2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....
WD responded:
Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.
Relevant point being stressed by WD: Adolph Hitler is not an American
waysider responded:
Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?
(He was an American.)
WD responded:
It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?
waysider responded:
Simple.
You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.
Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.
Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?
WD responded:
Had you done your research you would see that the crimes you speak of were also not committed in America ,trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel in other countries to prove your point on how it somehow applies to law here is beyond me. No issue dodging the laws in Guyana are not applicable here.You can persue your point on your own it does not apply to this subject.
******************************************
Point of note:
WD's original objection to Garth's inquiry was that Hitler was not American.
WD was supplied with an example of someone who was American but found a new excuse to avoid answering the following question: "Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?"
***************************************
Sounds like dodging to me but that's just my opinion.
edit: Not only was Jones an American, his victims were, as well.
(Likewise for Leo Ryan, the elected U.S. official whose assassination was facilitated by Jones)
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....
WD responded:
Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.
Relevant point being stressed by WD: Adolph Hitler is not an American
We have been discussing crimes alleged to have been committed in the USA and how the law may or may not apply. We were not discussing straw man arguments from other parts of the world, which whose guilt or innocence have no direct bearing on these crimes
Two points 1. not even American and the second which you omitted 2. he is not subject to our civil legal standards
waysider responded:
Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?
(He was an American.)
WD responded:
It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?
waysider responded:
Simple.
You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.
Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.
Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?
WD responded:
Had you done your research you would see that the crimes you speak of were also not committed in America ,trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel in other countries to prove your point on how it somehow applies to law here is beyond me. No issue dodging the laws in Guyana are not applicable here.You can persue your point on your own it does not apply to this subject.
******************************************
Point of note:
WD's original objection to Garth's inquiry was that Hitler was not American.
WD was supplied with an example of someone who was American but found a new excuse to avoid answering the following question: "Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?"
***************************************
Sounds like dodging to me but that's just my opinion.
No sounds like trying to inject a straw man argument into the conversation. civil law and international law are not one in the same.
edit: Not only was Jones an American, his victims were, as well.
(Likewise for Leo Ryan, the elected U.S. official whose assassination was facilitated by Jones)
The reason your (desperate sounding) arguments against my Hitler example and the Waysider's Jim Jones example is flawed is that we are using them to illustrate the principle that you initially alluded to in the beginning: ie., that one is presumed innocent until determined guilty in a court of law. Notice that just because a U.S. court isn't involved does that nullify said principle. The principle remains the same, and Yes Virginia, we shall pursue that here.
So why are Hitler and Jones still assumed to be and declared to be guilty according to common and historical knowledge? Because of the facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information communicated, and that said facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information hasn't been successfully challenged/debunked. It's known as historical fact, the kind of fact that isn't subject to any court of law. (Remember what I said before about a fact not requiring a court of law for it to be determined fact? A statement that _you_ agreed to?)
Now strictly and technically speaking, neither Hitler, Jim Jones, nor V. P. Wierwille have been _convicted to be guilty in any court of law_. They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts. ... Ie., say a Holocaust denier wants to have Hitler rendered 'innocent' of being determined guilty of being the driving force behind having 6 million Jews slaughtered. The burden of proof would be upon them to prove said Holocaust a fabrication or otherwise untrue, ... and NOT a burden to show guilt be upon those who have already historically shown Hitler to be guilty in said things. ... Same for the Jim Jones incident. ... Same for Wierwille.
The evidence against Wierwille has already been solidly presented: by those who have experienced 1st hand his abuses, by those who knew him well and have heard/seen his abuses/excuses, by those who have seen/documented his dishonest behavior and 'scholarly research' ((cough)) that show relative and supportive light upon his said abuses. (The "all the women belong to the king" clap-trap being but one example of this. The teaching re: the lock box being another and even more classic example)
You remind me of a certain attorney who, after the court has already gone into session, evidence has been presented and argued both pro and con, closing arguments have been made, jury has gone into seclusion and come back out and rendered its "Guilty!" verdict, the prisoner has been carted off to prison, the judge has banged his gavel and declared "Court adjourned!", and everybody has left and gone home, ....
... just now entered the courtroom, looks around and says "Hey! Where'd everybody go?! I want to make my case for the defendant!"
Boy, you are a tad late! Ie., The horse has already left the barn and is halfway down the county!
<_<
P.S., Your tagline reads "TRUTHFULNESS - earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts"
... s-o-o when are you going to start? ... accurately reporting past facts, that is? All I see here is you're using/manipulating 'legal sounding logic' in rendering the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept in a dishonest manner, ... (and Yes Virginia) it _is_ for the purpose to defend VPW's reputation of being 'presumed' innocent of said accusations. And I make that accusation because (despite your claims of consistency to the contrary) this issue re: VPW has been the only time you have ever been this insistent. Just about all other arguments you have taken part in your 'strict dedication' to the facts have come nowhere near this level of anality. (<-- a condition of being anal)
But then again, my interpretation of said evidence is just that: my interpretation. But that interpretation is based upon continuous observations of what/how you post, and my past experience with apologists who have the kind of loyalty to the object of their defense to a near blind degree. So I think that my interpretation is quite solid.
Oh, by the way, since you have not been 'accurately reporting past facts' re: this issue, you have not earned my future trust.
"International law" didn't prevent the conviction of Larry Layton.
Conviction of Larry Layton
Larry Layton, brother of author and former Peoples Temple member Deborah Layton, was convicted in 1986 of conspiracy in the murder of Leo Ryan.[43] Temple defectors boarding the truck to Port Kaituma warned about Larry Layton that "there's no way he's a defector. He's too close to Jones." [44] Layton was the only former Peoples Temple member to be tried in the United States for criminal acts relating to the murders at Jonestown.[45][46] He was convicted on four different murder-related counts.[47]
On March 3, 1987, Layton was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life in prison for "aiding and abetting the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan", "conspiracy to murder an internationally protected person, Richard Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Mission for the United States in the Republic of Guyana", as well as fifteen years in prison on other related counts.[48] At that time, he would become eligible for parole in five years.[49] On June 3, 1987, Layton's motion to set aside the conviction "on the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during his second trial" was denied by the United States District Court, of the Northern District of California.[49]
After spending eighteen years in prison, Layton was released from custody in April 2002.[50]
And this, of course, is the essence of my somewhat rhetorical question, "Was Jim Jones ever found guilty of his crimes at Jonestown?" He was never pronounced "Guilty" in a court of law and yet it would be an obvious error to presume he was "innocent".
And this, of course, is the essence of my somewhat rhetorical question, "Was Jim Jones ever found guilty of his crimes at Jonestown?" He was never pronounced "Guilty" in a court of law and yet it would be an obvious error to presume he was "innocent".
So, by WD's logic. . . you are defaming the character of Hitler and Jim Jones. We have libel laws don't ya know!! If not libel laws, we always have WD to protect the character of those who have done great evil . . . and were never tried.
The reason your (desperate sounding) arguments against my Hitler example and the Waysider's Jim Jones example is flawed is that we are using them to illustrate the principle that you initially alluded to in the beginning: ie., that one is presumed innocent until determined guilty in a court of law. Notice that just because a U.S. court isn't involved does that nullify said principle. The principle remains the same, and Yes Virginia, we shall pursue that here.
So why are Hitler and Jones still assumed to be and declared to be guilty according to common and historical knowledge? Because of the facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information communicated, and that said facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information hasn't been successfully challenged/debunked. It's known as historical fact, the kind of fact that isn't subject to any court of law. (Remember what I said before about a fact not requiring a court of law for it to be determined fact? A statement that _you_ agreed to?)
Now strictly and technically speaking, neither Hitler, Jim Jones, nor V. P. Wierwille have been _convicted to be guilty in any court of law_. They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts. ... Ie., say a Holocaust denier wants to have Hitler rendered 'innocent' of being determined guilty of being the driving force behind having 6 million Jews slaughtered. The burden of proof would be upon them to prove said Holocaust a fabrication or otherwise untrue, ... and NOT a burden to show guilt be upon those who have already historically shown Hitler to be guilty in said things. ... Same for the Jim Jones incident. ... Same for Wierwille.
The evidence against Wierwille has already been solidly presented: by those who have experienced 1st hand his abuses, by those who knew him well and have heard/seen his abuses/excuses, by those who have seen/documented his dishonest behavior and 'scholarly research' ((cough)) that show relative and supportive light upon his said abuses. (The "all the women belong to the king" clap-trap being but one example of this. The teaching re: the lock box being another and even more classic example)
You remind me of a certain attorney who, after the court has already gone into session, evidence has been presented and argued both pro and con, closing arguments have been made, jury has gone into seclusion and come back out and rendered its "Guilty!" verdict, the prisoner has been carted off to prison, the judge has banged his gavel and declared "Court adjourned!", and everybody has left and gone home, ....
... just now entered the courtroom, looks around and says "Hey! Where'd everybody go?! I want to make my case for the defendant!"
Boy, you are a tad late! Ie., The horse has already left the barn and is halfway down the county!
<_<
P.S., Your tagline reads "TRUTHFULNESS - earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts"
... s-o-o when are you going to start? ... accurately reporting past facts, that is? All I see here is you're using/manipulating 'legal sounding logic' in rendering the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept in a dishonest manner, ... (and Yes Virginia) it _is_ for the purpose to defend VPW's reputation of being 'presumed' innocent of said accusations. And I make that accusation because (despite your claims of consistency to the contrary) this issue re: VPW has been the only time you have ever been this insistent. Just about all other arguments you have taken part in your 'strict dedication' to the facts have come nowhere near this level of anality. (<-- a condition of being anal)
But then again, my interpretation of said evidence is just that: my interpretation. But that interpretation is based upon continuous observations of what/how you post, and my past experience with apologists who have the kind of loyalty to the object of their defense to a near blind degree. So I think that my interpretation is quite solid.
Oh, by the way, since you have not been 'accurately reporting past facts' re: this issue, you have not earned my future trust.
They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts
And that is exactly what I have maintained is lacking.... proof ,we have testimony one side of the story, that is not proof ,it comes with trying the testimony much as testimony in any case you have two points of view generally opposite, we don't get to just pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof. We also have testimony on here of people that have confirmed mutual agreed relationships. So do I get to declare their version as proof? Not if we are going to treat this in a fair manner. Despite any personal opinion one way or another we must examine evidence and upon doing so it is inconclusive. We have two possible choices and only the ones involved will ever know the truth it appears. The rest of us can pick a point of view based on like or dislike or a variety of other reasons, but we were not there it is a guess, an opinion ,not a proven fact ,as you yourself said guilt requires.
Then stop interfering with allowing us to form our own opinions based on the evidence presented here by the first hand accounts of so many.
Errmm, actually, I'm gonna side with Whitedove on this particular point. ... (((PLOP)) as WD faints at this) ... (Somebody give WD some smelling salts please. :) )
... as WD is doing nothing to interfere with allowing you or anyone else to form your own opinion on ... anything. See, all he's doing is posting his (ridiculous as far as I'm concerned) viewpoint re: Wierwille's presumed supposed innocence as regards the sexual abuse, and continues to give his laughable ((cough))'legal'((cough)) explanations to support it.
And all the rest of us are doing is posting reasonings, testimonies, viewpoints, 1st hand accounts, etc., that challenges the good 'counselor' (<--- please note the sarcasm there ;) )
And all this is a classic example of an open forum here at the 'Spot. Opposing viewpoints being expressed and counter-expressed.
Anywho, Whitedove, thou hast expressed:
And that is exactly what I have maintained is lacking.... proof ,we have testimony one side of the story, that is not proof ,it comes with trying the testimony much as testimony in any case you have two points of view generally opposite, we don't get to just pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof. We also have testimony on here of people that have confirmed mutual agreed relationships.
Ahh but you see, your explanation is (still) seriously flawed. As whatever 'other side of the stow-ree' (which has been _freely_ allowed to be posted here, pro-TWI protestations to the contrary), as often as it has been presented (see?) does absolutely nothing to successfully challenge the accounts of the abuses given testimony to, _even_ when you take into account whatever voluntary 'relationships' that have occurred. And yes, they also, have been taken into account. Thus the two opposing points of view have been expressed and considered, and one of them won out, NOT because it 'agrees with our point of view' perse, but it initially gives the evidence that thus _builds_ and _strengthens_ our point of view.
Ie., it was the experiences of those here, coupled with the information that the rest of us know/were told about that builds our point of view to begin with. Further ie., we didn't start out with the accusations, then go looking around for 'testimony' to support it. It was the other way around.
Now as per _your_ accusations that we did "simply pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof", now _YOU_ have the burden of proof to prove that accusation so, ... and simply believing it to be the case isn't enough. ;)
For whatever reasons (questionable, IMHO) that you give for all of that not amounting to proof, it is still proof, but for the sheer amount of corroborating and supporting testimony (both by those who have experienced it first hand as well as by those who knew the guy behind his PR), relating behavior by VPW that gives weight to what has happened, etc. And it is proof based upon the overwhelming amount of common knowledge.
Now, if _you_ believe (<--- note that word) that it doesn't amount to legally approved standards, AND it amounts to a bunch of lies that should be challenged, ... then by all means, please initiate the legal challenge to all of this.
Good luck!
Oh BTW, you say you talked to a few attorneys and that they back you up on this. Ho-kay, then why don't you get a written opinion from any of them to post here giving their Official Legal Opinion, complete with _actual_ precedences supporting said Opinion. Or give us an online source essentially saying the same thing (Official please). Those of us 'anti-Weirwille bashers' have given you various sources backing us up on this topic, ... so where's yours?
You said something before that I now redirect back to you: ... Believe what you want! <_< Because that is all what you are communicating here re: Wierwille.
Arguing with wd about the vicster's guilt or lack therof.. is like arguing with Mike about the supposed merits of pfal..
Just an observation. Don't take it personally, but wd.. you really seem to be what's the word..
a NOVICE. A novice, in legal matters.. about as qualified to judge legal matters as a barely post-freshman psychology major is qualified to practice psychiatry..
at least that's what I perceive in your posts..
they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..
don't take it as a personal attack. You are probabaly otherwise a wonderful human being..
And that is exactly what I have maintained is lacking.... proof ,we have testimony one side of the story, that is not proof ,it comes with trying the testimony much as testimony in any case you have two points of view generally opposite, we don't get to just pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof. We also have testimony on here of people that have confirmed mutual agreed relationships. So do I get to declare their version as proof? Not if we are going to treat this in a fair manner. Despite any personal opinion one way or another we must examine evidence and upon doing so it is inconclusive. We have two possible choices and only the ones involved will ever know the truth it appears. The rest of us can pick a point of view based on like or dislike or a variety of other reasons, but we were not there it is a guess, an opinion ,not a proven fact ,as you yourself said guilt requires.
did you actually read http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence? I know you quoted an uncited wikipedia article to support your position on evidence, but that's a pretty weak source. so far, no one has stepped forward to say they were with vpw to testify he could not have committed the crimes in question. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR HIS NAME, and there are sufficient, independent sources of evidence indicating his guilt.
Then stop interfering with allowing us to form our own opinions based on the evidence presented here by the first hand accounts of so many.
For someone that seems to regularly accuse others of trying to silence you It seems odd that you want others to stop speaking. No double standard there. You can voice any opinion that you want and I am free to do the same and point out when and if guilt is indeed established or assumed. Just as you are allowed to assume guilt has been established.
did you actually read http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence? I know you quoted an uncited wikipedia article to support your position on evidence, but that's a pretty weak source. so far, no one has stepped forward to say they were with vpw to testify he could not have committed the crimes in question. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR HIS NAME, and there are sufficient, independent sources of evidence indicating his guilt.
And get back to me when you have a court decision until then it is not established it is testimony subject to the process of law.
Seems to me..
should I say it?
Arguing with wd about the vicster's guilt or lack therof.. is like arguing with Mike about the supposed merits of pfal..
Just an observation. Don't take it personally, but wd.. you really seem to be what's the word..
a NOVICE. A novice, in legal matters.. about as qualified to judge legal matters as a barely post-freshman psychology major is qualified to practice psychiatry..
at least that's what I perceive in your posts..
they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..
don't take it as a personal attack. You are probabaly otherwise a wonderful human being..
they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..
Yep much like the accusations have none of the above to substantiate them . You have nothing but unproved accusations.
And get back to me when you have a court decision until then it is not established it is testimony subject to the process of law.
actually, it is not subject to the process of law until such a time as someone brings suit against the testimony in question. until that time, the testimony can be accepted as factual even though it has not been entered as evidence in a court of law.
For someone that seems to regularly accuse others of trying to silence you It seems odd that you want others to stop speaking. No double standard there. You can voice any opinion that you want and I am free to do the same and point out when and if guilt is indeed established or assumed. Just as you are allowed to assume guilt has been established.
I often times find that it is worthless to argue with some people over points that do not apply here like sophmorically missapplied legal standards.
But I do remember what I do when I perceive that several thugs are trying to make one woman shut up. Do you remember White Dove?
I often times find that it is worthless to argue with some people over points that do not apply here like sophmorically missapplied legal standards.
But I do remember what I do when I perceive that several thugs are trying to make one woman shut up. Do you remember White Dove?
I guess not it must not have been important or I would have remembered.
By the way you are free to perceive anything you like it does not make it so. Check the posts I'm actually in favour of speaking. I believe I mentioned it several times on this thread alone although if you check it seems a women is advocating that others have no right to speak. As usual you have it confused.
actually, it is not subject to the process of law until such a time as someone brings suit against the testimony in question. until that time, the testimony can be accepted as factual even though it has not been entered as evidence in a court of law.
And it can be accepted as non factual as well. So? It prooves nothing. Until a guilty verdict is rendered there is no guilt to speak of.
wheras in the first part of the argument for the plaintiff Mr. VPW, WD again puts forth the claim that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the plaintiff have fabricated their testimony, yet fails to offer any evidence of his claim:
And it can be accepted as non factual as well. So?
being as their testimony is full of facts, and that consistent testimony is given into evidence, said evidence is accepted as factual in the absence of contradicting evidence.
wheras in the second part, WD confuses the process of law with the facts of case, and we the people offer into evidence testimony by Mr. Webster that proves someone CAN be guilty without ever stepping into a courtroom:
It prooves nothing. Until a guilty verdict is rendered there is no guilt to speak of.
Webster says:
Guilt
Guilt\ (g[i^]lt), n. [OE. gilt, gult, AS. gylt, crime; probably originally signifying, the fine or mulct paid for an offence, and afterward the offense itself, and akin to AS. gieldan to pay, E. yield. See Yield, v. t.]
1. The criminality and consequent exposure to punishment resulting from willful disobedience of law, or from morally wrong action; the state of one who has broken a moral or political law; crime; criminality; offense against right.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 5
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 5 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw
waysider
Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion
Bolshevik
but they're still crimes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
GarthP2000 said:
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....
WD responded:
Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.
Relevant point being stressed by WD: Adolph Hitler is not an American
waysider responded:
Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?
(He was an American.)
WD responded:
It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?
waysider responded:
Simple.
You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.
Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.
Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?
WD responded:
Had you done your research you would see that the crimes you speak of were also not committed in America ,trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel in other countries to prove your point on how it somehow applies to law here is beyond me. No issue dodging the laws in Guyana are not applicable here.You can persue your point on your own it does not apply to this subject.
******************************************
Point of note:
WD's original objection to Garth's inquiry was that Hitler was not American.
WD was supplied with an example of someone who was American but found a new excuse to avoid answering the following question: "Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?"
***************************************
Sounds like dodging to me but that's just my opinion.
edit: Not only was Jones an American, his victims were, as well.
(Likewise for Leo Ryan, the elected U.S. official whose assassination was facilitated by Jones)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
WhiteDove,
The reason your (desperate sounding) arguments against my Hitler example and the Waysider's Jim Jones example is flawed is that we are using them to illustrate the principle that you initially alluded to in the beginning: ie., that one is presumed innocent until determined guilty in a court of law. Notice that just because a U.S. court isn't involved does that nullify said principle. The principle remains the same, and Yes Virginia, we shall pursue that here.
So why are Hitler and Jones still assumed to be and declared to be guilty according to common and historical knowledge? Because of the facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information communicated, and that said facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information hasn't been successfully challenged/debunked. It's known as historical fact, the kind of fact that isn't subject to any court of law. (Remember what I said before about a fact not requiring a court of law for it to be determined fact? A statement that _you_ agreed to?)
Now strictly and technically speaking, neither Hitler, Jim Jones, nor V. P. Wierwille have been _convicted to be guilty in any court of law_. They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts. ... Ie., say a Holocaust denier wants to have Hitler rendered 'innocent' of being determined guilty of being the driving force behind having 6 million Jews slaughtered. The burden of proof would be upon them to prove said Holocaust a fabrication or otherwise untrue, ... and NOT a burden to show guilt be upon those who have already historically shown Hitler to be guilty in said things. ... Same for the Jim Jones incident. ... Same for Wierwille.
The evidence against Wierwille has already been solidly presented: by those who have experienced 1st hand his abuses, by those who knew him well and have heard/seen his abuses/excuses, by those who have seen/documented his dishonest behavior and 'scholarly research' ((cough)) that show relative and supportive light upon his said abuses. (The "all the women belong to the king" clap-trap being but one example of this. The teaching re: the lock box being another and even more classic example)
You remind me of a certain attorney who, after the court has already gone into session, evidence has been presented and argued both pro and con, closing arguments have been made, jury has gone into seclusion and come back out and rendered its "Guilty!" verdict, the prisoner has been carted off to prison, the judge has banged his gavel and declared "Court adjourned!", and everybody has left and gone home, ....
... just now entered the courtroom, looks around and says "Hey! Where'd everybody go?! I want to make my case for the defendant!"
Boy, you are a tad late! Ie., The horse has already left the barn and is halfway down the county!
<_<
P.S., Your tagline reads "TRUTHFULNESS - earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts"
... s-o-o when are you going to start? ... accurately reporting past facts, that is? All I see here is you're using/manipulating 'legal sounding logic' in rendering the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept in a dishonest manner, ... (and Yes Virginia) it _is_ for the purpose to defend VPW's reputation of being 'presumed' innocent of said accusations. And I make that accusation because (despite your claims of consistency to the contrary) this issue re: VPW has been the only time you have ever been this insistent. Just about all other arguments you have taken part in your 'strict dedication' to the facts have come nowhere near this level of anality. (<-- a condition of being anal)
But then again, my interpretation of said evidence is just that: my interpretation. But that interpretation is based upon continuous observations of what/how you post, and my past experience with apologists who have the kind of loyalty to the object of their defense to a near blind degree. So I think that my interpretation is quite solid.
Oh, by the way, since you have not been 'accurately reporting past facts' re: this issue, you have not earned my future trust.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- Fer sure Garth is from the south! From anywhere else it would have read *halfway across the COUNTRY".
Not that it matters. The opinions are valid. Back to topic, eh? Sorry for the derail. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"International law" didn't prevent the conviction of Larry Layton.
Conviction of Larry Layton
Larry Layton, brother of author and former Peoples Temple member Deborah Layton, was convicted in 1986 of conspiracy in the murder of Leo Ryan.[43] Temple defectors boarding the truck to Port Kaituma warned about Larry Layton that "there's no way he's a defector. He's too close to Jones." [44] Layton was the only former Peoples Temple member to be tried in the United States for criminal acts relating to the murders at Jonestown.[45][46] He was convicted on four different murder-related counts.[47]
On March 3, 1987, Layton was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life in prison for "aiding and abetting the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan", "conspiracy to murder an internationally protected person, Richard Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Mission for the United States in the Republic of Guyana", as well as fifteen years in prison on other related counts.[48] At that time, he would become eligible for parole in five years.[49] On June 3, 1987, Layton's motion to set aside the conviction "on the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during his second trial" was denied by the United States District Court, of the Northern District of California.[49]
After spending eighteen years in prison, Layton was released from custody in April 2002.[50]
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And this, of course, is the essence of my somewhat rhetorical question, "Was Jim Jones ever found guilty of his crimes at Jonestown?" He was never pronounced "Guilty" in a court of law and yet it would be an obvious error to presume he was "innocent".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
So, by WD's logic. . . you are defaming the character of Hitler and Jim Jones. We have libel laws don't ya know!! If not libel laws, we always have WD to protect the character of those who have done great evil . . . and were never tried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And that is exactly what I have maintained is lacking.... proof ,we have testimony one side of the story, that is not proof ,it comes with trying the testimony much as testimony in any case you have two points of view generally opposite, we don't get to just pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof. We also have testimony on here of people that have confirmed mutual agreed relationships. So do I get to declare their version as proof? Not if we are going to treat this in a fair manner. Despite any personal opinion one way or another we must examine evidence and upon doing so it is inconclusive. We have two possible choices and only the ones involved will ever know the truth it appears. The rest of us can pick a point of view based on like or dislike or a variety of other reasons, but we were not there it is a guess, an opinion ,not a proven fact ,as you yourself said guilt requires.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Then stop interfering with allowing us to form our own opinions based on the evidence presented here by the first hand accounts of so many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
and they all said. . . . AMEN!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
and hallelujah, sista!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Errmm, actually, I'm gonna side with Whitedove on this particular point. ... (((PLOP)) as WD faints at this) ... (Somebody give WD some smelling salts please. :) )
... as WD is doing nothing to interfere with allowing you or anyone else to form your own opinion on ... anything. See, all he's doing is posting his (ridiculous as far as I'm concerned) viewpoint re: Wierwille's presumed supposed innocence as regards the sexual abuse, and continues to give his laughable ((cough))'legal'((cough)) explanations to support it.
And all the rest of us are doing is posting reasonings, testimonies, viewpoints, 1st hand accounts, etc., that challenges the good 'counselor' (<--- please note the sarcasm there ;) )
And all this is a classic example of an open forum here at the 'Spot. Opposing viewpoints being expressed and counter-expressed.
Anywho, Whitedove, thou hast expressed:
Ahh but you see, your explanation is (still) seriously flawed. As whatever 'other side of the stow-ree' (which has been _freely_ allowed to be posted here, pro-TWI protestations to the contrary), as often as it has been presented (see?) does absolutely nothing to successfully challenge the accounts of the abuses given testimony to, _even_ when you take into account whatever voluntary 'relationships' that have occurred. And yes, they also, have been taken into account. Thus the two opposing points of view have been expressed and considered, and one of them won out, NOT because it 'agrees with our point of view' perse, but it initially gives the evidence that thus _builds_ and _strengthens_ our point of view.
Ie., it was the experiences of those here, coupled with the information that the rest of us know/were told about that builds our point of view to begin with. Further ie., we didn't start out with the accusations, then go looking around for 'testimony' to support it. It was the other way around.
Now as per _your_ accusations that we did "simply pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof", now _YOU_ have the burden of proof to prove that accusation so, ... and simply believing it to be the case isn't enough. ;)
For whatever reasons (questionable, IMHO) that you give for all of that not amounting to proof, it is still proof, but for the sheer amount of corroborating and supporting testimony (both by those who have experienced it first hand as well as by those who knew the guy behind his PR), relating behavior by VPW that gives weight to what has happened, etc. And it is proof based upon the overwhelming amount of common knowledge.
Now, if _you_ believe (<--- note that word) that it doesn't amount to legally approved standards, AND it amounts to a bunch of lies that should be challenged, ... then by all means, please initiate the legal challenge to all of this.
Oh BTW, you say you talked to a few attorneys and that they back you up on this. Ho-kay, then why don't you get a written opinion from any of them to post here giving their Official Legal Opinion, complete with _actual_ precedences supporting said Opinion. Or give us an online source essentially saying the same thing (Official please). Those of us 'anti-Weirwille bashers' have given you various sources backing us up on this topic, ... so where's yours?
You said something before that I now redirect back to you: ... Believe what you want! <_< Because that is all what you are communicating here re: Wierwille.
And it doesn't go any farther than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well Garth, you can`t be right a hundred percent of the time. We will excuse this little lapse in judgement this time ;)
Just playing with ya, you make good points.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Seems to me..
should I say it?
Arguing with wd about the vicster's guilt or lack therof.. is like arguing with Mike about the supposed merits of pfal..
Just an observation. Don't take it personally, but wd.. you really seem to be what's the word..
a NOVICE. A novice, in legal matters.. about as qualified to judge legal matters as a barely post-freshman psychology major is qualified to practice psychiatry..
at least that's what I perceive in your posts..
they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..
don't take it as a personal attack. You are probabaly otherwise a wonderful human being..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A lapse in judgment _only_ this time?! ... Damn! I'm slipping! :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
did you actually read http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence? I know you quoted an uncited wikipedia article to support your position on evidence, but that's a pretty weak source. so far, no one has stepped forward to say they were with vpw to testify he could not have committed the crimes in question. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR HIS NAME, and there are sufficient, independent sources of evidence indicating his guilt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
For someone that seems to regularly accuse others of trying to silence you It seems odd that you want others to stop speaking. No double standard there. You can voice any opinion that you want and I am free to do the same and point out when and if guilt is indeed established or assumed. Just as you are allowed to assume guilt has been established.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And get back to me when you have a court decision until then it is not established it is testimony subject to the process of law.
Yep much like the accusations have none of the above to substantiate them . You have nothing but unproved accusations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
actually, it is not subject to the process of law until such a time as someone brings suit against the testimony in question. until that time, the testimony can be accepted as factual even though it has not been entered as evidence in a court of law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I often times find that it is worthless to argue with some people over points that do not apply here like sophmorically missapplied legal standards.
But I do remember what I do when I perceive that several thugs are trying to make one woman shut up. Do you remember White Dove?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I guess not it must not have been important or I would have remembered.
By the way you are free to perceive anything you like it does not make it so. Check the posts I'm actually in favour of speaking. I believe I mentioned it several times on this thread alone although if you check it seems a women is advocating that others have no right to speak. As usual you have it confused.
And it can be accepted as non factual as well. So? It prooves nothing. Until a guilty verdict is rendered there is no guilt to speak of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I guess it must be me that is confused as usual.
But for someone who has no memory in these rememberances you seem to have a good recall of "usual."
If we keep it up W.D., I think that it will end up as usual.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
wheras in the first part of the argument for the plaintiff Mr. VPW, WD again puts forth the claim that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the plaintiff have fabricated their testimony, yet fails to offer any evidence of his claim:
being as their testimony is full of facts, and that consistent testimony is given into evidence, said evidence is accepted as factual in the absence of contradicting evidence.
wheras in the second part, WD confuses the process of law with the facts of case, and we the people offer into evidence testimony by Mr. Webster that proves someone CAN be guilty without ever stepping into a courtroom:
Webster says:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.