No, it means claiming LEGAL guilt of said crimes is not provable. And trying to apply LEGAL standards to evaluation of the life of a deceased man is delusional. And you keep trying to steer the evaluation towards the LEGAL arena where it does not apply. The LEGAL arena could apply to the current behavior of TWI current leadership, and that is probably why they refuse to do much of anything in public.
It's very transparent that you have some kind of view of VPW that you are personally attached to that you need to preserve. This is why instead of allowing the public MORAL evaluation of VPW's life you try and discount his victims saying they present opinions only not fact, trying to steer the whole evaluation criteria under the purview of LEGAL standards. That is what is delusional.
I can judge VPW's life by whatever standards and criteria I damn well please. And 20+ years after his death his legacy is looking more and more like that of a drunken lecher that latched on to the Zeitgeist of the "free love Jesus movement" and took it for a ride for about 14 years from 1972 to 1986. And there's a reasonable case to be made that his totalitarian style of leadership combined with sexual deviancy is the primary thing that has been passed along to subsequent leadership administrations in TWI. These damn people act like they are more of an intermediary between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ than a Catholic priest you have to confess your sins to.
We are not judging VPW guilty of LEGAL crimes. At times there is speculation as to how the man actually survived without any LEGAL consequences. Or get shot by someone he abused's relatives.
We are judging VPW guilty of MORAL crimes, based upon the testimony of many firsthand victims. He was a MORAL deviant. He was a totalitarian. LCM followed in his footsteps, and the current idiots also.
Last I looked Rape is a legal crime, it is against the law Note the word LAW. that is exctly why it is in the legal catagory.
I understand there is something there he feels he needs to protect (either that or he's simply a glutton for punishment). I just am curious as to why.
Well perhaps your agenda precludes you from seeing basic human rights.
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 only thing I can see in all this.. being a "victim" disqualifies one from being a juror in the case the accused, or perpetrator is tried. Presumption of innocence is usually included in instructions to a JURY, if I'm not mistaken.
if you're trying to drum up an impartial jury wd.. may I suggest, look in another place than Greasespot?
I'm sure you can find a few. twi was a small, small speck on the map.. doubtless there are MILLIONS of people who never even heard of vic, loy.. rosie.. or even heard of the lawsuits against da "ministry"..
all of this "confrontation" and all.. makes as much sense as putting the families and survivors of those whom capone murdered.. in a jury box, and trying to convince them they oughta give capone the benefit of the doubt..
Actually
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain. For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.
I think we covered victims already. I'm not by the way seeing many here posting, just a bunch of internet wannabees who read a story and feel inclined to pass some judgment on something they were not present for .Tell me again exactly how many rapes were you present for? Those would not be victims by definition. Nope those are people stating opinions.
I've been considering for quite some time to do about this perspective of White Dove's. WD has the right to state an opinion. And no matter how ably, IMO, many of you respond to this opinion WD will not cease to share this opinion. And simply put, it is beyond my authority to force anyone here to cease from stating opinions that I happen to find disagreeable.
I am thankful for those of you who ably and willingly answer WD every time that this opinion is put forth. While tiresome I'm sure, I suppose it is most necessary that an answer is provided. And speaking for myself, I'm glad each and every time that someone points out legal standards are irrelevant here at the Greasespot, unless of course someone wishes to make a legal case out of something that I've said. In that case I would be most happy to have a trial where my accuser is faced with a legally appropriate burden of truth.
But my real concern is that many TWI victims may not feel up to facing their experiences being called into question by WD or anyone else for that matter. I am most thankful for those of you who have shared in spite of the opposition even here at the Greasespot.
So for those of you TWI victims who may like to share your experiences, I freely encourage you to do so and add to the many credible testimonies and documented perversities of Wierwille and his hand-picked children who unfortunately have fooled many and destroyed many lives too.
And from here on out, EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE POSTS THAT IMO TEND TO DISCOURAGE SHARING AND HEALING I WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE READING THESE POSTS.
PLEASE FOLKS, IGNORE THE OPPOSITION AND FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR STORIES. GREASESPOT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY. FEEL FREE TO DO SO IF YOU WISH.
You assume I have called any story into question ,I have not. I have expressed no desire for anyone to not speak. Pure fabrication! What I have pointed out is that no guilt of crime has been documented or established. Unless you have some case number that you would like to contribute, then any discussion of guilt beyond opinion is not proven. You want to post an opinion feel free, declaring guilt when none has been established is a different matter.
You say no one here was present during the commission of a crime. That assumption is in error.
Exposing children to pornography is a crime in Ohio. People have testified that they were personally present when Wierwille did so. Providing alcohol to minors is a crime in Ohio. Same deal. Transporting people across state lines for the purpose of debauchery is a federal crime. People have given first hand testimony. It is against the law to drug a person and then have sex with them. People have given first hand testimony. These are crimes. People here were personally present. All this is moot anyway because Wierwille is dead. The people who you are insinuating to be liars are alive. You are the accuser, not them. As such, it's up to you to prove they are lying. Oh, yes, I know you never directly called them liars. Irrelevant. That's your implication. Now do a little tap dance and sing a song about how you are really a noble freedom fighter protecting the world from injustices. Riiiight.
Here's what I would like to know.
Are you engaged in any sort of business activity that might experience a revenue decrease (or increase) if Wierwille's true nature was exposed?
Oh, wait. That would call for some speculative thinking on your part.
Are you engaged in any sort of business that receives revenue from the sale of Way materials?
Well perhaps your agenda precludes you from seeing basic human rights.
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.
We're talking about a dead person. I can't dig up his grave or desecrate his body. I believe that's the extent of his personal rights.
The people of the US have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence within the context of the LEGAL system's jury system. The media tries to avoid bias by using the word "alleged." They are under no legal obligation to do so. There are ethical reasons to do so. They often report on facts as they see them. In any case, ordinary citizens in ordinary circumstances aren't held to that standard.
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark and teaches courses in criminal procedure and evidence.
Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich asks his constituents to give him the presumption of innocence they would expect for themselves if accused of crime.
And there is no question when and if Blogojevich goes to trial in a criminal court that presumption holds.
But there is no such presumption when it comes to the court of public opinion. At such times, the people of Illinois are entitled to make their own determination whether he is fit to hold public office.
Indeed, even if he went to trial and was found not guilty, that would have little bearing on his fitness for office. A not guilty verdict would only signify that a jury had found that the government and failed to prove his commission of crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The "reasonable doubt" standard is not the test for public service.
It would not even be the appropriate test for an impeachment proceeding before the Illinois Legislature. Indeed, the Illinois Constitution is silent as to the grounds for impeachment. It merely provides that if the lower house votes by a majority to impeach the Governor, the Senate may remove him from office, after trial, by a 2/3 vote. It does not even specify that there must be a "high crime or misdemeanor," as the Federal Constitution does.
Presumably, the test would be whether the Legislature believes that the governor has violated his oath of office. And there is clearly no requirement that it find liability beyond a reasonable doubt.
No person has a right to hold public office until proof of commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a judicial test, not a political one.
================
Frank Askin is Professor of Law and founding director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law, Newark. His memoir is "Defending Rights: a Life in Law & Politics. He is also listed in "Best Lawyers in America."
You say no one here was present during the commission of a crime. That assumption is in error.
Exposing children to pornography is a crime in Ohio. People have testified that they were personally present when Wierwille did so. Providing alcohol to minors is a crime in Ohio. Same deal. Transporting people across state lines for the purpose of debauchery is a federal crime. People have given first hand testimony. It is against the law to drug a person and then have sex with them. People have given first hand testimony. These are crimes. People here were personally present. All this is moot anyway because Wierwille is dead. The people who you are insinuating to be liars are alive. You are the accuser, not them. As such, it's up to you to prove they are lying. Oh, yes, I know you never directly called them liars. Irrelevant. That's your implication. Now do a little tap dance and sing a song about how you are really a noble freedom fighter protecting the world from injustices. Riiiight.
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 and decided you like it.
Here's what I would like to know.
Are you engaged in any sort of business activity that might experience a revenue decrease (or increase) if Wierwille's true nature was exposed?
Oh, wait. That would call for some speculative thinking on your part.
Are you engaged in any sort of business that receives revenue from the sale of Way materials?
Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
There have been many first hand accounts written here and at other web sites concerning the crimes that wierwille and his fellows committed..and no not all the accounts have been nameless and faceless....To suggest otherwise Dove, IS a fabrication.
I can only figure that it is manufactured to minimalize the credibility of the numerous people whom have shared their experiences. These crimes have been acknowledged by more than one leader as to having occured.
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 and decided you like it.
Strawman--------I never claimed to have witnessed a rape.
Do you have a vested interest in the controversy you incite?
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 and decided you like it.
Strawman--------I never claimed to have witnessed a rape.
Do you have a vested interest in the controversy you incite?
Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here.
There have been many first hand accounts written here and at other web sites concerning the crimes that wierwille and his fellows committed..and no not all the accounts have been nameless and faceless....To suggest otherwise Dove, IS a fabrication.
I can only figure that it is manufactured to minimalize the credibility of the numerous people whom have shared their experiences. These crimes have been acknowledged by more than one leader as to having occured.
Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.
Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here.
I've already pointed out, that argument is a strawman. I never claimed to be present at any rape.
You are the accuser here. You are accusing people of fabricating stories. As such, it's your burden to prove their testimonies are fabrications.
Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.
I'll cut to the chase here.
Do you or do you not have any business interests that involve sales of Way materials?
Well perhaps your agenda precludes you from seeing basic human rights.
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.
Dear TWI victims,
Please feel free to infer that most everybody that counts here at the Greasespot Cafe will see through any attempt that would tend to liken believing your story with being inquisitorial as White Dove implies with this last post. You will find smart and good hearted people here who will listen to you.
I think we covered victims already. I'm not by the way seeing many here posting, just a bunch of internet wannabees who read a story and feel inclined to pass some judgment on something they were not present for .Tell me again exactly how many rapes were you present for? Those would not be victims by definition. Nope those are people stating opinions.
Dear Wierwille rape victims,
It matters nothing to me who White Dove thinks is an internet wannabe.
Please don't let this type of put down fool you into thinking that anyone will think less of you here. As a matter of fact it seems plain to me that many would be happy to fight FOR YOU.
You assume I have called any story into question ,I have not. I have expressed no desire for anyone to not speak. Pure fabrication! What I have pointed out is that no guilt of crime has been documented or established. Unless you have some case number that you would like to contribute, then any discussion of guilt beyond opinion is not proven. You want to post an opinion feel free, declaring guilt when none has been established is a different matter.
Dear TWI victims,
Please do not believe anyone who points out that your stories are unverifiable and so we cannot believe you. Most people would call that "calling into question" your story, I understand this, and so does most everybody else here.
Many folks here at the Greasespot knew you or knows somebody who knows you.
Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here.
What is standard here is comforting those who suffered similar things to what we have. Any other viewpoint IMO is worthless.
Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.
Don't worry TWI victims. Most of us understand that it is cowardly to imply someone is lying without having the cohones to actually say someone is lying. Even if they choose to hide behind persnickety and unrealistic conversational mores.
Dove that is rediculous....There were first hand accounts that some were fine with the arrangements?? So that makes the many cases of drugging, rape, manipulation and extortion for sex in return for healing NOT criminal or contemptible??
Good lord man, I have heard of only two accounts of people claiming to be *ok* with it...one, I don`t believe she is *ok* all.....while I have heard dozens of accounts of extortion, drugging, and rape...where the victims WEREN`T *ok with it*...where people went to the man of God for healing from their pain...ONLY to have the need for peace, the longing for healing used as leverage to get sex.
People hurting so bad, wanting healing so intensely from the pain...that they were clinging to the last hope that wierwille could help them achieve the peace that their tortured soul was so desperate for....only to be told that he could heal them, that he could give them a reason to live...by sleeping with them.
Bless his soul, what a saint :(
If it was *ok* I seriously doubt that there would have had such life long impact on so many.
Dove that is rediculous....There were first hand accounts that some were fine with the arrangements?? So that makes the many cases of drugging, rape, manipulation and extortion for sex in return for healing NOT criminal or contemptible??
Good lord man, I have heard of only two accounts of people claiming to be *ok* with it...one, I don`t believe she is *ok* all.....while I have heard dozens of accounts of extortion, drugging, and rape...where the victims WEREN`T *ok with it*...where people went to the man of God for healing from their pain...ONLY to have the need for peace, the longing for healing used as leverage to get sex.
People hurting so bad, wanting healing so intensely from the pain...that they were clinging to the last hope that wierwille could help them achieve the peace that their tortured soul was so desperate for....only to be told that he could heal them, that he could give them a reason to live...by sleeping with them.
Bless his soul, what a saint :(
If it was *ok* I seriously doubt that there would have had such life long impact on so many.
Not what I said as usual. I never excused any crimes what I said was there are conflicting presentations both are undocumentable leaving one to pick, choose ,flip a coin, as to which is truth, maybe both are, the point we don't know, we were not there. Isn't that the standard you seem to hold me to. You were not there so your unqualified to speak? So were you ? No So you pick a view point that fits with how you feel toward the Way. Sorry not me I won't violate a persons rights on a whim. Your free to offer your opinion on what you believe to be true and I am free to as well and challenge that as having no evidence to support the words. Neither of us can speak with authority as we were not there. I choose to except the facts as they are undocumentable beyond words. That makes no one a liar, excuses no crimes ,it only verifies the facts as they are.
Please feel free to infer that most everybody that counts here at the Greasespot Cafe will see through any attempt that would tend to liken believing your story with being inquisitorial as White Dove implies with this last post. You will find smart and good hearted people here who will listen to you.
Dear Jeff if you have no record of a crime committed ,no charge ,no case,and yet claim one as guilty of a crime .What would you call it? I'd say that was a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
Dear Wierwille rape victims,
It matters nothing to me who White Dove thinks is an internet wannabe.
Please don't let this type of put down fool you into thinking that anyone will think less of you here. As a matter of fact it seems plain to me that many would be happy to fight FOR YOU.
Dear Jeff had you read what I said you would see that my comment was not to the alleged victim, but to those who rant daily about that which they were not present to know about. They repeat stories as truth that have not met the burdon of proof for crimes.
Dear TWI victims,
Please do not believe anyone who points out that your stories are unverifiable and so we cannot believe you. Most people would call that "calling into question" your story, I understand this, and so does most everybody else here.
Many folks here at the Greasespot knew you or knows somebody who knows you.
Dear Jeff I never said you were not free to believe what you want to ,nor did I say you were not free to voice that opinion. I choose not to accuse one of a crime based on words alone, I think most would think the same . What if I called you a child molester would you be ok with that because I said so? or would you expect some evidence presented to back up the claim. I'm betting the latter. I offer others the same benefit of doubt.
Don't worry TWI victims. Most of us understand that it is cowardly to imply someone is lying without having the cohones to actually say someone is lying. Even if they choose to hide behind persnickety and unrealistic conversational mores.
Dear Jeff I have never stated that anyone was lying ,that is pure fiction, fabrication on your part, and a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint which by the way is against the rules here. Contrary to your fabricated version I have consistently presented the facts as they are. We have words ,I say this is what happened ,we have others that say a different thing that happened, those are the facts. What one chooses to believe ,how one feeeels are not, they are emotions which could be based on a variety of reasons. I'm not looking for pats on the back for being Dr. Phil of GreaseSpot, I'm looking for the factual truth . And that is at present it is undocumentable ,that may change fine with me either way, but until it does I won't make a guess as to guilt.
There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement.
Is anyone keeping track of how many logical fallacies WD can commit
in a single thread?
This one is equivalent to saying
"Lots of people met Jeffrey Dahmer and were never eaten"
and using that to suggest Dahmer was innocent of cannibalism.
(snip)
Don't worry TWI victims. Most of us understand that it is cowardly to imply someone is lying without having the cohones to actually say someone is lying. Even if they choose to hide behind persnickety and unrealistic conversational mores.
Dear Jeff I have never stated that anyone was lying ,that is pure fiction, fabrication on your part, and a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint which by the way is against the rules here.
As anyone WHO CAN READ can see,
claiming Jeff said WD said OUTRIGHT that anyone is lying
is ITSELF a LIE, is ITSELF "PURE FICTION",
a "FABRICATION",
and a "MISREPRESENTATION"
of what Jeff actually said.
So far WD has misunderstood THE LAW,
the VICTIM'S ACCOUNTS,
the EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of BYSTANDERS,
the EXPLANATIONS BY PROFESSIONALS,
and the POSTS ON THIS THREAD.
Considering WD's posted many times on this thread denigrating the use
of eyewitness testimony to conclude guilt,
he's also misunderstood what the Bible has said on the subject as well.
Then again,
it's possible he DID understand all this,
and has a personal agenda that he considers more important
than the truth about the law, the truth about what's said,
and the truth about what God Almighty said.
I can't respect either stance.
Gross laziness or gross hypocrisy? Not something I can accept.
Yes Dove, you are free to flip a coin and ignore the testimony of so many, the pain suffered, free to label the accounts as not credible...free to dismiss the testimony of so many people who were grievously harmed by this man and his ministry...
That doesn`t make the crimes committed by vpw any less heinous, or the damage inflicted any less destructive.
Dr. Phil?? Oh please...from what I can see he tries to help folks...What do you do for anybody?? All I see you trying to do is come up with ever new and clever ways to call into question or eliminate the evidence of the testimony of the actual experiences of people here in attempt to give your limited perspective more weight.
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
WhiteDove
Last I looked Rape is a legal crime, it is against the law Note the word LAW. that is exctly why it is in the legal catagory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well perhaps your agenda precludes you from seeing basic human rights.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain. For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.
I think we covered victims already. I'm not by the way seeing many here posting, just a bunch of internet wannabees who read a story and feel inclined to pass some judgment on something they were not present for .Tell me again exactly how many rapes were you present for? Those would not be victims by definition. Nope those are people stating opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You assume I have called any story into question ,I have not. I have expressed no desire for anyone to not speak. Pure fabrication! What I have pointed out is that no guilt of crime has been documented or established. Unless you have some case number that you would like to contribute, then any discussion of guilt beyond opinion is not proven. You want to post an opinion feel free, declaring guilt when none has been established is a different matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You say no one here was present during the commission of a crime. That assumption is in error.
Exposing children to pornography is a crime in Ohio. People have testified that they were personally present when Wierwille did so. Providing alcohol to minors is a crime in Ohio. Same deal. Transporting people across state lines for the purpose of debauchery is a federal crime. People have given first hand testimony. It is against the law to drug a person and then have sex with them. People have given first hand testimony. These are crimes. People here were personally present. All this is moot anyway because Wierwille is dead. The people who you are insinuating to be liars are alive. You are the accuser, not them. As such, it's up to you to prove they are lying. Oh, yes, I know you never directly called them liars. Irrelevant. That's your implication. Now do a little tap dance and sing a song about how you are really a noble freedom fighter protecting the world from injustices. Riiiight.
Here's what I would like to know.
Are you engaged in any sort of business activity that might experience a revenue decrease (or increase) if Wierwille's true nature was exposed?
Oh, wait. That would call for some speculative thinking on your part.
Are you engaged in any sort of business that receives revenue from the sale of Way materials?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
We're talking about a dead person. I can't dig up his grave or desecrate his body. I believe that's the extent of his personal rights.
The people of the US have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence within the context of the LEGAL system's jury system. The media tries to avoid bias by using the word "alleged." They are under no legal obligation to do so. There are ethical reasons to do so. They often report on facts as they see them. In any case, ordinary citizens in ordinary circumstances aren't held to that standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html
ALLEN IVERSON AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
By SHERRY F. COLB
Monday, Jun. 17, 2002
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
It is possible and even reasonable to reach other conclusions. One might conclude either that (a) the criminal jury erred in reaching its verdict; (b) the criminal jury disregarded the judge's instructions to find the defendant guilty if the evidence supported that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt; or © the criminal jury correctly reacted to the evidence admitted at trial, but other evidence that failed to make its way in--including, but not limited to, Simpson's flight from the police, threats of suicide, claims that he loved Nicole "too much," and the prophetic entries in Nicole's own diary--fill the gap between what the jury heard and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark and teaches courses in criminal procedure and evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
http://blog.nj.com/njv_frank_askin/2008/12...umption_of.html
Blogo and the presumption of innocence
Posted by Frank Askin December 24, 2008 12:11PM
Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich asks his constituents to give him the presumption of innocence they would expect for themselves if accused of crime.
And there is no question when and if Blogojevich goes to trial in a criminal court that presumption holds.
But there is no such presumption when it comes to the court of public opinion. At such times, the people of Illinois are entitled to make their own determination whether he is fit to hold public office.
Indeed, even if he went to trial and was found not guilty, that would have little bearing on his fitness for office. A not guilty verdict would only signify that a jury had found that the government and failed to prove his commission of crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The "reasonable doubt" standard is not the test for public service.
It would not even be the appropriate test for an impeachment proceeding before the Illinois Legislature. Indeed, the Illinois Constitution is silent as to the grounds for impeachment. It merely provides that if the lower house votes by a majority to impeach the Governor, the Senate may remove him from office, after trial, by a 2/3 vote. It does not even specify that there must be a "high crime or misdemeanor," as the Federal Constitution does.
Presumably, the test would be whether the Legislature believes that the governor has violated his oath of office. And there is clearly no requirement that it find liability beyond a reasonable doubt.
No person has a right to hold public office until proof of commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a judicial test, not a political one.
================
Frank Askin is Professor of Law and founding director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law, Newark. His memoir is "Defending Rights: a Life in Law & Politics. He is also listed in "Best Lawyers in America."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What does that respectable institution of journalism, the Wall Street Journal, say?
Oh, look! They carried Dan Abrams' column!
Apparently, they (professionals on journalism, and what is worth reporting)
disagreed with our one layman who claimed it was the byproduct of a lesser network and
errors on the part of the PROFESSIONAL who wrote it......
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569758678089027.html
* FEBRUARY 27, 2009
Presumed Innocent? Bernie Madoff?
Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
There have been many first hand accounts written here and at other web sites concerning the crimes that wierwille and his fellows committed..and no not all the accounts have been nameless and faceless....To suggest otherwise Dove, IS a fabrication.
I can only figure that it is manufactured to minimalize the credibility of the numerous people whom have shared their experiences. These crimes have been acknowledged by more than one leader as to having occured.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
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 and decided you like it.
Strawman--------I never claimed to have witnessed a rape.
Do you have a vested interest in the controversy you incite?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here.
Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'll cut to the chase here.
Do you or do you not have any business interests that involve sales of Way materials?
I'm not interested in a song and dance routine.
Just answer the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear TWI victims,
Please feel free to infer that most everybody that counts here at the Greasespot Cafe will see through any attempt that would tend to liken believing your story with being inquisitorial as White Dove implies with this last post. You will find smart and good hearted people here who will listen to you.
Dear Wierwille rape victims,
It matters nothing to me who White Dove thinks is an internet wannabe.
Please don't let this type of put down fool you into thinking that anyone will think less of you here. As a matter of fact it seems plain to me that many would be happy to fight FOR YOU.
Dear TWI victims,
Please do not believe anyone who points out that your stories are unverifiable and so we cannot believe you. Most people would call that "calling into question" your story, I understand this, and so does most everybody else here.
Many folks here at the Greasespot knew you or knows somebody who knows you.
Don't worry TWI victims. Most of us understand that it is cowardly to imply someone is lying without having the cohones to actually say someone is lying. Even if they choose to hide behind persnickety and unrealistic conversational mores.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove that is rediculous....There were first hand accounts that some were fine with the arrangements?? So that makes the many cases of drugging, rape, manipulation and extortion for sex in return for healing NOT criminal or contemptible??
Good lord man, I have heard of only two accounts of people claiming to be *ok* with it...one, I don`t believe she is *ok* all.....while I have heard dozens of accounts of extortion, drugging, and rape...where the victims WEREN`T *ok with it*...where people went to the man of God for healing from their pain...ONLY to have the need for peace, the longing for healing used as leverage to get sex.
People hurting so bad, wanting healing so intensely from the pain...that they were clinging to the last hope that wierwille could help them achieve the peace that their tortured soul was so desperate for....only to be told that he could heal them, that he could give them a reason to live...by sleeping with them.
Bless his soul, what a saint :(
If it was *ok* I seriously doubt that there would have had such life long impact on so many.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not what I said as usual. I never excused any crimes what I said was there are conflicting presentations both are undocumentable leaving one to pick, choose ,flip a coin, as to which is truth, maybe both are, the point we don't know, we were not there. Isn't that the standard you seem to hold me to. You were not there so your unqualified to speak? So were you ? No So you pick a view point that fits with how you feel toward the Way. Sorry not me I won't violate a persons rights on a whim. Your free to offer your opinion on what you believe to be true and I am free to as well and challenge that as having no evidence to support the words. Neither of us can speak with authority as we were not there. I choose to except the facts as they are undocumentable beyond words. That makes no one a liar, excuses no crimes ,it only verifies the facts as they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Dear Jeff I have never stated that anyone was lying ,that is pure fiction, fabrication on your part, and a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint which by the way is against the rules here. Contrary to your fabricated version I have consistently presented the facts as they are. We have words ,I say this is what happened ,we have others that say a different thing that happened, those are the facts. What one chooses to believe ,how one feeeels are not, they are emotions which could be based on a variety of reasons. I'm not looking for pats on the back for being Dr. Phil of GreaseSpot, I'm looking for the factual truth . And that is at present it is undocumentable ,that may change fine with me either way, but until it does I won't make a guess as to guilt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Is anyone keeping track of how many logical fallacies WD can commit
in a single thread?
This one is equivalent to saying
"Lots of people met Jeffrey Dahmer and were never eaten"
and using that to suggest Dahmer was innocent of cannibalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As anyone WHO CAN READ can see,
claiming Jeff said WD said OUTRIGHT that anyone is lying
is ITSELF a LIE, is ITSELF "PURE FICTION",
a "FABRICATION",
and a "MISREPRESENTATION"
of what Jeff actually said.
So far WD has misunderstood THE LAW,
the VICTIM'S ACCOUNTS,
the EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of BYSTANDERS,
the EXPLANATIONS BY PROFESSIONALS,
and the POSTS ON THIS THREAD.
Considering WD's posted many times on this thread denigrating the use
of eyewitness testimony to conclude guilt,
he's also misunderstood what the Bible has said on the subject as well.
Then again,
it's possible he DID understand all this,
and has a personal agenda that he considers more important
than the truth about the law, the truth about what's said,
and the truth about what God Almighty said.
I can't respect either stance.
Gross laziness or gross hypocrisy? Not something I can accept.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If you read this thread backwards it says, " I buried (Victor) Paul."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Yes Dove, you are free to flip a coin and ignore the testimony of so many, the pain suffered, free to label the accounts as not credible...free to dismiss the testimony of so many people who were grievously harmed by this man and his ministry...
That doesn`t make the crimes committed by vpw any less heinous, or the damage inflicted any less destructive.
Dr. Phil?? Oh please...from what I can see he tries to help folks...What do you do for anybody?? All I see you trying to do is come up with ever new and clever ways to call into question or eliminate the evidence of the testimony of the actual experiences of people here in attempt to give your limited perspective more weight.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Long read--------but pertinent.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=164
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well Dove, there are your first hand accounts ... Thank you waysider for posting that link
:) I had forgotten some of the horror. Well worth the re read to remind myself just how despicable this filthy pervert was.
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.