Very appropriate words

[RJNorton]

(11-29-2016 05:04 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Laurie. I hope our messages are entertaining to you while you get your convalescence. Take good care - you are needed here.

Yes indeed, Laurie! Well said, John!

[L Verge]

(11-29-2016 05:04 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Laurie. The more I study the events of the assassination, the more I am convinced that the guilty verdict was based on "Hurry up, we have to hang someone by Tuesday".
If they hanged all the people Booth "talked to", how about the Druggist in Boston? How about all the Actors that he gave letters to? Merely "meeting" doesn't mean you "plotted". Most importantly - Booth was not "in charge", Harney was. (or Richmond was .)
As for Mary, she may have been House Cleaning. -- getting rid of all the junk associated with the first plot. Did she say explicitly, that BOOTH would pick up rifles? Why did Booth need the rifles after he got to the Tavern? By then he was IN THE SOUTH. Field glasses and the other items were not contraband, they belonged to Booth - Get rid of them!
(I am of the opinion that the South dumped Booth completely. Cawood didn't help. Quesenbury didn't, she got rid of him quickly. Stuart wasn't very pleasant either. Booth was not on a Confederate mission as he ran south. Even THE TRAP didn't greet him with joy.

Laurie. I hope our messages are entertaining to you while you get your convalescence. Take good care - you are needed here.

Thanks, John and all for your good wishes. It appears that I will be off work until at least Christmas - and I am bored silly! Thanks to federal regulations, I am not allowed to do work from home while under the FLMA rules. When I do go back, it will be part-time for awhile.

As for who hanged and who didn't: I have always thought that the distinction was made based on who was still working for Booth on April 14. Whether she knew it or not, that included Mary Surratt and her meeting(s) with him and her errand to Surrattsville (which included part of his bidding) that day. John Lloyd testified that she told him to have the "shooting irons" ready for parties that would call that night. She may or may not have known what the rifles were for, but that is pretty damning testimony.

There was considerable territory for Booth to cover without assurance of finding a willing helper along the way, and he knew that Union forces would be on his trail soon. I'd be armed to the teeth! It is believed that the rope that was stashed at the tavern would have been used to tie across the road to stop a cavalry group. One heck of a traffic/horse jam when the first horses go down.

[SSlater]

"Reasonable Doubt". What a stupid combination of words. A sworn statement, decorated with "one hand on the Bible" can actually be a lie, performed to enhance Reasonable doubt. The only people who use and accept Reasonable Doubt is the defense. You resort to Reasonable Doubt when all else fails. This is a term invented by a sharp Lawyer, one with a pointed head, and is intended to place the responsibility for the life of the loser on the prosecution and the victims family.
Unfortunately, it works.

[John Fazio]

(11-29-2016 04:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  In addition to John S.'s (SSlater's) questions, I have one I'd like to ask: does anyone know why the mailman, John T. Tibbett, did not testify at the 1865 conspiracy trial?

Roger:

Not I.

John

---

(11-30-2016 05:02 PM)SSlater Wrote:  "Reasonable Doubt". What a stupid combination of words. A sworn statement, decorated with "one hand on the Bible" can actually be a lie, performed to enhance Reasonable doubt. The only people who use and accept Reasonable Doubt is the defense. You resort to Reasonable Doubt when all else fails. This is a term invented by a sharp Lawyer, one with a pointed head, and is intended to place the responsibility for the life of the loser on the prosecution and the victims family.
Unfortunately, it works.

John:

That "stupid combination of words" has been around since Roman times, probably earlier. It is found in systems of jurisprudence all over the world, even in the Islamic world. All standards of proof (preponderance of evidence; clear and convincing; reasonable doubt; the scintilla rule, etc.) are the products of thousands of years of evolution. If, despite all this, you still don't like reasonable doubt, what do you propose in its place?

John

[Gene C]

(12-01-2016 09:13 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  If, despite all this, you still don't like reasonable doubt, what do you propose in its place?

Reasonable belief
Problem with "reasonable" doubt, is so many people are unreasonable.

At least half the people out there are of below average intelligence
(fortunately, I'm in here - )

[RJNorton]

(11-28-2016 11:48 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Recall the testimony of John T. Tibbetts at the trial of John Surratt in 1867.

I have brought up hearsay evidence before as often I do not understand why certain testimony is allowed. Here is an example of why I am confused. The mailman, John T. Tibbett, is on the stand being questioned during the 1867 John Surratt trial. Here is the key part of his testimony:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Q. Did you ever see the mother and son together?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Have you ever heard them conversing in the presence of each other in reference to Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States? If so, state what yon have heard them say?

A. 1 have heard them conversing but very little together. Mr. John H. Surratt had but very little to say when I would be passing there, but I have heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Bradley: I would like to know upon what ground this evidence is

The Court. Do you propose to prove the conversation between the prisoner and Mrs. Surratt in reference to Abraham Lincoln?

The District Attorney. Yes, sir; the conversation in presence of the prisoner, expressing malice towards the President, and pointing directly towards his assassination.

Mr. Bradley. How long before the assassination?

Mr.Pierrepont. We do not care how long.

Mr. Bradley. You will hardly say a conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Pierrepont. We will show, before we are through, that the conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Bradley. I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it.

Witness. I heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Merrick. In the presence of the prisoner at the bar?

Witness - Yes. I heard her say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tibbett testifies that Mary Surratt said she would give $1000 to anyone who would kill Lincoln.

My question is: why was this testimony allowed?

Joseph Bradley, John Surratt's attorney, said to the court: "I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it."

Why did he waive his right to object? Why did he not object and say "hearsay evidence is inadmissible?" Mrs. Surratt was dead, and he was referring to something she said years before the John Surratt trial. I do not understand why the judge allowed Tibbett's testimony.