From: "Paul J. Adam"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:54:31 +0100
Organization: Wholesale Lunacy
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S ()
In message <email@example.com>, Fred J. McCall
>Vince Brannigan wrote:
>So for Vince, a murder victim isn't dead until the killer is charged?
A homicide victim dies. Is the homicide murder? Manslaughter?
The determination that a killing is the crime of murder is a judicial
one reached well after the act. What looks like murder can be turned
into self-defence: what is claimed as justifiable homicide can get you
banged up for life.
The only constant factor is that the homicide victim stays dead.
>My, what a Schroedinger universe he lives in.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, are you instantly
and automatically a murderer? If he came at you with a knife and you
defended yourself, are you still a murderer? What if it transpires that
he fled and you shot him repeatedly as he crawled away?
How does any of what happened emerge and how are the facts learned?
The Schroedinger analogy is apt. The particle decays, whether we watch
it or not. But how do we determine what happened? In the case of crime,
it's through a court of law, and both the UK and US have enshrined the
principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
>:No, actually the issue is whehter they can prove you did it. that is
>:a perosn gulty of a crime.
>No, that is what makes them CONVICTED of a crime.
"Innocent until proven guilty".
Fred, there are stories  that you eat babies for breakfast, worship
the graven image of Winston S. Churchill, and dress members of the conch
family in flimsy lingerie for your personal gratification
Can you _prove_ they are not true?
Should the burden of proof be on the accuser, or on the accused?
(Did you participate, or at least observe, any of the TWA
>:prosecutor unilaterally controls whehter the case is brought your
>Did OJ do it?
Probability high enough to convince a prosecutor to bring the charge,
and high enough to convince the jury in a civil case. Enough doubt, real
or manufactured, to be 'reasonable' in the criminal case, hence his
acquittal there: enough certainty for 'balance of probabilities' in the
Simple question, difficult answer. (But you knew that going in.)
OJ was charged and tried and acquitted. Clinton wasn't even tried.
 Stories which I have made up entirely out of whole cloth for the
purpose of this debate, since despite our disagreements I have no
evidence or belief that Mr McCall is guilty of any greater wickedness
than an occasional public bout of petulance. Still, since I have now
told them, they 'exist'.
 From Dave Barry. That one stuck, for some reason.
Paul J. Adam