Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:57:26 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 12:21:19, David Dahlem wrote: >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 Same thing. If the defendent doesn't take the stand, juries ask "I wonder why? What does he have to hide?" It is a known problem...
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.