testimony, that's your choice. In my opinion, though, what you are trying to do is virtually the same thing that has been done to rape victims, time and time again, in court. If you can't stand to hear people speak evil of your hero, maybe you should invest in some cotton balls and stick them in your ears. It doesn't sound like the healthiest of solutions but to each his own.

If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules. I think you will see noted that I have never rendered any words of guilt or innocent, I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable.

By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?

You know what they say WD. . . the best defense against libel is. . . . drumroll. . . tell the truth! :)

Repeat after me. . . limited public figure. . . extra burden of proof. . . a falsehood with malice.

It is not defamation if it is true. . . it doesn't have to proven in a court to be true. . . VP made himself a public figure. . . our dear father in the word. . . we all got burned one way or another.

The man of God for our day and time. Oh my goodness. . . I was in a cult.

I thought we covered the libel issues as well Potato but it seems that a refresher course is in order

Contrary to your theory that celebrities can't sue for libel it is quite clear that they can and do......You seem to think extra burden of proof means impossible to prove it does not, it happens all the time . So one would ask why would I want to repeat those things after you. They don't prove your point, they negate no libel issues. as evidenced by the documentation provided / as opposed to the documentation that you seem to miss providing to support your theory. Well other than I say so which counts as nothing.

Actress Stone sues plastic surgeon in La for libel

LOS ANGELES, Dec 15: Actress Sharon stone wants you to know her face is real.

So she has sued a Beverly hills plastic surgeon for defamation and libel for falsely claiming that he gave her a facelift.

Arthur Barens, lawyer for plastic surgeon Renato Calabria, says the star of "basic instinct" can relax. He said his client never represented to anyone that he performed plastic surgery on stone 46.

"All he has ever done is discuss vertical face surgery, a technique he innovated and articles have speculated that stone had the procedure," the lawyer said.

US weekly printed an article in an August issue headlined "did Sharon stone have surgery?" And in touch magazine had a similar piece quoting Calabria, although he refuses to comment on stone in the article.

According to the suit filed in Los Angeles superior court on Monday, "stone has never undergone a facelift in order to improve her physical appearance. ... Stone prides herself not only on her acting ability and other talents, but also on her natural physical appearance."

She is seeking unspecified damages. (AGENCIES)

Carol Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.

It is not defamation if it is true.

Indeed, but you are not allowed to determine what is and is not true, that is what the court decides in a libel case not you. No one gets to predetermine that something is true going into a case, otherwise there would be no cases.

You seem to be forgetting

Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

Who says you can't claim guilt in public comment? This is a made up standard you have set for everyone else here. There is no law that says we can't make a statement of guilt. Where is that law we are being held to??

There is no law that says we can't know something to be true unless a guilty verdict is rendered. There are no mind police stopping us from deciding for ourselves the truth of a matter. For some of us, credibility and eye witness accounts supporting each other, mingled with our own personal experience, are enough to decide what is true.

If it makes you feel better to call it "just" an opinion. . . do so. . . call it FRED if you like. Doesn't make it so. . . just makes it what YOU want to call it.

It in no way negates the reality behind the conclusion.

I don't really think I want to hear the other side of rape or drugging. It is pretty self-evident it is an evil and criminal act. The act speaks for itself. Loudly.

Now, if you are calling peoples accounts into question as to truthfulness. . . just say so. Quit hiding behind all this legalese.

We have a law against liblel

I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.

Now which is it again you seem to waver?, do we have to be geographicly present? or can we speak with just the accounts of friends to verify our point? By the way by the time you were just attending fellowships in 1979 I had more hours than I can count working at root locals, You have no idea of what you speak.

That is calling me a liar when referring to my experiences and testimony. Your silly word games don`t make it any less an insult to those of us whom have shared our experiences. Though your word games are a little more clever now, the loop holes that you find in the rules to obfuscate and call into question a persons honesty and integrity are not any less offensive.

Some of us actually got a life and developed some character after leaving the snake pit of twi.

I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.

No it is stating the truth! There is insufficient evidence to determine or render a decision of guilt in a crime either way. For that to happen one would need both sides of the story which we do not have for comparison. This indicates that no one is lying ,just the fact that the evidence is not there to make judgment. It is entirely possible that any statement may be true in nature, once proper evidence to render a decision is completed an answer may be forthcoming

What you and WD and a handful of others here don't get is that facts reside in the realm of reality. Whether you or I can prove it is another thing entirely. If there is crap on Groucho's lawn then there is whether you believe it or not and if there isn't then there isn't no matter what Groucho or anyone else may say.

Proving in a court of law does not make VPW a twisted pervert, he would have already been one if the claims are indeed true. If he or LCM were unable to be proven as sexual predators it would not necessarily mean that they were/are not sexual predators, only that there was not enough evidence to prove it. It works the same conversely. BUT, reality is reality regardless of what our faulty legal system determines. The number of people that have been falsely convicted including some that have been put to death or died in prison is appalling. The number of guilty disgusting excuses for human beings that walk out of a court room free is appalling as well. "Guilty until proven innocent" is as it says "in a court of law," protecting the accused from a number of potential injustices. That does not make one factually innocent of the act committed. If VP did the reprehensible acts that people testify of here, as I believe he did, then he is guilty of the act. That act may be a crime and he will never be convicted of the act in a criminal case, but that does not mean he is innocent of the acts. He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prision, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.

..;and that's a fact, Jack!

I can't make it any clearer

You are correct they may be guilty of an act ,but one can not claim guilt in public comment where no guilt is found. Which is why have consistently said that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. It is undocumentable you said it yourself, it is an if? Now everyone can offer opinion as to what they believe that If may or may not be. many will based on like or dislike. I choose not to speculate or guess. If and when due process produces a verdict then the IF will be clarified until that point it is an IF. Your post indicates that you have already made judgment.

He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prison, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.

I wonder how it is that you can do what no jury has done with assurance?

The people have spoken and loudly rejected such thinking.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

I am permitted to discuss any first person story related here. I don`t need to be qualified for that.....I am ALSO free to discuss how much I despise the rat bastard pig for what he did and for the damage his doctrine inflicted on innocent people in God`s name.

What I am not permitted to do is call any person here a liar or try to diminish the impact of their testimony by calling into question the veracity and integrity of their experiences related. Neither are you now that the rules have been clarified.

Then by your logic I can discuss any first person stories as evidence to the contrary without being present just as you were not. By the way I have never indicated anyone was a liar nor have I said I did not believe any testimony. What I have consistently said and you have consistently misrepresented is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. That is a correct statement. like it or not.

Hmmmm, I think I asked you how do you know I didn't. It was to cause you to consider that you make a great deal of assumption about truth everyday. NOT to make a false claim that I did.

Twist, twist, twist, where have I seen this tactic before? Where? Wait. . . it is coming to me. . . hang on. . . OH YEAH! Now I remember.

Twisted scripture. . . it is a learned tactic. . . just like the endless debates over words.

Shame on me for even trying to make a point to you. I know better. . .

Exactly why would I consider that you would do such ? You obviously believe what she says by your posts. There is an infinate amount of things one might do. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to think of every possibility that every human might or might not do then all and consider them.

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">By the way No it is doubtful that  free will contributions to charityor other free will decisions that one  may make,or not are considered extortion by legal definition.</span>

It's not a "free will" "offering" when the powers that be scrutinize your paycheck and your checkbook and you've been screamed at and scared silly about God leaving you! That IS extortion. And every one of us witnessed it first hand although in the beginning we didn't realize what it was.

Perhaps you did, but not everyone I know hundreds of people that would tell you the same. What happened in the 90s on excluded. I have heard here that things like that went on during that period but that was not the norm during the early years. No one ever scrutinized your paycheck and your checkbook.

Well, WD thanks so much for your permission. I don't NEED it. Nor does anyone here. You drew inference from my posts. In turn, I have done the same.

Rascal is quite credible.

You would make a lousy lawyer. . . judges smell BS a mile away. They also don't tolerate fools lightly.

It was a statement of fact, not permission You are free to do so.....

You can draw whatever conclusions from your experiance you want as opinion.

I never spoke to her credibility in my post, only to your suggestion that you conducted a lie detector test.

Speaking of judges smelling BS a mile away. Trying to prove your point by false claims is also not endearing to a judge

How do YOU know I "Want" to??? My posts? Did you read my posts and draw conclusions based on what is written? How do you know I have not submitted Rascal to a lie detector test??

What DO you really know?

You know what does it for me about VP. . . he fondled MY backside and told me what beautiful. . . well, not feet, I had. Now, since I was one of many young innocent girls paraded by him. . . I am thinking I was not alone.

The man was a PIG!

WD it is true. . . believe or don't . . .

Yes it is evident from your speech. that demenstrates intent

Then you would be prepared to offer such test as evience? I thought not

What we try to make up when e have no point......

You can draw whatever conclusions from your experiance you want as opinion.

Does this innocence thing hold up in Mexico?

How about Brazil? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? The U.K.?

This isn't a U.S. court, it's the "World Wide Web".

Get it? World wide. Opinions from around the globe.

I think it is you who don't get it Crimes are charged according to law, that in this case would be USA for any one would wish to attribute to VPW.

This contrary to your belief has nothing to do with the internet. Which is a place to post opinions not fact of guilt which have yet to be established

I have never attempted to silence anyone, what I have fought for is to call what is guilty, guilty, and that which is OPINION of guilt as such. When you have a charge ,due process of law, and verdict then you have guilt established. Until then although it may have occurred as a crime , there is no documented guilt. You can tell whatever story you want as long as you don't pass off your story as fact until it is.[/color]

Sure you have Dove, my story is a fact to me. I can talk about other folks stories that are facts for them. You are the one unqualified here to list any of that as opinion because it was never YOUR experience. You talk about your experience in your area in the programs that you participated in with the people that you interacted with.....I talk about mind, others here offer their experiences.....and together, we come up with a bigger picture of what twi was outside of any one small geographic area.

No you confirm guilt by reading other stories that you have no part in. you are unqualified here to list any of tha because it was never YOUR experience. You simply decide it was true because it fits with what you choose to believe.

In the presumed innocent thread, I was asked WHAT crimes I witnessed in twi.

I wonder, isn`t extortion a crime?

Is it not extortion when one is told that if you don`t give 15 % of your income that God won`t spit in your direction? To not tithe meant that satan had access to your family....

Is it extortion if you are told that you must accept screaming, physical abuse, obey all *suggestions* of another in order to be considered meak and allowed to stay within the boundaries of the hedge of God`s protection....

What about allowing leaders access into our homes, our finances, even our sex lives.....because God required it?

Is it extortion when you are told that you must throw your teen aged child out on the streets ..in order to not contaminate the house hold? To not do so means expulsion from the household of God into the darkness where satan can destroy the rest of you family?

Is it extortion to be told that if you didn`t complete wow or corpes commitment that you would be a liar, a vow breaker to God and have the example of Annanias and Saphira paraded in front of you??

Is it Extortion to have to chose between the life of your unborn child and God`s ability to protect you?

Even if we didn`t experience the drugging and rape personally, or the marriages destroyed and children taken away,did....yes even the death of some of our friends....I think each and everyone of us in some way had something taken from us in God`s name....

What we allowed to be done to us, the outragious abuses we suffered in silence...the crimes we were told not to report.... all because we were told that God required this of us, as far as I am concerned is criminal, whether the perpetrators are ever brought to justice or not.

Just for the record

Actually what I asked you was (and by the way no reply) was how many of the crimes that you like to accuse someone of guilt for, did you actually witness? The reason being since you seem to require first hand observation from some before they are qualified to speak ,I assume the same would hold true for you. So if you did not witness a rape for instance then you have no more authority to pass off your view as truth than I do as you were not geographically there either. Yes?

By the way No it is doubtful that free will contributions to charityor other free will decisions that one may make,or not are considered extortion by legal definition.

...Just thought I'd stick my head into this thread for a minute or two...

Sounds like WD is regurgitating his same old theme...so what else is new?

As far as I know, nobody is claiming that Vic the con man was ever convicted of a crime...so what's WD's beef?

This morning my dog took a crap on the lawn...it wasn't proven in a court of law but I still state it as fact...is that ok with you WD?

As I have stated in the past it's reasonable to accept normal, routine experiences as matter of fact spoken of, for instance your example, However a criminal charge such as the ones battered about here are a different matter they carry a weight of burden of proof.

He has been rendered as guilty of crimes. He has been referred to as guilty of such crimes with no burden of proof met. Opinion of such would be acceptable not declaring as judge and jury without fair process of law . That would be the difference ,but then you probably knew that already and just wanted to misrepresent things as is in my opinion the normal case of your posts at least in my experience.

Yeah potato, like Kristen Skedgil did as a victim of vpw`s criminal behavior.

Dove, I have told of my experiences in twi here at Greasespot...I havealso related what programs I participated in....look it up if you are really interested. I have discussed the experiences of others who shared here of crimes the committed against them....that is what we DO here.

What happened to us IS criminal whether the perpetrators are ever brought to justice or not :(

That is telling *The OTHER side of the story* the one we were never allowed to tell while in twi. That is the stated purpose of this site. It seems as if you personally have waged a non stop campaigne to once again silence the victims.

I have never attempted to silence anyone, what I have fought for is to call what is guilty, guilty, and that which is OPINION of guilt as such. When you have a charge ,due process of law, and verdict then you have guilt established. Until then although it may have occurred as a crime , there is no documented guilt. You can tell whatever story you want as long as you don't pass off your story as fact until it is.

Why not just say you worshiped the sorry S.O.B.

I don't think anyone would press you to "prove" it.

Because it would be incorrect. Supporting peoples rights in an internet court of guilt is not worship.

Yeah but Rascal, it was never PROVEN in a court of law where the standard of innocent until proven guilty is ACTUALLY used. So, that means you can't SAY they were crimes. Where this is stated other than in WD's posts is beyond me??

Of course you can say something is criminal. . . . it is in our vernacular. . . "What so and so did was criminal".

Oh yeah, libel laws. . . . okay, well libel is when you tell a FALSEHOOD about someone and malign their character. So, the best defense against THAT is to tell the truth. Which you do. So, you are covered. . . . EXCEPT. . . in WD's mind.

It isn't worth it. It is a joke. You would have to suspend all reason, critical thinking, and pull out the good old "lock box".

Oh yeah, we have already done that. . . . it is called The Way International.

Same tactic. . . . different use. Keep ya quiet. . . idols might fall and fall hard.

You asume because you want to the truth was told there is no proof that it was or was not. You have offered no evidence of such claim, It remains to be seen ,undocumented......

I could interview vpw's and lcm's victims, publish a book revealing the sordid details of those two men's criminal lifestyles, without ever once having to use the word "alleged" or being obliged to assume them innocent. it doesn't take a judge's decision in court to demonstrate guilt.

Yeah apparently any disgruntled former member can decide it all on their own. Who needs the law? With information printed in a book published that renders money to the author no less So let me get this right we are to accept any accusers story as truth and declare guilt based on such ? That somehow does not seem to fit with our constitutional rights.

Whitedove,

You said the following in response to several posts. . .

"Nice try but No, we have laws and truth to uphold and we are to obey those laws also a biblical principle."

We are not held to "Biblical" principles on this forum or one could argue in this country. We obey laws because the government has the power to incarcerate! Not everyone is Christian. You and I would not even AGREE on what biblical principle IS. That is why we discuss such issues in the doctrinal forum.

We follow the rules of the forum. . . articulated and enforced.

Had you included the context of my response you would see that it was not to you but in response to a post by Garth that I should be following some biblical principle . I pointed out to him ,not you, that I was. Just not the one he thought I should be.

QUOTE (GarthP2000 @ Feb 13 2009, 10:49 PM)

A-n-d it took only 2-3 witnesses to confirm guilt. We have a HELLUVA lot more than 2-3 witnesses against Weirwille. ... A-n-n-d-d, since you are (at least supposedly) a believer in the biblical principle standard, such should be good enough for you too.

..... Right, WD?

If you note he was the one that brought up biblical standards, not me ,take up your complaint with him . I responded to the question in the context he issued it in .Unlike you who tried to misquote it out of context to lecture me with. Nice Try....

Presumption of innocence is used in CRIMINAL LAW, not internet forums, and there is no actual statute to require any of US EX-TWIERS to adhere to it on the internet. . . you continue on as if there actually is.

Show me the statute.. . cite it.

Correct and when you accuse someone of being guilty of a crime a charge, you now enter the criminal law system from the internet version of it's my opinion.

Please don't confuse crimminal law with civil statutes either. . . the burden of proof differs. . . .it would be hard to prove libel here and it is doubtful crimminal libel charges would ever even be considered. I have already explained that burden in relation to public figures.

Agreed it would be on both counts However the level of difficulty or if it is pursued does not nullify that libel was committed either. You seem to think that because no one pursues it it did not exist, by that standard the crimes you seek to discuss fall into that same category, they were not pursued either, nor is the level of difficulty easy in their case.

We are not required to bring crimminal charges before we discuss these issues of abuse and suffering at the hands of men we once trusted. No matter how hard you want it to be so.

Again as i said discussion is not declaring guilt, opinion noted as such , of guilt is proper. All are entitled to their opinions However opinion is not necessarily fact..

BTW. . . The presumption of innocence is a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

Not that they are innocent until proven guilty, but they don't have to prove their innocence, the government has to prove their guilt and there is due process of law! We are not the government here. . . just the victims of a giant UGLY scam.

"The presumption of innocence, is an ancient tenet of criminal law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court."

You can't just ignore what the law actually means in favor of what you want it to mean. . . . just makes it your interpretation.

You can think whatever you like about the presumption of innocence. Where it applies. . . what it is. You can get it all mixed up in your head and have it come out in the words you post. That is fine. . . go for it.

But, when you try to impose this private standard on others. . . someone will call you on it. Especially here. Ex-cult members tend to spot this tactic a mile away.

I wonder why?

INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty.

A legal indictment is NOT evidence of guilt , much less an internet one In short you have no guilt established.

You seem to have omitted a part of the definition as well. It goes way beyond bail issues.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

Exactly.......

Not at all Dove, It`s just that I don`t use second and third hand opinions of other people to call into question posters veracity or to try to obstruct their testimony as to their personal experiences in twi.

Again I have not done such end of story...

Pretty silly to accuse me of not wanting you to post your 2nd and 3rd hand information here at gs, when you have been doing it for years. What you DON`T like is that someone has challenged you on the hypocracy of insisting that there be documentation, and a legal conviction in order for someone to be guilty of a crime, when you yourself have no personal knowledge or experience of what you claim others are lying about.

Documentation of charges of a crime does not require knowledge of the crime that's the point of documentation to determine and offer proof beyond I say so. That's not hypocrisy that's our legal system. If one wants to take it out of an opinion record and make it a statement of fact you will need documentation as it will be challenged. Example I may say in my opinion so and so is a thief, tat my right it's my opinion. If I state so and so is a thief that is no longer an opinion it is a statement of guilt that better have some documentation to back it up.

By the way you seem to be vocal on several of these crimes Exactly how many of them have you been personally present for? .

People are assaulted every day, murders go unsolved, that doesn`t mean a crime wasn`t committed. That doesn`t mean it didn`t happen, or the damage inflicted wasn`t real.

Never did I state it did But one has to prove that it did before you accuse someone of absolute guilt

No, we will never bring these guys to legal justice in THIS world, but one of the things we ARE permitted to do is discuss our experiences, call into question the morals, ethics and beliefs that led these criminals to believe that this was acceptable to do to people. In so doing, maybe begin the healing process and grow beyond the toxic doctrine that empowered them, and kept us enslaved.

You're certainly able to discuss all you like but to determine guilt in a crime is reserved for the courts and due process of law . You can state your opinion on guilt all you like ,just as others may point out it has yet to be established.

maybe what I'm trying to say.. you seem to confuse OPINIONS with VERDICTS.

they really are not the same..

are opinions valuable? Yes.

Are verdicts? I would say generally, yes..

but are OPINIONS and verdiicts.. are they supposed to be one and the same?

generally- no.

So a RESPONSIBLE individual.. takes what one is presented with.. and pursues truth.

I have never confused the two. opinion passed off in the absolute is what I have challenged unless you have a guilty verdict in public you can not refer to one as such. When you go beyond that opinion and state so and so is a thief you better have documentation. and more than I say so.

I never saw a response to this question.

Might also be interesting to note that not everyone who posts here is in America.

Don't know he was not in America you would need to check the records in Guiana. I believe they took some action.

actually, WD, I think she was just pointing out your double standard.

Actually Not!

Maybe you don't "get it"..

sheesh.. it's the INTERNET..

I mean..

we have Wiki's that ANYBODY in the whole WORLD can edit..

and you're looking for truth, justice, and the American Way ( excuse me.. whatever that is any more) here??

you find offense.. in an OPINIONATED forum..

sorry.. it just seems kind of.. Juvenile.

a little forum, a little, itty bitty place.. out in the great expanse..

it just does not make a whole lot of sense to me..

Sorry for you ! one would think that someone that had a background in learning and living a standard of truth and moral values would continue in such.

( Cue America The Beautiful in the background here) those values start in those itty bitty places and continue into the expanse each injustice is as important as the next, the small as important as the large. Is one man's freedom and rights expendable anothers not? What determines this injustice? Who chooses the one that looses? Not me, with every breath I'll fight for truth justice and the American way. Stand up, stand up I say and fight, for those rights so many have given life for. Awake from the slumber of apathy, Take a stand, fight for your right to party. Live long and prosper! Free the whales and kiss a kitten. Seek truth here and everywhere......