| Author | Message | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: |
| Criminal Law & Evidence
Direct Evidence
That means of proof
which tends to show the
existence of a fact in
question, without the
intervention of the proof
of any other fact.
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence based on
inference and not on
personal knowledge or
observation
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf | |  | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
| | CB wrote: | | Still waiting for you to provide a motive for Israel to knowingly attack a US Navy ship. |
Criminal Law
Motive vs Intent
“Intent refers simply to the deliberateness
of the act -- consciously choosing to commit
the crime. Motive is the offender’s reason
for the act”
The Anatomy of Motive, John Douglas
Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in
establishing criminal liability
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in establishing criminal liability |
For the act itself, true.
Proof of motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of motive is immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established.
However if the 'offense' is intent (as in whether Israel intentionally attacked a US Navy ship), it is highly relevant, especially since there is no evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship.
Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent.
What you have is...
Lack of evidence of intent
Lack of motive
Existence of evidence of lack of intent
Your so-called 'case' is quite lame. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Lack of evidence of intent
Lack of motive
Existence of evidence of lack of intent |
WHere the dead and the injured must prove that Israel intended to deliberately harm them nevermind the consequences speak for themselves. Then let's not even investigate the incident completely.
Gee, let's have a Congressional Investigation FOR THE FIRST TIME and take testimony from the 60 USS Liberty who were not allowed. And any others and just maybe we'll get to the truth.
But you oppose this Cowboy says our forum's "super patriot", super Neocon American" where the rights of the US crew are secondary to Israel.
You are who and what you are. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
| | fungalfoot wrote: | Criminal Law
Motive vs Intent
“Intent refers simply to the deliberateness
of the act -- consciously choosing to commit
the crime. Motive is the offender’s reason
for the act”
The Anatomy of Motive, John Douglas
Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in
establishing criminal liability
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf
Motive and intent are different things as the above quote makes plain.
Prosecution only has to prove intent, not motive. |
| CB wrote: | For the act itself, true.
Proof of motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of motive is immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established.
However if the 'offense' is intent (as in whether Israel intentionally attacked a US Navy ship), it is highly relevant, especially since there is no evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship.
Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent. |
Is this the best you can do for mother Israel?
There is ample evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship:
1. Israel's warning to America that they would sink unidentified ships. Israel obviously knew that the Liberty was already off Sicily. Israel obviously did not want a spy ship listening in on their secret wartime messages.
2. Israel's extensive aerial surveillance, from very close quarters.
3. The Stars and Stripes and hull markings.
4. Overheard radio messages from Israeli pilots saying "It's an American ship."
5. Extensive NSA transcripts that were ordered destroyed but expert American witnesses can testify to their prior existence. These clearly show that the Israelis knew they were attacking the Liberty.
6. Israel claims they thought they were attacking the Egyptian El Queseir.
These two ships are vastly different in appearance as the following shows:
No sane, and honest military man could confuse these two on a day when visibility was perfect.
7. | Quote: | | Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent. |
The Israeli objection to the Liberty was clearly because she was an electronic surveillance vessel. The repeated strafes by Israeli jets with cannon and rocket fire and napalm took out all of the radio aerials and satellite dishes and killed 7. The torpedo which struck the Liberty hit her amidships in the hold exactly where the communications centre was situated, instantly killing 25. Israel had achieved all she sought to achieve. The Liberty was rendered useless as a spy ship. Mission accomplished! The MTB could well afford to end the attack; she could ill afford to continue the attack against a finally admitted, clearly identified, American ship. The cover up had just commenced and in Washington LBJ was ordering the recall of the fighters sent to relieve the Liberty.
8. But this is an uneven match. The Israeli defense is subsidised by the American taxpayer. The American citizen pays his taxes to the State Treasury, who gives some of this money in economic aid to Israel, who gives some of this money back to AIPAC, who uses the money to buy up US Congressmen, who work to deprive the Liberty survivors of their day in court. A self-funding defense! How stupendous! Clever, clever Israel! Clever, clever Jews. But your very, very expensive scam has been found out. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: |
| | Unanswered by the apologists. Jews being Jews. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: Your 'case' is looking quite lame, Cowboy... Time to call in |
| Your 'case' is looking quite lame, Cowboy....
Time to call in the vet and have it put down...?
Mind you it may be a job for a machine gun...
How many horses were on that horse carrier/spy ship? | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
| Filth, Livberty was a horse carrier in the past.
 | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|  | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
| | First of all 40 mins and not 75. Secondly length of attack only proves that it was not planned in advance. If it was planned atatck would length 1 minute. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
