Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (431)	2/24/2000 11:20:00 AM
From: CJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

<Lux et Veritas>: Good reply by "Jim," EXCEPT, it went too far; thus detracting from the point of the letter by refocusing the emphasis. Calling for Rabbi Hecht to "resign his position at Yale immediately" is, IMO, childish and unwise. A request for clarification and an apology would have served Jim better.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (431)	2/26/2000 6:42:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Let the lux and veritas that is supposed to guide our judgements prevent confusion and haste precipitating error. It is a principle that innocence should be presumed and guilt therefore proven by trial of truth beyond any doubt that can be reasonably retained. What would guide that assumption or doubt would be the necessities of logic that emanate from probable circumstance as Occam averred and the lack of necessity of assuming miraculous intervention or supposed cause to predicate innocence. (or guilt) Innocence, its possibilities being manifold, and perhaps in many circumstance unsupportable by the testimony of others, cannot itself be proven of any man in all circumstance. Guilt however, while difficult to establish, can sometimes be inferred reasonably. There may be many circumstances of innocence, while few of guilt. Guilt therefore should be a well nigh logically inescapable conclusion, not a probability or possibility. Otherwise it cannot be entertained. If one should aver or accuse unreasonably or without sufficient care, or with malice, negliglently or by lies, then, as it is said in the testament of old, such as you would have done to the accused, so it should be done to you, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb. This is the meaning of the Biblical pronouncement; that it is not of revenge for crime so to speak, but of warning against false witness. EC<:-}