The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty,

[WhiteDove]

issues of libel and the law have already been addressed.

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

from American Heritage:

ev·i·dence n.

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

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

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

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

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

2. To support by testimony; attest.

oh, and how about:

guilt·y adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est

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

2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WhiteDove]

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

Please supply a specific example.

I think you're blowing smoke with semantic trivia.

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

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

"I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable"

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

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

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

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

This is what I actually posted.

"Maybe it's just me.

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

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

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

ignore   

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

[waysider]

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

[WhiteDove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited February 16, 2009 by WhiteDove

[WhiteDove]

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

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

Edited February 16, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

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

You one funny dude, WD.

[WhiteDove]

BUT the phrase "presumption of innocence" ONLY applies to the judiciary process that assumes that most people are not criminals. As others have pointed out, the presumption of innocence is a legal statement, not a factual statement. A person can be legally innocent of a crime, yet be factually guilty. A person can also be legally guilty of a crime, yet be factually innocent. The statement "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard that must be adhered to outside of its intended purpose - which is to give all accused the right to a fair trial.

It's actually an alleged factual statement as is yet to be proven it is a fact only to the few people involved all others posting of it's fact have no knowledge that it is ,they simply choose to believe those that were present Or not. When you make charges of guilty you then take it from factual to legal it is a legal charge to a crime. If it happened it is a fact, but one must prove the if, it is not automatic just because one says so, no more so than it is because one says it it not so. Each must be backed up before it is factual. That is why we have investigations after testimony is taken to determine what is factual.

VPW is dead and can't defend himself against the accusations of sexual misconduct, which did not come to light until his death. However, the other allegations, such as his diploma mill doctorate and the plagiarism were never refuted by him - at least not legally. Furthermore, neither TWI nor his heirs have gone after anyone who has claimed sexual abuse at the hands of VPW. The reason why that has not happened (IMO) is because TWI and heirs would then have the burden of proof against the accusers. They weren't able to prove LCM's innocence against his accusers and ended up settling. Do you think TWI would fare any better if they were to take the offensive against posters here regarding VPW's behavior? Let me remind you that TWI has a low threshold of tolerance regarding being seen in an unseemly way (think Rocky Horror - AOTS and Talk Soup), so this ignoring the posts here IMO has more to do with no ground rather than taking any high road.

I think that lack of action on the part of TWI and VPW's heirs should speak volumes to you or any of his apologists about where TWI and his heirs think they stand with regards to defending VPW's honor and integrity as the former president of TWI.

Not really ,some things are too expensive, too time consuming, for the end benefit to pursue as some have pointed out here lack of pursuit does not mean no crime was committed. It works both ways. I'll not choose to speculate on what the outcome of a event may be or could be.

[potato]

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

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

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

citation please. if you're going to cut and paste someone else's words to argue your point, let us read the rest of it in context.

[waysider]

citation please. if you're going to cut and paste someone else's words to argue your point, let us read the rest of it in context.

That never stopped Wierwille.

HaHaHaHaHa!

[potato]

That never stopped Wierwille.

HaHaHaHaHa!

LOL! exactly :)

here's a better source than an uncited wikipedia article opinion piece.

http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence

[waysider]

I wonder if Wierwille and Co. ever considered the ramifications of violating The Mann Act?

ALSO

(Please note: I posed the question of whether they ever considered it. I didn't say they violated it.)

Edited February 16, 2009 by waysider

[Tzaia]

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

Well if that's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black!!

You started the confusion by stating that (in order to be fair) all are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Then when someone brought up Hitler, you backed off by limiting the idea to the US legal system (actually you are wrong about that because the Nuremberg trials were based on the same premise).

You seem to ignore factual innocence and guilt, preferring a definition of legal innocence and guilt - knowing that he can't defend his honor. Well his family does have the right to and could defend his honor and integrity and have chosen not to do so - at least in a court of law.

[waysider]

Then when someone brought up Hitler, you backed off by limiting the idea to the US legal system (actually you are wrong about that because the Nuremberg trials were based on the same premise).

Then when a scenario that DID include the U.S. legal system was cited (Jim Jones), no definitive answer was ever presented.

*****************************************

Do you suppose the motorcoach ever had any "passengers" when it crossed state lines?

Edited February 16, 2009 by waysider

[potato]

You seem to ignore factual innocence and guilt, preferring a definition of legal innocence and guilt - knowing that he can't defend his honor. Well his family does have the right to and could defend his honor and integrity and have chosen not to do so - at least in a court of law.

excellent point, Tzaia. does twi also have a right to bring suit to defend his reputation? seems like they, if anyone, would have the most to gain by taking it to court, if they could win, which after reading the federal rules of evidence seems highly unlikely. they don't have any problem going after other churches that use the name "the way", but apparently vpw's pristine reputation is of lesser consequence.

[Tzaia]

excellent point, Tzaia. does twi also have a right to bring suit to defend his reputation? seems like they, if anyone, would have the most to gain by taking it to court, if they could win, which after reading the federal rules of evidence seems highly unlikely. they don't have any problem going after other churches that use the name "the way", but apparently vpw's pristine reputation is of lesser consequence.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe TWI has a financial stake in VPW's "good" name <hack, cough> and could defend it as an heir (of sorts). He basically became a corporation and turned his assets over to the corporation, so the corporation has a stake in his name.

I truly believe this is a can-of-worms they know they do not want to open because they know they could not win and it might drag even more mud into the mix.

[waysider]

Perhaps even more significant is that it would be costly.

With an ever shrinking "customer base", they need to use what's left prudently if they ever plan to tap it as a retirement fund.

[skyrider]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe TWI has a financial stake in VPW's "good" name <hack, cough> and could defend it as an heir (of sorts). He basically became a corporation and turned his assets over to the corporation, so the corporation has a stake in his name.

I truly believe this is a can-of-worms they know they do not want to open because they know they could not win and it might drag even more mud into the mix.

EXACTLY !

If the burden of proof were upon THEM to prosecute.......imagine the ramifications? the local newspapers of st. marys & new bremen & wapokenta? the twi followers would hear WAY MORE than twi ever wanted?

Waydale started in April 1999. It's been nearly 10 years and twi only took action with respect to j.p. wierwille's allegations of how twi was handling his mother. Pl@tig was the point man to confront that issue on Waydale.

But any attempts or threats to silence the "Dr" wierwille stuff?????............none, zip, nada

[Tzaia]

But any attempts or threats to silence the "Dr" wierwille stuff?????............none, zip, nada

I am not sure why, though.

[rascal]

I guess I figure that Kristin Skedgell`s book is documentation enough....It corroborates what the posters here and on messiah 7 have posted of their experiences with VPW.

[pond]

It is scary to think that because a person is angry at what another said about you your guilty of acrime.

the fact is LCM or VPW have never been arrested for any crime or brought up on charges or found in any sense of the word guilty.

A civil suit was settled by the parties OUT of the court which means they settled their differences without the "people" judge or jury having any say in the manner.

yes we do presume innocence, YET does that mean every person is innocent? no.

At some point we have established a STANDARD WD speaks of the legal system , which is one standard we must all abide within to meet legal standing in the community.

Another standard for some which would be BIBLE standard which clearly states we are all guilty of Sin and so the story goes... All may Chose to live by this standard which is dictacted by thier own ideals .

We have the internet forum standard.

we have a choice to live within the standards set by our community and our own self.

How one choses to convict another has alot to do with which standard of conviction one chooses to use at any given time.

both Rascal and WD are correct given their individual standards for truth in this manner.

Without a standard of what we determine right and wrong in society we would be the wild wild west in which each individual would govern their own justice and most probably kill one off even more rapidly than we appear to be doing so.

You know more than once in my life I have heard "people can say what they like, (and they do) but one has to prove it in a court of law". thank God.

no not a perfect system but a system that has worked and the only one we have. VPW or LCM was never arested or even accused of any crime in a court of law. which says the people never had evidence of a crime .

Why?

welll now. such is the purpose of Grease spot cafe.

Those who claim words on an internet forum is enough evidence can go to the local police dept. and give it a go with asking them to press charges even today.

but the problem is he is dead. and cant be convicted! well actualy the same token goes for defense he is dead and cant defend his self. just as powerful .

kind of a wash isnt it?

do I believe people do stuff and never get convicted of a crime? yes.

Do I believe people say stuff about others that are untrue and lies? yes.

that is why we have a standard.

[WhiteDove]

Then when a scenario that DID include the U.S. legal system was cited (Jim Jones), no definitive answer was ever presented.

*****************************************

Do you suppose the motorcoach ever had any "passengers" when it crossed state lines?

It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?

excellent point, Tzaia. does twi also have a right to bring suit to defend his reputation? seems like they, if anyone, would have the most to gain by taking it to court, if they could win, which after reading the federal rules of evidence seems highly unlikely. they don't have any problem going after other churches that use the name "the way", but apparently vpw's pristine reputation is of lesser consequence.

I think your right it is of lesser consequence as is anyone else no longer around. Once they realized they had no shot at salvaging their president, he also went by the wayside. No pun intended. They have nothing to gain as they have distanced themselves from the Weirwille name.

Edited February 17, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?

Simple.

You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.

Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.

Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?

[waysider]

Here's another issue to contemplate.

Do you suppose Wierwille ever considered that summoning someone to HQ, from another state, for the purpose of having sex with them, might violate The Mann Act?

[Tzaia]

I think your right it is of lesser consequence as is anyone else no longer around. Once they realized they had no shot at salvaging their president, he also went by the wayside. No pun intended. They have nothing to gain as they have distanced themselves from the Weirwille name.

I would disagree with the notion they have distanced themselves from Wierwille. They are still selling his books and calling them "landmark works". That's not distancing themselves - at least not how I understand the concept.

TWI is not necessarily "hanging its hat" on VPW's name, but he's still an integral part of the ministry. Obviously LCM has been completely expunged from its history, but we're not talking about him.

[Bolshevik]

Damn near every STS included stories about the late great vpw and how he is the example to follow.