Author: David Dahlem
Date: 09:27:55 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 10:55:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 01:25:53, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 00:12:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 21, 2004 at 23:03:25, Mike Byrne wrote: >>> >>>>On August 21, 2004 at 22:49:23, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 21, 2004 at 21:18:52, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I do not believe that everything in the newspaper is correct(I know that there >>>>>>are cases when there is even contradiction between different newspapers) but if >>>>>>a big newspaper publish really bad things against sombody(and I am not talking >>>>>>about every mistake in details about him but about accusation of something that >>>>>>he is not quilty) then I expect the person to do something against the newspaper >>>>>>if the claim of the newspaper is a lie. >>>>> >>>>>Your expectations have no bearing on the innocence or guilt of another person in >>>>>a single instance. >>>>> >>>>>You are using a probabilistic argument which doesn't hold up for a single >>>>>instance. Even if innocent people usually defend themselves more often than not >>>>>(I don't know if this is true or not), that doesn't mean that if one person does >>>>>not defend against one accusation that the person is more likely to be guilty. >>>>> >>>>>If you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads 100 times, the chance that it >>>>>will land on tails the next time is still 50%. Past events don't change the >>>>>probabilities for future events. Whether he chooses to defend himself publicly >>>>>or not doesn't change the chance that he cheated. He either did or he didn't, >>>>>and none of us know the truth. Unless you have some evidence to present, you are >>>>>just speculating. >>>>> >>>>>Every person was raised differently by their parents, has different values, >>>>>different life circumstances, a different culture, and so on. His reason for not >>>>>releasing his source code could be almost anything. Just becuase you would have >>>>>released your source code if you were innocent doesn't mean that everyone else >>>>>would do the same thing if they were innocent. Maybe he just doesn't care what a >>>>>bunch of computer chess nerds think about something they don't know anything >>>>>about :-) >>>> >>>>I was going to reply to Uri- but you actually said it much better and in more >>>>depth - a denial or lack of denial has no bearing on guilt or innocence. in >>>>fact, how often have we seen denials that later turned to be false. Also what >>>>"big newspaper publish really bad things " about Reul - none as far I know. >>>> >>>>I find it odd ( and interesting) that someone would actually attribute more >>>>guilt (in their eyes) due to lack of denial. It runs along the same lines as >>>>attributing guilt to a defendant that refuses to testify in case against >>>>himself. Clearly applying his own "code of conduct" to others ,where it may >>>>have absolutly no relevancy. >>> >>>Actually, when a defendent does _not_ take the stand in his own defense, that >>>tends to put the jury on notice that there is something in his background that >>>he wants to keep out of the trial. It does influence the result and defense >>>attorneys only use that tactic when the potential damage is worse than keeping >>>the defendent off the stand and biasing the jury against him. >>> >> >>Having a bias against a defendant because he doesn't take the stand is WRONG, >>WRONG, WRONG!! >> >>Regards >>Dave > >Sorry, but it is a FACT, FACT, FACT. Earlier you said: "Actually, when a defendent does _not_ take the stand in his own defense, that tends to put the jury on notice that there is something in his background that he wants to keep out of the trial. It does influence the result and defense attorneys only use that tactic when the potential damage is worse than keeping the defendent off the stand and biasing the jury against him." I'm wondering how you know, except in cases where you have actually been on juries, whether the defendant takes the stand or not, "does influence the result"? Do you have some special insight into jurors thinking? Regards Dave > >Perception is often as important as actual testimony... > >That is why the witness stand exists, otherwise prosecutors/defense attorneys >would just present written statements by the witnesses and be done. > > >>>It _is_ strange that he did not respond. It is contrary to human nature to not >>>respond to accusations when they are really false and damaging...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.