REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The nature of evidence

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 28, 2019 16:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1065
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 28, 2019 12:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2019 1:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

It's too bad the Founders did not allow Proof of Innocence to be a Defense, which SCOTUS has rejected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2019 1:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

It's too bad the Founders did not allow Proof of Innocence to be a Defense, which SCOTUS has rejected.

What is "proof of innocence"? Do you have any links to this concept, or SCOTUS rulings?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Random Libtard Beaner Senator Tries Some Political Theater
Sat, June 14, 2025 03:59 - 1 posts
The Pathetic Lying Legacy Media Has Gone Insane
Sat, June 14, 2025 02:57 - 42 posts
IRAN: Trump's war?
Sat, June 14, 2025 02:04 - 226 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, June 14, 2025 01:42 - 5541 posts
Western Canada on Fire
Fri, June 13, 2025 23:10 - 49 posts
Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
Fri, June 13, 2025 18:58 - 2314 posts
'Border Czar' Tom Homan: Gavin Newsom And Karen Bass Could Be Arrested If They Get In ICE's Way
Fri, June 13, 2025 17:44 - 4 posts
Unconstitutional President
Fri, June 13, 2025 16:12 - 55 posts
CNN's Bash: Trump Says Iran Should Make A Deal Now That "Hardliners" Are Dead; "They Didn't Die Of Covid"
Fri, June 13, 2025 15:35 - 1 posts
Midterms 2026
Fri, June 13, 2025 15:17 - 151 posts
Diminishing Protest Returns: Another weekend of demonstrations against Trump won’t get the left anything.
Fri, June 13, 2025 11:53 - 1 posts
Israeli War
Fri, June 13, 2025 11:52 - 80 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL