Burden of proof of Laden's responsability for 911.

Post Reply New Topic

Which is less worse: A live inspiration or a dead martyr?

ruveyn

and.............?

I mean, I doubt that alone is enough and that strong, as it looks, other evidence is needed to corroborate that, just watching him, on CNN or whatever, he or the terrorist organization taking credit for it, doesn't seem enough. I mean, does it make him a suspect? I'd say yes, but suspect != guilty.


Te bottom line with this thread, is about the question of wether the culpability has been proved systematically or not, I know that it hasn't been proved through court.

I demand burden of proof that the World Trade Center ever existed

There you go........

I demand proof that this forum isn't just a figment of my imagination.

Prisons are full of people put away by testimony and confessions. In this case we have computer records as well. Why would that suddenly not be enough? Too much CSI has convinced people that criminal justice is rooted in biology experiments.

Ive read that this is actually a problem with modern US juries. They expect a CSI tv show when they enter the courtroom and the average cases don't look like that.

No kidding! I strongly suspect that the average uninformed member of the public thinks that every crime scene is covered in semen

well, what I get is that, witness testimonies and confessions are not that reliable, (witness testimonies are practically laymen opinions) I also get that confessions need other evidence to support them, just the mere confession isn't enough, especially if they are forced or coerced.

Live inspiration.

Exactly, forensics isn't magic like people tend to think it is. There's no such thing as evidence being 100% damning or anything even close to that. The evidence just has to be sufficient enough.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 03 May 2011, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you show testimony, computer records, financial trails and other evidence to a jury about a mob boss and then show a video where the mob boss says he ordered the crime... what do you think will happen?

You just need to convince 12 people in a room that this is the guy. That's all.

This is not a Perry Mason case. It's not Free Mumia.

Yeah, but you have here other evidence than just confessions and (witness) testimony, no? And I noticed that you mentioned confession, so part of my objection is that, do you put some weight to confessions?


and well, another question though, what the defense would do with that?


well, duh, however, we can't easily forget things such as "prejudice" and "parcialism", which I pressume they would try hard to avoid them, and the concept of "reasonable doubt".

By the way, my basis comes from civil courts, military courts may be different, if so, then I would tend to think: "may God help you if you become an international suspect conspiring against the US" more so than a US citizen, suspect of a crime inside its borders.

If the hitman says the boss ordered it, then a video emerges of the boss admitting it.... he's very likely going to prison based on those words. Just words. But he's gone;. I said "testimony and confessions". The two combined. I also said we have much more than that.

The evidence that Bin Laden was the head of AQ is overhwelming. You can imagine that some other evidence exists but you have not presented it. How can I argue against your imagination? No one disputes his leadership of AQ. Not him, not his men, not the world's governments.



If I start training, funding and hanging out with terrorists in Afghanistan while issuing video tapes claming responsibility for attacks against the United States, I think I have the good sense to know what to expect.

Ok, this is why I asked the question, as I think the public may not know the details or know the issue deeply than what they hear on the news, also, the problem with the US claiming weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when that wasn't the case, or so the people understood it that way.

Anyway, part of my question was wether the evidence has been properly examined by experts as if they would in court, (but without a court in this case obviously), to get to a justifiable and reasonable conclusion or that he was just a suspect based on circumstantial evidence, and wether all was just circumstantial. You answered already with the notion that the evidence was actually examined by experts, and yeah, that is something, however no jury and no trial, and wether this can be said with certainty, to go "beyond reasonable doubt", or wether this doesn't matter in this case.

The other part of the question is wether we can actually justify 100% of certainty, without the whole process.

Now that you bring TV shows as CSI and such, yeah well, as I think you have a point regarding that, however I don't watch them, I don't even like them, I have however, watched on ocassional times, few documentaries, and they usually bring some notions such as dismissing circumstantial evidence as enough to convict someone, reasonable doubt, etc. Now how much is this related to reality, on how the courts work, I really don't know, but I believe that 'innocent in prisons' is always a possibility on any system. And well, after all I am a layman, however the ones who believe and go along the lines of "it is so obvious" tend to be leymen as well.