Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:55:59 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. 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.