On 30 Apr 2001 18:20:27 -0600, janda@dimensional.com (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In a previous post you said something about the reason why the judge wouldn't
>let you mention scumatology is because "the benefits were outweight by the
>predujuice that would be cause".
I think that they are misusing this concept in an attempt to brush this of in an illusion of legal terminology. Most of the public might know know what "the benefits were outweight by the predujuice that would be cause" actually means. They know that people dont understand what this means, and so its a perfect justification not to permit such evidence. As long as the public doesnt know, or doesnt bother looking up what this means, this trick will work. People say to theselves "Oh, another legal technical phrase, them dam CoS laywers..." Its my observation that an illusion of legal strengh is created by the mere use of legal terminology and complexity by currupt people or groups. Such careful wording is clearly designed to make a picture or superficial appearency that a legal assertion has force. By "Benefit" I would think they mean the "probative value" this evidence has. In other words, by benefit, they are refering to the value this has to be used in the issues of this case. For example, If I am charged with stealing cookies from the cookie jar, those unaccounted for cookies on my desk would have a very high probative value, my fingerprints on the cookie jar would have high probative value, a witnesses that my breath smelled like cookies would have good probative value, the fact that I love cookies would have some probative value, my beleif that I MUST have a snack at 3PM everday has a little probative value, and the fact that the cookie store was closed that day has tiny probative value. By benefit, they mean how useful or valuable such evidence is in determining the matter of whether I am guilty or not. Certainly, my fingerprints on the jar is stronger evidence then then testimony that the cookie store was closed that day. My fingerprints have more "benefit" to the proceedings, they have more "probative value". The word "prejudice" has many meanings and contexts, and the only way I know how to explain it is to continue my cookie jar trial. Suppose the accuser intends to call a witness that I once had as a girlfriend who worked at Dunkin donuts but left her for some babe who worked for Chips Ahoy. While this testimony marginally has some good benefit or probative value, it brings into the court that fact that I dumped this nice innocent Donut store worker who happens to be the Mayors daughter and everyone likes. This admision of testomony would cause "prejudice" as they jury or court might tend to dislike me in their minds and therefore decide against me, regardless of the relevent questions involved in this case pertaining to the cookies. Or, another example, lets say that everyone in Leviville PA is Catholic and someone intends to admit into that court a teeshirt of mine that says "Lutherans like Cookies" that has cookie crumbs all over it. In this instance, it has some "bemefit" or "probative value' because it makes more probable as me as the theif from the jar, but on the otherhand, it will also cause "prejudice" to the jurors and the court might tend to dislike me or be biased or prejudiced against me because I am not Catholic. Or, in another example suppose I divorced a woman 20 years ago who is today is a wanted serial killer shown on "Americas Most wanted" , and they want her to testify to the fact that I divorced her because she stopped baking cookies for me. While this testimony of hers appears to have some "probative value" because it shows my burning desire and devotion towards cookies, this benefit is outweighted by the PREJUDICE it will cause by there mere fact that I was Married to a serial Killer. Regardless of whether I actually committed the crime in question, my wifes crimes and identity alone could prejudice or make biased the courts or juries decision. Her benefit to the court is outweighted by the prejudice she will cause. Or suppose that that they want to admit as evidence my Biker gang magizine which as some crumbs on it. The crumbs themselves have some benefit as evidence because they show I was eating cookies, but on the other hand, this benefit is outweighed by everyone learning that I am subcribed to a Motercycle gang magizine. They might Pre-Judge me on that magizine alone , hence the word PREjudice. By "Benefit" they do not mean the benefit it will have to any particular party or side, but rather the benefit it will have in determining the truth of the relevent issues. They dont neccesarily mean evidence that will benefit Henson, nor do they neccesarily mean evidence that will benefit the state or district attorney, but evidence that will BENEFIT the court in deciding the matters. In many legal texts this is called "Probative value". In this case, the evidence against the Church of Scientology is so ugly that the court and state are actually attempting to make it out to be prejudicial. This is actual PROBATIVE or beneficial evidence because it shows the policy and beleifs that OSA is operating off of. It appears that it can pass as prejudicial simply because its so ugly, but this is actual evidence that is relevent and would make more probable Henson being not guilty. David Miscavidges dirty magizines would be prejudicial, Hebers PC folder data might be prejudicial, LRH's autopsy showing drugs in his body might be prejudicial, as PREJUDICIAL means that it would make the deciders biased based on matters that are not relevent. But "Fair Game" is relevent, its an actual beleif and policy that they are operating off of in their actions, and therefore makes more probable the assertion that Henson is just being harrassed by OSA rather then being charged on sincere charges. LOGIC18 P.S. No, I didnt really steal cookies form the cookie jar, I stole my cousins Cookie Doe flavored Ice Cream from the freezer though...