Author: David Dahlem
Date: 09:21:19 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 10:54:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 01:46:15, 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. >>> >>>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... >> >>Contrary to human nature or not, just because a person doesn't respond to >>accusations says absolutely nothing about guilt or innocence. All humans are, >>fortunately, not the same. :-) >> >>Regards >>Dave > > >it doesn't say anything direct about guilt or innocence, I would agree. > >But it a courtroom, the "perception" of guilt or innocence is a significant part >of the trial. Does a witness appear to be nervous about some answers. Is he >evasive? None of those _directly_ prove guilt or innocence. But all of those >are considered in the jury room. From experience. Yes, i agree completely with this, but you were previously talking about judging a defendant based on his not taking the stand. This is completely different from judging whether a witness is credible. :-) Regards Dave
This page took 0.02 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.