The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty,

[geisha779]

Whitedove,

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

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

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

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

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

Show me the statute.. . cite it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder why?

[potato]

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

[geisha779]

I can't believe I spelled criminal wrong in my last post. . . sorry would not let me edit. I need to seriously spell check.

[WhiteDove]

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

they really are not the same..

are opinions valuable? Yes.

Are verdicts? I would say generally, yes..

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

generally- no.

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

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

I never saw a response to this question.

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

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

[WhiteDove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited February 15, 2009 by WhiteDove

[rascal]

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

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

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

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

Edited February 15, 2009 by rascal

[WhiteDove]

Whitedove,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..... Right, WD?

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

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

Show me the statute.. . cite it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.......

[WhiteDove]

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

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

[waysider]

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

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

[geisha779]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited February 15, 2009 by geisha779

[WhiteDove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[waysider]

"Internet court of guilt"

HaHaHaHaHa!

I'll have to google that one and see what comes up.

HaHaHaHaHa!

[GrouchoMarxJr]

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

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

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

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

[WhiteDove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rascal]

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

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

[geisha779]

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

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

What DO you really know?

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

The man was a PIG!

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

Edited February 15, 2009 by geisha779

[WhiteDove]

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

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

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

[waysider]

Does this innocence thing hold up in Mexico?

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

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

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

[WhiteDove]

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

What DO you really know?

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

The man was a PIG!

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

Yes it is evident from your speech. that demenstrates intent

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

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

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

Does this innocence thing hold up in Mexico?

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

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

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

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

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

Edited February 15, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

Oh, I'm sorry.

I forgot to mention PASMOS.

My bad.

Edited February 15, 2009 by waysider

[geisha779]

Yes it is evident from your speech. that demenstrates intent

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

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

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

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

Rascal is quite credible.

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

To add: CRIMES are prosecuted in a courtroom, anyone can lay the charge of a crime at someones feet. He parked in the handicap spot and walked into the store just fine. . . he doesn't have a sticker. . . that is a crime!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 15, 2009 by geisha779

[WhiteDove]

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

Rascal is quite credible.

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

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

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

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

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

[waysider]

Trying to prove your point by false claims is also not endearing to a judge

Well, now. Are we sure they're false claims?

Are you assuming the person is guilty of making false claims?

Shouldn't we presume they are innocent of your charges?

Sounds to me like a rush to judgment.

Edited February 15, 2009 by waysider

[rascal]

.

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

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

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

[geisha779]

[. . . only to your suggestion that you conducted a lie detector test.

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

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

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

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

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