Guilty until proven innocent?

"CowPunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorry Lafferty, I just don't buy it. This "list" stinks of a set-up or
planted evidence by
the police.

"We suspended Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla and Rudy Pevenage for the time
being. Of course, it's up to them to prove their innocence."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul01news

What makes you think that?

As far as the guilty until proven innocent I think that all of the riders
knew that was the official Pro Tour policy when they signed to ride for a
Pro Tour team.

The timing of releasing evidence, names, etc... makes me
suspicious/skeptical.

Frank Drackman said:

"CowPunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorry Lafferty, I just don't buy it. This "list" stinks of a set-up or
planted evidence by
the police.

"We suspended Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla and Rudy Pevenage for the time
being. Of course, it's up to them to prove their innocence."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul01news

What makes you think that?

As far as the guilty until proven innocent I think that all of the riders
knew that was the official Pro Tour policy when they signed to ride for a
Pro Tour team.

"CowPunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The timing of releasing evidence, names, etc... makes me
suspicious/skeptical.

I think that there are at least two factors that help explain the timing.
The first is that the Tour De France was a forcing function. ASO and UCI
asked the Spanish authorities to get them information before the tour.

The second is the media knew that they had the attention of the largest
audience of the year for biking/doping coverage. Big audience means lots of
eyes, lots of eyes means more revenue.

I'm not sure about Spain, but in France, Napoleonic law prevails, which says
exactly that: "Guilty until proven innocent."
The burden of proof is on the defendant, however, there must be substantial
proof before charges are brought. I realize that Americans (I am one) find
this incredibly unjust, but we think based upon our own paradigms.

Jazzman

"CowPunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorry Lafferty, I just don't buy it. This "list" stinks of a set-up or
planted evidence by
the police.

"We suspended Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla and Rudy Pevenage for the time
being. Of course, it's up to them to prove their innocence."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul01news

"Jazzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure about Spain, but in France, Napoleonic law prevails,
which says exactly that: "Guilty until proven innocent."

The napoleonic code is the basis of my country's system of law, but we
don't presume people guilty. But then again, you're talking about France,
where they eat babies too, so I guess this is a minor issue.

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jazzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure about Spain, but in France, Napoleonic law prevails,
which says exactly that: "Guilty until proven innocent."

The napoleonic code is the basis of my country's system of law, but we
don't presume people guilty. But then again, you're talking about France,
where they eat babies too, so I guess this is a minor issue.

Look Jon, if you're accused by the police in ANY country under ANY system
you have to prove you're innocent. Don't let anyone tell you that the legal
system here in the USA is any better than that in France though I'd bet its
better than those hard headed Swiss courts.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jazzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure about Spain, but in France, Napoleonic law prevails,
which says exactly that: "Guilty until proven innocent."

The napoleonic code is the basis of my country's system of law, but we
don't presume people guilty. But then again, you're talking about France,
where they eat babies too, so I guess this is a minor issue.

Look Jon, if you're accused by the police in ANY country under ANY system
you have to prove you're innocent. Don't let anyone tell you that the
legal system here in the USA is any better than that in France though I'd
bet its better than those hard headed Swiss courts.

Wrong again, Eunuch. You can actually win a criminal trial and not put on a
defense case if you've convinced the jury that the prosecution did not meet
its burden of proof. An example.

There was a murder trial of a nanny charged with killing a child in her
charge by setting the house on fire in Westchester Co. At trial her
attorney, a woman from NYC whose name I can't recall, did a masterful job of
knocking holes in the prosecution case by showing major inconsistencies
between prosecution testimony and real evidence introduced in court. The
prosecution rested its case. She stood up and simply said that the defense
rested. They then summed up to the jury and the jury acquitted. She and
her client took a massive risk but they came out winners all because the
jury found that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

Wrong again, Eunuch. You can actually win a criminal trial and not put on a
defense case if you've convinced the jury that the prosecution did not meet
its burden of proof. An example.

Look at the case against Sami Al-Arian, a case that the Bush admin. claimed was
crucial in the prosecution of the GWOT. The prosecution took five months to present
their 80+ witnesses and hours of tapped phone calls. The defense simply said, "On
behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, the defense rests."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Look Jon, if you're accused by the police in ANY country under ANY system
you have to prove you're innocent. Don't let anyone tell you that the
legal system here in the USA is any better than that in France though I'd
bet its better than those hard headed Swiss courts.

Wrong again, Eunuch. You can actually win a criminal trial and not put on a
defense case if you've convinced the jury that the prosecution did not meet
its burden of proof. An example.

Kunich - Laff@me is correct. In criminal cases, the prosecution has to
prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense showing
reasonable doubt does not equal "proving" innocence.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

The napoleonic code is the basis of my country's system of law, but we
don't presume people guilty. But then again, you're talking about France,
where they eat babies too, so I guess this is a minor issue.

Babies contain lots of stem cells so they must be performance enhancing.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

>
> Look Jon, if you're accused by the police in ANY country under ANY
> system
> you have to prove you're innocent. Don't let anyone tell you that the
> legal system here in the USA is any better than that in France though
> I'd
> bet its better than those hard headed Swiss courts.

Wrong again, Eunuch. You can actually win a criminal trial and not put
on a
defense case if you've convinced the jury that the prosecution did not
meet
its burden of proof. An example.

Kunich - Laff@me is correct. In criminal cases, the prosecution has to
prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense showing
reasonable doubt does not equal "proving" innocence.

Then next time you have to go to court for soliciting explain that to the
judge. Most lawyers (not Laff@me of course) make huge fees defending
people. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how you could "convince a
jury" for less than the yearly earnings of a [censored]? Even if you "win"
you've lost and there's absolutely no way of getting that back in most
cases.

ROTFL!! Eunuch, you're such an [censored].

Donald Munro <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

The napoleonic code is the basis of my country's system of law, but
we don't presume people guilty. But then again, you're talking about
France, where they eat babies too, so I guess this is a minor issue.

Babies contain lots of stem cells so they must be performance
enhancing.

You're just trying to make the French look good. If they win, it's because
they dope, and if they don't win, it's because they don't train. Not the
other way around.