Saturday, October 18, 2014

9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim...."   Wikipedia on Philosophic burden of proof


Scales of justice/burden of proof
[N.B. "Onebornfree" is not an attorney and claims no formal legal training. Nevertheless, "Onebornfree" believes that in the US today, none of the stipulations of the Bill of Rights are in effect- and that since the alleged events of  September 11th, 2001, the entire Bill of Rights has been conveniently dumped in the trash-can of history - which was the desired effect, of course :-).   9/11 was, therefor, a very successful "coup d'etat".]

Your Very Own Criminal Trial For the Crimes of  9/11?

To try to illustrate the main argument of this post, let me start with a [hopefully] hypothetical situation for you, dear reader : 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you have personally  been accused of being a terrorist involved in the plotting and execution of the crimes of 9/11, by the good old US government itself. A long shot perhaps, I admit, but please try to bear with me.

"Royally Screwed"?
As an accused criminal, you would then have to stand trial, in a US federal government criminal court, before a US Federal judge, yes? 
[Hint: not good.Even worse would be a secret trial, in which case NONE of what I say below would even remotely apply- basically you'd be "royally screwed" in "the land of the free"]. 


Your Defense
Assuming a public, criminal trial in front of a jury, you would, of course, need to hire competent defense attorneys,or,if you could not afford that you would be assigned an attorney to help defend you against those charges [unless you decided to defend yourself]. Yes?

Reminder:Your Freedom Would Be At Stake !
Your very freedom,for the rest of your life,or even perhaps your very life itself,would be at stake here, yes? 

At Your Trial The Government Claims  "Incontrovertible Evidence" Against You

Accordingly, at your criminal trial, the US government attempted to introduce into evidence certain claimed proofs of your involvement in the 9/11 plot. 

Some Of The Evidence Against You = Alleged "Live" Mainstream Media[MSM] and Other Videos, Photos, "Eyewitness Testimony",US Government Agency Reports etc.

Furthermore, let's suppose that a  good part of that claimed evidence against you that would supposedly unquestionably prove your guilt [according to the prosecution], consisted of  allegedly live video recordings taken from the on line archives of the various MSM networks who made broadcasts that day [i.e. ABC, CBS CNN, NBC, Fox], plus perhaps other, non-MSM derived  video footage and still photos allegedly shot by various other individuals, plus alleged eyewitness testimony, plus allege government agency reports [e.g.  United States Geological Survey {USGS}, and the Department of Energy {DoE} ], yes?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?


First of all, it is worth remembering at this point that as an individual accused of a such criminal acts by the US government, at a criminal trial, you are supposedly "innocent until proven guilty", yes?  

Therefor, moving on.....

As a Defendant,The Close Examination of ALL Alleged Evidence Against You Is Your Inviolable "Constitutional Right"?



As a supposedly "innocent until proven guilty" defendant in that criminal trial, and in order to properly defend yourself against the governments charges, you and your defense attorneys would then have the inviolable legal right to closely examine and possibly disprove any/all claimed evidence of your guilt which the government tried to introduce at  your trial - yes?


Including: Your  Right As a Defendant To The Close Examination of ALL Allegedly Incriminating Video and Photographic Imagery?

That examination by your defense counsel of the government's "evidence" would [or should] therefor include not just what is traditionally regarded as eyewitness testimony by the "layman"[i.e. the verbal testimony of alleged eyewitnesses against you], but also, if ever introduced by the prosecution, a detailed examination of the "eyewitness testimonies" of any/all alleged camera recordings; that is: any/all of the  alleged live MSM video recordings introduced, and any/all other  videos or photos that the government tried to introduce as evidence against you, plus even, if your defense felt it were necessary, cross-examination of any/all of the alleged operators of the cameras that supposedly recorded those videos and/or photos, plus, if introduced, the close examination by your defense of any/all alleged government agency reports- yes ? 

Your Innocence or Guilt Would Hinge On The Government Proving/Not Proving  the Reliability  of Its Alleged Evidence  Against You, In Court

Therefor, it could only be after your defense's own thorough cross examination of all that alleged evidence against you at your trial was finally completed, including any/all alleged "live" videos -[regardless of original source], if introduced, any/all alleged still photos [regardless of original source], if introduced, any/all alleged verbal eyewitness testimony, if introduced, and any/all alleged government agency reports, if introduced -  that a legally reliable determination of your guilt or innocence could be made by the jury - yes? 

Therefor, At Your Own Trial, The "Burden of Proof"  For Any/All of The Government's Evidence Against You Must Always Largely Fall On the Government

In other words, at such a trial, the burden of proof for any/all alleged government evidence against you would lie predominantly with the government, which would have to prove, before the court, subject to an ongoing, detailed, in depth  cross-examination of any/all of that  alleged evidence against you by your own defense, that any/all of that claimed evidence against you was in fact genuine-yes? [see "scales of justice" illustration above].

What If The Defense's Close Examination of _Any_ Part_of The Governments Alleged Evidence Against You Were  Prevented ? 

If such cross examination[s] by the defense of any part of the prosecutions alleged evidence against you  were somehow prevented for any reason,[e.g. a judge ruling]; for example, if no close examination by the defense of any of the alleged MSM "live" 9/11 video recordings was allowed by the judge once introduced  into the court by the prosecution as evidence against you, then surely, any subsequent court-derived "guilty" verdict against yourself without that detailed cross-examination by your defense of any part of that alleged "evidence" against you  allowed during your trial, but yet somehow perversely based on the pre-assumed  "authenticity" of that same alleged  evidence, would itself constitute a false conviction and  a criminal act, yes? *



                                       "Judge" Prof. Jim Fetzer

NO! - Not In "The 9/11 Truth Movement's" "Court of Law", Nor In Prof. Jim Fetzer's "Court of Law"! 


Sadly, according to many/most persons within the "9/11 Truth movement", including Prof. Jim Fetzer, it would seem, at your very own  personal 9/11 criminal trial, with your own life/freedom at stake, much of the governments alleged "proofs" of your criminal involvement in the events of  9/11, including, if introduced, any'/all presented MSM network archives and related photos/videos, any/all eyewitness testimony and any/all governmental reports, would have to be pre-assumed to be genuine, by the judge [Fetzer?]- no argument allowed, with,therefor, no serious attempt ever allowed  for your defense to fully cross-examine  all  such alleged evidence in front of the jury, prior to it being deemed "authentic" by the judge.

How Do I Know This?

Simply because Prof. Fetzer has previously said [and most in the "9/11 truth movement" appear to agree with him]: 


" .........Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic..... So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."  **

And So, "God" Help You In Fetzer's Courtroom

In other words, according to Mr Fetzer and many others too numerous to mention here, if he or others of similar mind were the presiding judge at your very own 9/11 criminal trial, and if the government ever introduced any MSM or other related alleged video or photographic records, or government agency reports [DoE, USGS], or alleged eye-witness testimony  as alleged evidence against you, your defense would be forced  by the judge to accept all of that as genuine evidence that had been introduced by the prosecution into court, no "ifs, ands or buts" about it, simply because most of that purported evidence has, according to both himself and many, many others , it seems, a "prima facie claim to being taken as authentic". Yes?

Inside Court= Outside Court?
To be completely fair, Fetzer might possibly have only been referring to what he believed to be the prevailing state of affairs regarding alleged 9/11 evidence under private review by private researchers outside of a courtroom situation, at the time that the  above  statement by him was made. **

The question is, if that is the case, why would/should  Fetzer's [and others too numerous to mention], standard evidentiary review methodology for the review of possibly important 9/11 evidence be so radically different for outside of a courtroom from what  must be used [i.e.  is supposed to be systemically mandatory] at trial, inside a US  criminal courtroom?


Either, Or

It seems to me that either Fetzer and others like him  believe that the basic, specific in-built legal safety measures, procedures and principles  that are supposedly mandatory for any/all alleged prosecutorial evidence when introduced at trial, plus the mandated prevailing  burden of proof  bias inside  criminal courts [ which is always supposed to be more favorable to the defendants case], are  all entirely unnecessary and a waste of time for 9/11investigators like themselves to try to even attempt to roughly replicate outside of a courtroom when conducting their own research,[because they think all "know better", perhaps?], and that [therefor] much of that alleged 9/11 "evidence" ,"should ", "just" ,be accepted as  genuine, with no need outside of the courtroom for a really close examination of any part of it ever being  necessary,  right from the very "git go" of their own private 9/11 investigations.....

Or......"Slap-Happy"

Or conversely, he and others see no inherent difference between the extremely "slap-happy" evidentiary analysis and burden of proof "rules" they all routinely apply outside of a courtroom  at this time[i.e. for his/theirprivate 9/11 research], and those that he/they all blithely imagine are/should be routinely applied, inside a criminal courtroom, during a trial.

Your Own "Fetzerian" Criminal 9/11 Trial?

 Again [i.e "once more with feeling"]: "Judge" Fetzer and most others  appear to  believe that  inside the courtroom, at your very own criminal trial, dear reader, that you and your defense would simply  be forced by the judge to accept that most all alleged evidence  the government might conceivably introduce at that trial was authentic, including: any/all MSM video records, photos, eyewitness testimony and government agency reports; with no attempt ever allowed whereby the defense could  try to prove  before the court that some parts [or perhaps all]  of that alleged evidence  against you was  not, in fact, authentic. 

Definition: "Prima Facie" = "At First Blush", or "At First Glance"

After all, according to himself and many others, even without close examination [i.e. "at first blush", or at "first glance" are the  literal translations of the latin term "prima facie"], much [all?] of that possible evidence [e.g. MSM "live" footage and USGS and DoE "studies"] "has" to be genuine, right?

So if he himself, and others, already mostly trust much of that same alleged "evidence" outside of the courtroom,  why should the real situation ever need to be any different if that same "evidence" was presented inside the  courtroom by the government that prosecuted you, dear reader, by  that very same ["Fetzerian"] "logic"?




The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus The "Burden of Proof" and The U.S. Bill of Rights

Up to now I have mostly focussed on what I consider to be the gross mental aberrations of Mr Fetzer, as if the behaviour starts and ends with him, however the sad truth is that Mr Fetzer is just the tip of the iceberg in this matter - it seems to me that similar beliefs actually infect  99% of the so-called "9/11 truth movement". 

That is, with regard to the matter of what is and is not to be considered  "real 9/11 evidence", almost the entire  9/11 "truth movement" appears to have  very little interest in themselves ever having to apply basic, fundamental  guiding principles and safety measures of law , including the principle known as "the burden of proof". [Principles and measures which I contend can- and should- be routinely applied outside of a US courtroom  by  private individuals attempting to establish truths about the events of 9/11 or similar, in all possible instances, no differently from how they were  originally intended to be used inside courts].

Guiding legal principles for evidentiary examinations that are extremely important-or surely should be- at least to persons both interested in a genuine "search for truth" and who are familiar with the original intent of certain  provisions of the US Bill of Rights as stipulated for all Federal criminal trials, and who are themselves currently privately engaged in 9/11 "truth" research [or similar] .

"This Just In" : At Real U.S. Criminal Trials- No "Level Playing Field" for The Governments "Evidence" Allowed!

Inside a US criminal court, because of the courtroom evidentiary provisions/stipulations of The Bill of Rights [BoR],  almost the exact opposite to Fetzer's contention concerning burden of proof is supposed to be in operation at all times; at such a trial there is never supposed to be "a level playing field" for the government's case; the evidentiary requirements of the BoR were deliberately designed to make it much, much harder for the government to prove its prosecutions than for an individual defendant to prove reasonable doubt.

In other words,to re-state: at all Federal criminal trials, the burden of proof must always  lie predominantly with the government and any alleged evidence of guilt of the defendant that it might try to put before the court,  and not with the defendant[s] on trial for the alleged crime[s].


No Automatic Legal "Handicapping" of The Government's Case =  A Scam Trial  

And to put it  another way: the government is supposed to be deliberately handicapped at trial by the provisions set out in the Bill of Rights, the presumption of innocence of the defendant on trial, and by the burden of proof imposed mostly on the government.

 Any outwardly perceived resulting "balance"  in the the legal process at trial is always/only a direct result of that deliberate pre-handicapping of the government's case - if that handicapping was not/is not firmly in place both before, during  and after that trial, then the trial itself would be a criminal scam, it seems to me.[ "a miscarriage of justice", in polite language :-) ]

I would urge you[again]  to take a close look at the illustration that heads this article to get the idea, I am trying to put across here.

Why Is The Automatic Imbalance/"Handicapping" Against The Government's Case At Trial Always Supposed To Be In Place?

This automatic pre-bias against the governments case and all of its alleged evidence exists because the individuals who wrote the BoR all those years ago fully understood [from personal experience at the hands of King George and the British Empire], just how easy it was for the government, with its enormous power and almost unlimited finances,to wholly manufacture any/all evidence and witnesses it needed against those it wished to silence and imprison, and to operate "kangaroo courts", and secret courts that would carry out the King's and the British Empires agenda via 100's [1000's?] of fraudulent convictions of American colonist's and their sympathizers.

 Which is, of course, exactly what he/it did, on a daily basis, for years - hence, the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, "and all that jazz".

Foreigners Don't "Get It"? 

Now, why it might not be expected for the average foreign, non-US born 9/11 investigator to understand that deliberate in-built, pre-bias against the  governments case and all its supposed evidence for any/all real-world criminal trials, you'd maybe think that at least some current American 9/11 investigators would themselves understand these ultra- important, systemic legal concepts. Yes? 

NO -  Most Americans Don't "Get It" Either!

Well sadly,you'd be wrong- in point of fact, at this time there appears to be not one name  US 9/11 investigator who  has even the faintest idea of these simple concepts , including of course, yours truly, Prof. Fetzer, who  boldly claims:

"I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years......you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."  **

Forget Prof. Fetzer's Pro- Government "Burden of Proof" Assertion!

And so, even without yours or somebody else's 9/11 criminal trial on the horizon [I would hope], and assuming you still have some respect for the legal process/methodology and principles I have attempted to briefly outline here, I would humbly suggest that for your very own personal 9/11 investigations conducted outside of a courtroom, that it might  be exceedingly wise of you to completely disregard the  decidedly pro-government "burden of proof" assertions of credentialed, supposed "authority figures" such Prof. Fetzer, and  to not just [like him] go ahead and blindly trust, outside of a courtroom trial, without extremely close, detailed examination/re-examination  of any/all  alleged possible "evidence" that the government might conceivably try to use in the future, inside a courtroom, including : 

1] any/all alleged "live" MSM video footage.[regardless of alleged source]

2] any/all other alleged videos and photos[regardless of alleged source]

3] any/all alleged "eye-witness testimony"[regardless of alleged source]

4] any/all alleged official government reports [ e.g. U.S.G.S. and D.O.E.]; 

..... and for you to remain extremely doubtful as to the authenticity of any part of any of them, either collectively or individually, unless  and until such time as you can definitively and independently establish its/their authenticity and accuracy.   

 Question: Where Is _YOUR_ Personal Burden of Proof Going To Be Mostly Imposed In Your Own Ongoing 9/11 "Search For Truth" - On The Government, or On Those Who Seriously Question Any/All Of  It's  Alleged "Evidence"?

Knowing/understanding what you now hopefully do  about the true legal status of all unexamined evidence that might be presented by the government at your own future criminal  trial [or somebody elses], and failing such a trial; and for your own private investigations outside of a courtroom, are you really willing to just go ahead and blindly trust any alleged possible "evidence" that the government might, in the future , conceivably try to use to convict 9/11 defendants, just like Mr Fetzer and others apparently do and would, without ever bothering to closely examine it, and to thereby  completely ignore basic, systemic common law  principles, safety measures and pre-biases  against any/all possible government evidence  both present and future;  common law principles and procedures that, after a revolution was fought and won, were deliberately incorporated into the US legal criminal process all those years ago? 

You tell me. 

As always, in the end, it's your choice. [Related question: if you truly understand the enormous power of the US government, do you really want it to have  "a level playing field" in its very own courts , where its own, government-paid judges preside, let alone for it to be able to have non-defense-examined alleged evidence  ruled as "genuine" by the presiding federal judge?]

Ignore These Principles ? Then Don't Complain About a "Guilty" Verdict at Yours, Your Spouse's,Your Children's, or Your Best Friend's Possible Future Trial - "You Made Your Bed- Now Lay In It"?

But remember, if you agree with Mr Fetzer and [it seems] 99.9% of the "9/11 Truth Movement", regarding the unexamined, "prima facie" truthfulness of much of the so-called 9/11 evidence, if you yourself, or your wife, children, or close friend ever in real life find  yourselves facing criminal prosecution in the US at the state or federal level [for whatever "crime"- it does not have to be 9/11 related], and if the defense is not allowed to  thoroughly examine in the courtroom any/all of the alleged evidence that the prosecution tries to use to try to prove your/their guilt at such a trial, then you really cannot complain, should a guilty verdict against you or them ever be reached now, can you? 

After all, you "made your bed, so now lie in it", as the saying goes.

Afterword: The Terrifying Truth  In The U.S.

The  terrifying truth of the matter [to a "madman" like me, at least], is that in the good ole' USA, by his/their own admissions, Mr Fetzer and many others similarly indoctrinated have apparently been "teaching" the exact opposite of those very easy to understand legal principles  to their students - in effect teaching them that in their own private "criminal" investigations of whatever [carried out outside of a courtroom,of course], that it is perfectly OK for them to simply trust practically any/all supposed current or future "evidence" that the government and media feeds the public - with almost no questions asked, and that, failing an actual trial, outside of a US courtroom, that in these types of instances the burden of proof must always fall heavily on the individual investigators contesting the  reliability of any/all parts of  the governments possible "evidence" that it might in future use at trial, and not instead at all times on the government itself and all of its  alleged evidence.

It's "Politically Incorrect" To Be Pre-Biased Against Any/All Possible Government  9/11 [ or Other] "Evidence"?

And that subsequently, according to those same "teachers", there is never any  real need for that "serious", "honest" 9/11investigator  to ever start their own private investigation from the  "politically incorrect" position of pre-doubt and pre-bias against any/all of the governments  alleged  story and  it's present or possible future "evidence", and therefor, failing an actual trial, it is perfectly OK for that individual investigator to never take the time  necessary to closely examine any/all  types/categories of that alleged governmental or media  "evidence" that might conceivably be used by it at any imagined future trial, and for them to ever try to make a sincere attempt at trying to determine for themselves whether or not any part of such government "evidence" is in fact genuine. 

"You Say You Want [Another] Revolution, Yeah"

Such is the sorry state of "9/11 Truth Research" and "truth research" in general, it seems - and, more importantly, such is the sad state of the average Americans understanding of the original concepts, biases and  protections of the Bill of Rights and common law vis a vis state and US federal [and state]criminal trials -  principles for which a revolution was fought more than 200 years ago.[What a waste of time that apparently was.]

These days,  most [including,it would seem, nearly all "serious" 9/11 investigators], believe that almost anything the government and/or the MSM feeds them, either inside or outside of a courtroom, is practically "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and that most of its "evidence" either before, or at trial,  should   never,ever be seriously questioned by an individual researcher, especially not when  starting from  that "terrifying",  "politically incorrect" pre-assumptive, philosophically biased position that that government's "evidence" is either miserably inept, simply mistaken in nature, or even worse, deliberately falsified .

Well, I wish them all "good luck" with their, er......"politically correct" "ideas", at their own trials,[should they occur]. Luck-  they are  going to need plenty of it - "so help them, God". 

Regards, onebornfree. 


* Actually the reality might be even worse than I have attempted to illustrate in this post. In conversations with a person claiming a current legal background and criminal court experience, I was informed that in an actual federal criminal trial, that these days the judge would in fact make all determinations as to the authenticity of, for example, the original MSM "live" footage and related, and of other videos and photos if introduced by the prosecution at trial as evidence. This would seem to match Mr Fetzer's own "vision" of how things need to be.

So the defense might well be forced to accept as genuine "evidence" , "evidence" against the defendant [you? me?] that it has never had the opportunity to thoroughly examine in front of the jury!

 If you think that that would be "OK" with you [Prof Fetzer and others "too numerous to mention"probably do] you might want to be reminded that the judge him/herself is always a federal employee, and that the trial always would take place inside a government owned/operated courtroom. How's that for a pre-bias for the defense to overcome?


** Prof Jim Fetzer to myself in a Veterans Today comments section regarding my quoting to him Wikipedia's definition for the philosophic burden of proof with regard to the question of the need to at least try to authenticate all videos and photos, regardless of source, prior to accepting any of them [let alone all of them], as being bona fide evidence

Original "Veterans Today" source thread for Prof. Fetzer quote above.

[N.B. My original comment to Fetzer, plus ALL others I made anywhere within the Veterans Today site, either before or since, have now been deleted and my account terminated by the editor there {Dean} ,on the excuse that I had violated the posting terms  by posting a link within a comment, even though Dean had previously told me that I was allowed to post one link per comment :-)] .

Complete Fetzer quote: 

"This is just silly. You cite an article because you don’t know what you are talking about. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years.Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic.Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it. So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us."



More About "Onebornfree":


"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .



Onebornfree  Blogs: 

                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]




The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]

3 comments:

  1. OBF loves to take quotes out of context and promote indefensible theories in the name of truth. Alas, I have had too much exposure to his bizarre lines of argument. In the past, I have explained a dozen reason why the Twin Tower footage deserves to be take at face value as long as there is no good reason to doubt it. Consider the available video record:

    (1) the towers are there, then they are not;

    (2) the are blowing apart in every direction from the top down;

    (3) all their floors remain stationary until they are blown apart;

    (4) they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust;

    (5) when they are gone, their footprints are bereft of debris;

    (6) a classic controlled demolition does not blow buildings apart;

    (7) a classic controlled demolition does not convert buildings into dust;

    (8) a class controlled demolition leaves a debris about 12% the original height;

    (9) WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition;

    (10) WTC-7 left a stack of debris of about 12% its original height (5.5 floors);

    (11) photos and films from all over New York present the same sequence;

    (12) not a single witness has reported seeing any other sequence of events;

    (13) if the perp were going to fake it, they would simulate a collapse;

    (14) two telling signs of nukes are (a) very fine dust (b) over a very large area;

    (15) there are no good reasons to believe that this footage was faked.

    I have explained to him again and again in the past that, if there were any good reason to doubt their authenticity, then he might have a case. Given there is no good reason to doubt them, however, the burden of proof is upon him. This is a complete waste of time and resources for someone who now appears to me to be mentally incompetent. And that would remain the case if he were defendant in a court of law. His argument has no merit. NONE.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let us imagine the following scenario: Jim Fetzer has an arch-enemy named John Doe. One day, Fetzer delivers to the police two videos, allegedly filmed (by two CCTV security cameras) at one of his conferences, showing what looks like John Doe shouting death threats at Fetzer. The police acts on Fetzer's complaint and apprehends John Doe - on the basis of the two videos submitted by Fetzer. When interrogated, however, John Doe denies having ever attended any of Fetzer's conferences - and asks to view the videos. At close inspection of the two "incriminating" video clips (A & B), it is found that "A" shows John Doe standing in (and shouting his death threats from) the 5th row of the audience, whereas "B" shows John Doe (shouting the same death threats /identical audio) from the 7th row of the audience. Clearly, the two videos cannot both be real - and cannot depict the very same (alleged) event in time.

    It goes without saying that, in such a case (and since the two videos, presented as authentic, constitute the plaintiff's main, 'incriminating evidence' against the defendant) the burden of proof rests squarely upon the plaintiff (Fetzer). John Doe, on the other hand, has - and undeniably so - a valid prima facie claim in support of his prime allegation (that he never even attended Fetzer's conference in the first place).

    Furthermore, no matter how many - purported - eyewitnesses of the alleged event Fetzer can produce, he will still have to explain why the two videos are in conflict with each other. Any honest / intelligent judge would dismiss / reject Fetzer's requests of hearing out ANY of his alleged eyewitnesses - until Fetzer can convince the judge that the two videos are, in fact, authentic - and that no foul play was involved on his part.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a private email group message, with regard to my blog post, Mr Fetzer in part said :

    "...but I am less certain of OBF and others. He bhas made the same kind of irresponsible claims in the past and I have replied to them before. He is a broken record and has no warrant for his attempt to shift the burden of proof. His attacks on me are reprehensible. "

    Well, to remain true to Mr Fetzer's characterization of me as "a broken record" , I _again_ ask Mr Fetzer , since he did not reply to my question the first time I asked him within that email group, for whatever reason:

    in a US criminal trial, is the burden of proof primarily on the prosecution [i.e. the government], or on the defendant[s]?

    As an unapologetic pessimist/cynic, I expect his silence to continue :-) .

    ReplyDelete