Text 11193, 68 rader
Skriven 2005-04-09 01:01:11 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11148 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, John.

 EC>> Hey, VERN.

 EC>>>> -> In other words, if enough people SAY you said it, and if they
 EC>>>> -> were actually WITH you at the time they claim, and no one else
 EC>>>> -> was
 EC>>>> there, -> then you said it.

 EC>>>> Ontologically, no.  But it is evidence that I said it.  You have
 EC>>>> sorta described testimonial evidence.  If "enough" people were
 EC>>>> with Robert Blake when his wife was killed, and they say he shot
 EC>>>> her, and no one else was there who said he didn't, that is pretty
 EC>>>> good evidence.  Even that could potentially be refuted by other
 EC>>>> evidence: he has an evil twin, there are fingerprints on the
 EC>>>> murder weapon but not his, and so on.

 VH>>> But here we have a case where there are no twins, no fingerprints,
 VH>>> no nothing -- except "remembered" conversations that never led to
 VH>>> any action on her part

 EC>> Two things:

 EC>> 1.  Back when I used to read Perry Mason. (Yes children, there was

 JH> Always preferred Sam Spade to Perry Mason, myself.  Anyway...

Never said that Mason was all I read. <g>

 EC>> an author named Earl Stanley Gardener who wrote actual Perry Mason
 EC>> books and I read them all.) courts used to throw out hear-say evidence
 EC>> - or another way of saying that is that hear-say testimony was not
 EC>> considered valid evidence. Obviously we have a different standard now.

 JH> Perry would be aghast today at what passes for legal.

Let's say that if it were proposed as a TV script, it would be rejected as 
not sufficiently up to legal standards.

 EC>> 2.  Let's say that one day, this woman thought that she wouldn't
 EC>> like certain things and talked about it to someone.  But suppose, the
 EC>> next day, her solutions were different.  Sometimes even I change my
 EC>> mind. Women are notorious for changing their minds.  So, since she
 EC>> changed her mind, she never did sign the forms.  So how does this
 EC>> judge know what she wants now? It seems to me that her more current
 EC>> wishes are more important than what she mentioned to someone years
 EC>> ago.

 EC>> I'm all adrift.

 JH> Seriously, that's why we have laws, such as they are, governing these
 JH> situations.  When it gets down to a case of he said/she said like in
 JH> the Schiavo case, somebody has to decide.  You can't just go along in
 JH> limbo with no decision either way, and no matter which way you go,
 JH> you're wrong.

Actually, if there is no evidence, then she should live.

 JH> So, the only fair and impartial way to do it is to follow the law, and
 JH> hope that if someone does manipulate the system that karma works.  The
 JH> up side here is that laws can be changed, which entails a dialogue, and
 JH> hopefully wiser people making the decisions the next time around.

And it is in that dialogue that I now engage.


--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)