The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty,

[potato]

<snip>

But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable.

</snip>

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's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

[waysider]

actually, for the record, the claims have been documented.

this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

Would that be apistia or apeitheia?

[potato]

Would that be apistia or apeitheia?

wouldn't dogged adherence to information proven untrue be APEITHEIA?

[Tzaia]

What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another

Actually you have "passed judgment." It is your judgment (opinion) that you can't say someone is guilty of a crime unless that person has been tried and convicted in a court of law. In your eyes that person is innocent and evidence is not factual unless it has been "proven" through the process of litigation. You also assume that only the legal system can determine fact or truth. It's an interesting standard, one which I don't believe is practical. Do you apply that standard to every situation?

[JeffSjo]

I can say this honestly with no hesitation whatsoever.

Leadership in my splinter group destroyed my life and others with false accusations. What went hand in hand with the lives they destroyed was a false and insane opinion of there spiritual authority and their competency.

I have heard many sharings that have made it clear that my former splinter group leadership learned how to do these things from top TWI leadership.

I wish my former splinter group was willing to consider people like me to be not guilty without hard evidence.

But the greasespotters that I've heard since I came hear are in an altogether better universe than TWI leadership was in terms of handling these things IMO.

Well, at least the ones who are not casting doubt on honest victims by calling into question many experiences and documented occurrences. When the documentation fits the personal sharings so well, it seems very reasonable to believe the sharings without having anything specific reason to doubt them.

Right now I am most thankful for the many Greasespotters who have been brave enough to share their experiences in spite of the oppressive nature of some of the opposition.

So when it is all said and done for me, the Greasespotters have done a better job in these things than TWI leadership, and better too than those who cast doubt on reasonable and honest testimony

(edited for spelling)

Edited March 5, 2009 by JeffSjo

[Tzaia]

I wish my former splinter group was willing to consider people like me to be not guilty without hard evidence.

Why do you wish that?

[RumRunner]

I was never in a splinter group - left and never looked back - BUT...

I hope TWI considers me guilty on all counts since I find their disgraceful use of humanity an abomination in itself. With that organization, the more guilty they find me, the more I feel like I made some decent and humane decisions.

You can prowl around CBS.com and find old Twilight Zone episodes - find the one titled "Obsolete." You may find it hauntingly familiar in a reverse and perverse sort of sense.

I wish my former splinter group was willing to consider people like me to be not guilty without hard evidence.

edited for the TZ reference

Edited March 4, 2009 by RumRunner

[JeffSjo]

I can say this honestly with no hesitation whatsoever.

Leadership in my splinter group destroyed my life and others with false accusations. What went hand in hand with the lives they destroyed was a false and insane opinion of there spiritual authority and their competency.

I have heard many sharings that have made it clear that my former splinter group leadership learned how to do these things from top TWI leadership.

I wish my former splinter group was willing to consider people like me to be not guilty without hard evidence.

Why do you wish that?

Dear Tzaia,

The reason, as I stated, is because of the false accusations that my splinter group leadership held against me.

And after reading White Dove's concern that we hold TWI leadership to be innocent until proven guilty it seemed like a fine time to point out what many of us already know to be true. I believe that TWI leadership was willing to throw about any accusation that served their purposes without the benefit of the courts that White Dove is so keen on expounding on the virtues of.

Except for their total disregard of the truth and what clearly appears to be the worst possible motives that I can imagine they do deserve a fair hearing still. I think the Greasespotters have given them this and justly point out guilt and corruption.

Does that explanation spell out why I think my post was on-topic?

I was never in a splinter group - left and never looked back - BUT...

I hope TWI considers me guilty on all counts since I find their disgraceful use of humanity an abomination in itself. With that organization, the more guilty they find me, the more I feel like I made some decent and humane decisions.

You can prowl around CBS.com and find old Twilight Zone episodes - find the one titled "Obsolete." You may find it hauntingly familiar in a reverse and perverse sort of sense.

edited for the TZ reference

I know that feeling Rumrunner.

I often feel that my former splinter group leadership was sooo bad that accusing me of having a devil quite possibly means that I was doing something right.

[Tzaia]

Dear Tzaia,

The reason, as I stated, is because of the false accusations that my splinter group leadership held against me.

What I said was off topic. I wasn't insinuating that you were off topic. Jeff, you were done a tremendous service. Otherwise you might have stayed around. Once you completely shake free, you'll understand that it really was for the best.

[JeffSjo]

Oh, O.K. Tzaia,

Thank you, and thank you for clearing that up. :) Yeah, it might be for the best, I get that. But I'm happy to share the experiences with all too.

[WhiteDove]

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's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

Actually you have "passed judgment." It is your judgment (opinion) that you can't say someone is guilty of a crime unless that person has been tried and convicted in a court of law. In your eyes that person is innocent and evidence is not factual unless it has been "proven" through the process of litigation. You also assume that only the legal system can determine fact or truth. It's an interesting standard, one which I don't believe is practical. Do you apply that standard to every situation?

Not my judgement it is correct speaking and the law as well.

[WhiteDove]

Dear Tzaia,

The reason, as I stated, is because of the false accusations that my splinter group leadership held against me.

And after reading White Dove's concern that we hold TWI leadership to be innocent until proven guilty it seemed like a fine time to point out what many of us already know to be true. I believe that TWI leadership was willing to throw about any accusation that served their purposes without the benefit of the courts that White Dove is so keen on expounding on the virtues of.

Assuming you are correct for a moment, So do you want to be like them? Is that your standard to follow the crowd, right or wrong ?or will you stand for ones rights?

Except for their total disregard of the truth and what clearly appears to be the worst possible motives that I can imagine they do deserve a fair hearing still. I think the Greasespotters have given them this and justly point out guilt and corruption.

Really? reading one side of the story on the internet by faceless avatars that's your idea of a fair hearing?

Does that explanation spell out why I think my post was on-topic?

I know that feeling Rumrunner.

I often feel that my former splinter group leadership was sooo bad that accusing me of having a devil quite possibly means that I was doing something right.

[waysider]

QUOTE (potato @ Mar 4 2009, 11:11 AM) *

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's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

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

WD said:

No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

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

In an odd twist of irony, you fail to recognize that you, sir, are the accuser.

You are accusing people of making false statements about Wierwille's nefarious deeds.

Since Wierwille is dead, that places the burden on you to prove their statements are false.

Edited March 5, 2009 by waysider

[WhiteDove]

Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.

We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a

medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.

Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,

but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.

If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,

say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,

that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,

feel free to post a link.

So because he is a professional and has one opinion that makes him the authority? Really? then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right? There are lots of professionals last time I looked that did not qualify you as the authority on truth alone.

Speaking of medical professionals........

Dentist Claims Breast Massage Necessary Treatment

Story

He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how

presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.

How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain

to you how to perform it?

I don't see where he specified non professionals , yoiu assume that because it goes along with your point.

Edited March 5, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

The man was a drunken pervert with a heart of stone.

He duped you just like he duped all of us.

Get over it.

[WhiteDove]

QUOTE (potato @ Mar 4 2009, 11:11 AM) *

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's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

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

WD said:

No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

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

In an odd twist of irony, you fail to recognize that you, sir, are the accuser.

You are accusing people of making false statements about Wierwille's nefarious deeds.

Since Wierwille is dead, that places the burden on you to prove their statements are false.

Your confused again, I never accused anyone of such rhetoric, what I did say and the record will bear out, is that one side of the story has been told only , and on the internet no less, and as such they are undocumented claims that have no hard physical evidence to establish them as fact or not, unless you have some you wish to offer of said claims. as such no claim of guilt has been established , Wierwille's state of life or death has nothing to do with documentation, one either has the evidence or not to present. Those that claim him guilty of crimes must satisfy their claim with the burden of proof. Other wise it is an opinion not conformation of guilt and should be noted as such.

Edited March 5, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

[WhiteDove]

The man was a drunken pervert with a heart of stone.

He duped you just like he duped all of us.

Get over it.

WOW we have no point, so we have reduced ourselves to silly rhymes impressive......

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

Wrong I'm not the one claiming him guilty of a crime .

[waysider]

We are no longer talking about accusations against Wierwille.

We're talking about the accusations you are making against his victims.

Prove that their claims are false or stop accusing them of wrong doing.

The burden of proof has shifted to you.

Edited March 5, 2009 by waysider

[potato]

<snip>

Those that claim him guilty of crimes must satisfy their claim with the burden of proof. Other wise it is an opinion not conformation of guilt and should be noted as such.

you're wrong. vpw's victims are not under burden of proof. they have the constitutional right to tell their story without synthetic obstructions like your so-called presumption of innocence.

[WhiteDove]

We are no longer talking about accusations against Wierwille.

We're talking about the accusations you are making against his victims.

Prove that their claims are false or stop accusing them of wrong doing.

The burden of proof has shifted to you.

Last I looked I started this thread and that is not the topic I have no obligation to proove your claims. I'm discussing accusations against Wierwille here.

[RumRunner]

Have some more coffee WhiteDove

Last I looked I started this thread and that is not the topic I have no obligation to proove your claims. I'm discussing accusations against Wierwille here.

[WhiteDove]

you're wrong. vpw's victims are not under burden of proof. they have the constitutional right to tell their story without synthetic obstructions like your so-called presumption of innocence.

Their right gives them the oppertunity to state their opinion not confirm guilt with out others rights being protected just as theirs are.

Edited March 5, 2009 by WhiteDove

[chockfull]

Your confused again, I never accused anyone of such rhetoric, what I did say and the record will bear out, is that one side of the story has been told only , and on the internet no less, and as such they are undocumented claims that have no hard physical evidence to establish them as fact or not, unless you have some you wish to offer of said claims. as such no claim of guilt has been established , Wierwille's state of life or death has nothing to do with documentation, one either has the evidence or not to present. Those that claim him guilty of crimes must satisfy their claim with the burden of proof. Other wise it is an opinion not conformation of guilt and should be noted as such.

That is true that there are undocumented claims by physical evidence. So because VPW is deceased, he doesn't seem to have anyone to be able to respond with facts to be able to refute the claims laid against him. Many people who were around during the timeframes of these accusations can provide corroboration of facts involved in the stories. Of course, it is very available for any of VPW's relatives, or current members of TWI to come forward in public and provide facts that would discount stories.

Trying to hold these claims to some level of legal standard is ludicrous. There is no court case as there is no defendant. That means there are no depositions, or any of the other legal artifacts that are a byproduct.

Which means that someone trying to apply those standards is delusional.

[WhiteDove]

That is true that there are undocumented claims by physical evidence. So because VPW is deceased, he doesn't seem to have anyone to be able to respond with facts to be able to refute the claims laid against him. Many people who were around during the timeframes of these accusations can provide corroboration of facts involved in the stories. Of course, it is very available for any of VPW's relatives, or current members of TWI to come forward in public and provide facts that would discount stories.

Trying to hold these claims to some level of legal standard is ludicrous. There is no court case as there is no defendant. That means there are no depositions, or any of the other legal artifacts that are a byproduct.

Which means that someone trying to apply those standards is delusional.

Which means claiming any guilt of a crime that was not, by your standards is delusional. It seems none has been established since no legal artifacts have been met. Therefore it is opinion.