[Scipio Americanus]

Originally Posted by Hadding

I don't think it's required to wait for the legal process to sort things out in order to have an opinion.

Opinions are like noses kid -- everybody has one. However, a wise man will resist sounding off his opinion until he has ascertained the facts for which it must be rationally based. Even if Sir William Blackstone himself were to come back to us from the grave and offer an opinion on this matter would it be valid and worthy of consideration devoid of any reference to the essential facts of the case?

Please explain to me how you are able to formulate a valid opinion regarding the man's alleged guilt without knowing the facts of the case, facts that have been vetted according to the Federal Rules of Procedure via a litigation process consisting of pretrial DISCOVERY followed by TRIAL where a formal presentation of the FACTS & the LAW are presented pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

What I have just briefly outlined constitutes the heart and soul of a concept known to all Americans as DUE PROCESS, a feature that is uniquely American in the true sense of the word. When you pontificate on the guilt of this defendant without according him his right to Due Process, you are mocking the very essence of our common law heritage that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors fought, bled and died for on many a battlefield.

In addition, to mindlessly speculate about this man's alleged guilt on a White Nationalist discussion board is simply unspeakable, especially given the fact that some of its members are personally acquainted with him.

Of course, you cannot form a valid opinion without the facts of the case, can you? Indeed, no one can. If we could, then what would be the point of having a trial? What you are really saying is that facts do not matter; feeling is all that counts. God help us should that uterine standard become the absolute governing paradigm of our legal system!

Some of you people have total faith in Steele's innocence, and you will assume whatever you must assume to defend that faith, including the "Mission Impossible" scenario. I think that's less reasonable than the assumption that the FBI probably did not falsify a recording and that Steele therefore probably did plot his wife's murder, since Steele admitted (implicitly) in the conversation with his wife that the recording makes the case.

Why do you include me with the "Mission Impossible" crowd? I've already stated that I will wait until the facts of the case have been presented and witnesses cross-examined at trial before I come to a conclusion.

I would love to see Steele prove that the FBI set him up! I don't think it's very likely, though.

You have it half-ass backwards my dear boy. The onus [burden] of proof is on the government to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not on Steele to prove his innocence.

Even if he is found innocent, people will be entitled to the opinion that he did it, if that's what they still believe, just as people were still entitled to the opinion that O.J. did it even after a criminal process found him innocent.

The jury in a criminal trial will either find the defendant 'guilty' or 'not guilty.' Defendants are never found 'innocent' -- only in newspaper headlines written by ignorant reporters, the kind of nitwits that you rely on to substantiate and rationalize your opinion about the man's alleged guilt.

Likewise, you will be entitled to continue opining that Steele is innocent even if no fault is found with the evidence against him and he is found guilty. I expect that somebody will do that, but that person will look like a damned fool.

Kid, you have been flapping your gums via the keyboard throughout this entire thread on matters you know nothing about while forming conclusions based on not even a modicum of factual evidence. Likewise, you have been speculating about my own thoughts on the matter when I have clearly stated, without circumlocution, that I have no opinion regarding the guilt of the man until the facts and evidence have been presented at trial.

HADDING, you are shinning example of the cesspool-side of the internet discussion board environment where comments are either distorted or entirely transformed into something that has absolutely no bearing on the original meaning of that which was actually communicated. In this case, you seize upon my advocacy of a simple legal maxim -- innocent until proven guilty -- and distort it into something that was not even implied let alone explicitly stated. In short, you are nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual charlatan and a brazen liar of the lowest order who apparently enjoys stirring the pot for kicks.

Scipio Americanus