Proofs, Or Lack Thereof, A concern of causing false assumptions Options

[Richard Sherwin]

I hope no one thinks I'm in any way defending Danny or Tommy but there is something that has troubled me a bit. Many times there have been people calling on the defenders of DS and TS to offer proof that certain allegations are false. In many cases there can be no proof. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. Someone can prove you did something but it's much harder and many times impossible to prove you did not do something. Thus in the US we have to have proof of guilt for a conviction but the defendant does not have to prove innocence for an acquittal.

If someone accused me of robbing a bank on Jan 18, 1999 (for instance) it would in all likelihood be absolutely impossible for me to prove I did not rob the bank. There would be very little I could do to defend myself without something like maybe a check I wrote in some other state that day. To be acquitted of the robbery I would not have to prove my innocence, but the prosecution would have to prove my guilt for a conviction. (BTW I've never been accused of robbing a bank, at least not yet)

I guess what I'm getting at is that we are in danger of causing false assumptions when the defendants in these issues cannot offer proof that something did not happen. There is plenty of proof for the allegations, but one of those proofs should not be the lack of proof that they did not do something.

Yes I know this is not a court of law, however it is the court of public opinion which could ultimately affect a court decision.

Richard

[daylily]

Richard, I hadn't thougth about it but I suppose you are correct in saying it is hard to prove what you didn't do unless you have witnesses to say you were doing something else.

daylily

[awesumtenor]

I hope no one thinks I'm in any way defending Danny or Tommy but there is something that has troubled me a bit. Many times there have been people calling on the defenders of DS and TS to offer proof that certain allegations are false. In many cases there can be no proof. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. Someone can prove you did something but it's much harder and many times impossible to prove you did not do something. Thus in the US we have to have proof of guilt for a conviction but the defendant does not have to prove innocence for an acquittal.

If someone accused me of robbing a bank on Jan 18, 1999 (for instance) it would in all likelihood be absolutely impossible for me to prove I did not rob the bank. There would be very little I could do to defend myself without something like maybe a check I wrote in some other state that day. To be acquitted of the robbery I would not have to prove my innocence, but the prosecution would have to prove my guilt for a conviction. (BTW I've never been accused of robbing a bank, at least not yet)

I guess what I'm getting at is that we are in danger of causing false assumptions when the defendants in these issues cannot offer proof that something did not happen. There is plenty of proof for the allegations, but one of those proofs should not be the lack of proof that they did not do something.

Yes I know this is not a court of law, however it is the court of public opinion which could ultimately affect a court decision.

Richard

Au contraire, mon frere... if you were accused of robbing a bank in Dallas on Jan 18, 1999 and you could prove you were not in Dallas on said date, you just proved you could not have robbed the bank in question; the space-time continuum in which we exist precludes one from being in two places at the same time.

The reason they are being asked to produce 'proof' is because they have said in myriad occasions that said proof exists and is in their possession... and the other side, when requested has brought forth evidence of the the things they have suggested.

The danny apologists are being asked nothing more or less than has been asked of those they oppose; by both third parties and the danny apologists; the difference is that the danny apologistshave not been forthcoming yet keep insisting that they should be 'trusted'.

In His service,
Mr. J

[erik]

I hope no one thinks I'm in any way defending Danny or Tommy but there is something that has troubled me a bit. Many times there have been people calling on the defenders of DS and TS to offer proof that certain allegations are false. In many cases there can be no proof. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. Someone can prove you did something but it's much harder and many times impossible to prove you did not do something. Thus in the US we have to have proof of guilt for a conviction but the defendant does not have to prove innocence for an acquittal.

If someone accused me of robbing a bank on Jan 18, 1999 (for instance) it would in all likelihood be absolutely impossible for me to prove I did not rob the bank. There would be very little I could do to defend myself without something like maybe a check I wrote in some other state that day. To be acquitted of the robbery I would not have to prove my innocence, but the prosecution would have to prove my guilt for a conviction. (BTW I've never been accused of robbing a bank, at least not yet)

I guess what I'm getting at is that we are in danger of causing false assumptions when the defendants in these issues cannot offer proof that something did not happen. There is plenty of proof for the allegations, but one of those proofs should not be the lack of proof that they did not do something.

Yes I know this is not a court of law, however it is the court of public opinion which could ultimately affect a court decision.

Richard

richard,

very valid point, but if the there was no truth to any of the charges against danny or tommy, they could at the very least put out affidavits signed under penlety of perjury in front of notory.

that would go a long way to at least rebutting the charges that sit out there, and in the case of danny he could provide his grand proof of linda's wickedness.


erik

[daylily]

.."the space-time continuum in which we exist precludes one from being in two places at the same time." (Mr J)


Unless, of course, you are a bird as suggested by Sir Robert Boyle

[Richard Sherwin]

If we knew we were talking directly with Danny then yes we could ask for proof, because he claims he has the proof, (proof of the proof? ) however most of the time we have no idea who we are talking to when they are defending Danny, for all we know it's the village idiot down the street. From them we should not expect proof of innocense.. The accusers need to show proof for guilt, the defenders simply have to show that those proofs are in doubt. In all likelihood they cannot provide proof that they are innocent. I personally believe there is plenty of proof that Tommy is guilty.

Mr. J your example is valid for establishing innocence, however in a court of law it's not required. All that is required for acquittal is reasonable doubt of guilt. I once sat on a drunk driving jury where we were quite sure the defendant was guilty, there was no proof that he was innocent but neither was there reasonable proof that he was guilty, therefore against our personal preferences we acquitted him.

Really my only concern is that we don't take their lack of proof of innocence as proof of guilt.

Richard

[PrincessDrRe]

...Really my only concern is that we don't take their lack of proof of innocence as proof of guilt.

...but that is how "real life" is.... if you don't have proof of your "innocence" in court - you are found guilty... (normally)

JMO.

[Richard Sherwin]

Daylily when you said something about a bird that reminded me of Jonathan Livingston Seagull, by Richard Bach. As one who flew airplanes in the 70's (as did Bach) anything to do with flight got my attention, especially a bird that went ourside the norms of society. Now where is that book? Hmmm

.."the space-time continuum in which we exist precludes one from being in two places at the same time." (Mr J)
Unless, of course, you are a bird as suggested by Sir Robert Boyle

No no no, you are not guilty until proven innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. It dosn't? Maybe I've just not been in a court room enough. (Thankfully)

...but that is how "real life" is.... if you don't have proof of your "innocence" in court - you are found guilty... (normally)

JMO.

[awesumtenor]

Mr. J your example is valid for establishing innocence, however in a court of law it's not required. All that is required for acquittal is reasonable doubt of guilt.

If you definitively can establish innocence, as a matter of fact, then you wont have to worry about burdens of proof or the opinion of 12 of your peers...

Really my only concern is that we don't take their lack of proof of innocence as proof of guilt.

We don't; we take the evidence of guilt as proof of guilt...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ralph]

...but that is how "real life" is.... if you don't have proof of your "innocence" in court - you are found guilty... (normally)

JMO.

Often that depends upon the lawyers. Ah to have a smart (I didn't say good) lawyer.

[Noahswife]

Remember the legal system uses all kinds of different standards of proof and also that there are different types of burdens (for example the evidentiary burden) that shifts at different times in a trial or other legal proceeding. (And different types of evidence are entitled to different evidentiary weight as well)


Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof.

Preponderance of the evidence is generally used in most civil actions.

Clear and convincing evidence is used in some civil actions.

And the wikipedia defines beyond a reasonable doubt this way.....

Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 5 2007, 11:08 PM

[wwjd]

I hope no one thinks I'm in any way defending Danny or Tommy but there is something that has troubled me a bit. Many times there have been people calling on the defenders of DS and TS to offer proof that certain allegations are false. In many cases there can be no proof. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. Someone can prove you did something but it's much harder and many times impossible to prove you did not do something. Thus in the US we have to have proof of guilt for a conviction but the defendant does not have to prove innocence for an acquittal.
Richard

Richard, for once, we agree on something and I must say you have stated it well. Several friends and I have discussed the fact that there are many situations that could arise where you could not prove your innocence.
Thanks for making that point

[Johann]

Richard, for once, we agree on something and I must say you have stated it well. Several friends and I have discussed the fact that there are many situations that could arise where you could not prove your innocence.
Thanks for making that point

When this whole mess started Danny insisted that he had proofs that Linda and Dr. Arild Abrahamsen had been vacationing together in Florida together in April 2004. When my wife, Irmgard, and I stepped forward and told him this was impossible because we had been staying with the doctor at that time at hiscplace in Norway while Irmgard was getting daily treatments - this made Danny so angry that he had Dr. Walt Thompson fire me from the employment at 3ABN.

Then it seems like Danny realized he could not use that false proof, so he invented the Spiritual Adultery explanation and used it until it was demonstrated here on BSDA that this did not give him the right to divorce Linda.

Then he abandoned the Spiritual Adultery explanation and started inventing a host of others.

I hope that you have read my correspondance with Dr. Walt Thompson which I posted as post #101 in Was Linda innocent?

I have not seen any comments on it by Bystander nor WWJD.

[princessdi]

The problem is that Danny keep saying he has evidence of this or that. We are just asking him to produce it. He hasn't, to my knowledge not even in a court of law, where some of it could have been presented.

Once, again, I am going to say that I, personally, am not looking at he lack of evidence to contradict the evidence already presented, but Dannyh's own actions. Spiritual adultery cannot be committed against Danny....he is not God - simple! They had Linda sign a gag order, and cheated her out of right portion as cofounder of 3ABN - we have the document to prove it, and nobody denies it. Danny lied with his first email here to BSDA, we have that, he professed his love for a women and calimed to want to work on his marriage. I would not be surprised if he wasn't on the plane typing that lie on his way to Guam for a quickie divorce[last sentence stricly from the book of Princess]. He allowed his brother who has standing allegations of child molestation work around children at 3ABn, without warning a soul. - We know Tommy was working there, there wwere children there, and we have at least three allegations posted here.

So you see, I don't have to worry about what Danny is not presenting, I am having a whole lot of trouble with what he has presented.

Richard, for once, we agree on something and I must say you have stated it well. Several friends and I have discussed the fact that there are many situations that could arise where you could not prove your innocence.
Thanks for making that point

[Noahswife]

[color=#993399] They had Linda sign a gag order, and cheated her out of right portion as cofounder of 3ABN - we have the document to prove it, and nobody denies it.

I do not claim to have in depth knowledge of not for profit corporations (and any book I have on the subject is in storage and unreachable), but I do not believe linda was cheated out of anything as a cofounder. She was basically given a severance pay that from what I have read elsewhere at BSDA was inline with what is customary in the industry for the position she held. Remember, she did not have an employment contract or the severance pay would have been covered in it should something go wrong. (Remember, like many SDA christians I have met that work for the denomination or do business with each other, we presume as christians we will treat each other fairly.......and I have a bridge too ) I have no doubt that Illinois like most states is an "employment at will" state so she could have been fired like anyone else without a contract. Now she might have sued for wrongful discharge if she had not signed the contract but she gave up the right for the security of the agreement she signed.

When 3ABN chose to be a not for profit under IRS laws and state law, they benefited in many ways that other corporations do not. I also believe this means that Danny and Linda were no longer "owners" in the sense of one having ownership in a corporation. Someone with more knowledge of not for profits should quickly correct me here if I am wrong (which I may be).

The problem that I see (among many) is that Danny still acts like 3ABN is "his" to do with as he wishes. In his position on the board and in the day to day running he has the authority to still do things like an owner but he is not an owner anymore. He gave that up to get the benefits (tax) of having a not for profit. That is why the court in Illinois was concerned that 3ABN does not really function like a not for profit and I see little evidence to the contrary myself.

I am sorry Linda did not seek legal counsel before signing the agreement. I am disgusted that the people who presented her with the contract did not believe it would stand the test of legal scrutiny as to its fairness. The courts are not there to protect us from our merely dumb or uneducated mistakes unless they are illegal. I am sorry she was naive enough to think the ministry she has apparently given so much to would not betray her. I do not know her and have only seen her briefly when asked to watch something by my parents. I know from personal experience with lots of mistakes in my own life that realizing and accepting my role in that I "volunteered" to be part of the whole equation that in the end left me feeling betrayed for whatever reason and taking responsibility for my role is REALLY hard. I have found forgiving myself for participating in my own victimization was and still is the hardest thing I have ever done. Learning and not repeating what is often a life time behavior takes tremendous strength that only can come from understanding and prayer.

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay women equal salaries "for the good of the ministry" or ask people to subvert the law and "donate" their overtime hours rather than get paid for them or as I have read elsewhere, not use "GAP standards in their accounting practices. I am sorry but lack of education is NOT an excuse. As an SDA we are trained from childhood to "sacrifice" for the good of presenting the message to the world but I have seen too many instances of unfairness result and certainly a lack of commensurate sacrifice by those doing the asking (GW for example will never lose his child in Iraq or worry that he might).

It is my understanding that the property settlement is still being litigated. Therefore, what Linda is entitled to as an asset from their marriage is still in the process of resolution. But, unless I am wrong, she is not entitled to any assets of 3ABN just because she was a co-founder. Not on legal grounds.

As for Danny's evidence that he was morally entitled to divorce his wife and remarry, I have yet to see or hear anything I find supported by "evidence" in the legal sense. That is why civil and criminal courts have burdens of proof and rules for what constitutes evidence or even makes a prima facie case. The moral standard that Danny is being held to is on its face pretty clear. There either was adultery or there was not. I have no idea what kind of evidence the church normally requires in reaching that conclusion. I obviously do not know what evidence those in authority to decide such things were shown and why they found it allowed Danny to morally do what he did. But based on all I have seen and heard here, this is a perfect example why I have not (and would never) trust this church as a trier of facts.

OK. Off my soap box.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 6 2007, 11:39 AM