SpinnerMan wrote:Glimmerjim wrote:I would say that legally both are being given the benefit of the doubt.
SpinnerMan wrote: Enlighten me on your new legal theory where the accused does not get the benefit of the doubt in the trial? There are not two people on trial, so enlighten me as to who the "both" are?
You know exactly what I mean, Spinner. If it helps you to understand, let's state it as "Both the defense and the prosecution are given equal opportunity to prove their case". Did I even remotely indicate that the "accused" is not given the benefit of the doubt, which is what you aver verbatim ?
SpinnerMan wrote: It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt?
Oh, never mind. You just restated my point which you so strenuously attempted to ridicule a moment ago.
SpinnerMan wrote: You have just shift the burden of proof on to the accused and empowered the government. I get as a liberal how this doesn't bother you in the slightest. Empowering the government just isn't something that concerns you when you believe you will get the outcome you desire.
Well, since you have not the slightest indication whatsoever of the outcome I desire, I am not sure your "scientific mind" is forming conclusions from accurate data. Perhaps that is the conservatism in you. "On all points and at all times.....BLUSTER....therein lies our strength!" Using your "best scientifically investigative endeavors" provide me an example of where I ever stated that I wished anything but the truth to prevail in this case. Do I believe it warranted investigation? Absolutely. Is it being investigated? Yes. Do I feel that the entire legal system is so bereft of a desire for justice that it does nothing but kowtow to public opinion? No. Do I feel it is only bereft of this desire when things don't go "my way", like you? No.