Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 10:11SCEPCOP Forum
Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptic Criticism of the Paranormal
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/
Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=557
Page 3 of 3
Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 10:11Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 10:18Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 19:40That soft drink guy has no credibility in my book either.
Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 20:34This case seems to be nothing more than something conspiracy fanatics use to claim that their pet conspiracy is true, because here is an example of another conspiracy that is true.
The problem is that this was a civil suit, not a criminal case. Since there was no effort at a defense, then any of the claims made by the plaintiff went unchallenged. Even a death went unchallenged till the still living person decided to sue the plaintiff's lawyer. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Since Scepcop does not answer any questions I'll tell all of the readers here that you only need 50% to win. In a criminal case you need 100% to win. If there is one no vote in a criminal case, then the jury cannot convict in a criminal proceeding. But in this case it was a slam dunk for the plaintiff. The jury had to award the judgment to the plaintiff since the defendant did not dispute the claims of the lawsuit. Does this in any way validate the testimony given over 4 weeks? NO, absolutely not.
What is interesting here is that with a civil lawsuit seeking $100 in damages, why did the defendant bother to hire a lawyer at over $100 an hour to sit in a court room for weeks on end that did not put up a defense? The reason anyone pays tens of thousands of dollars to save $100 is that there is an expectation of more cash. If the defendant had simply disregarded the call to court and had not shown up it would have been a summary judgment of $100 and the end of the story. The defendant would have received a letter directing them to pay $100. Had the defendant disregarded the order to pay, then the plaintiff would have been back in court seeking a means of restitution.
What is obvious here is that this was a formal version of a mock trial.
What little it did for the MLK claims have been usurped by others as a basis for furthering other conspiracy claims. I think it was White Tiger that was wondering about context. Context is important in understanding the evidence provided.
The problem is that this was a civil suit, not a criminal case. Since there was no effort at a defense, then any of the claims made by the plaintiff went unchallenged. Even a death went unchallenged till the still living person decided to sue the plaintiff's lawyer. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Since Scepcop does not answer any questions I'll tell all of the readers here that you only need 50% to win. In a criminal case you need 100% to win. If there is one no vote in a criminal case, then the jury cannot convict in a criminal proceeding. But in this case it was a slam dunk for the plaintiff. The jury had to award the judgment to the plaintiff since the defendant did not dispute the claims of the lawsuit. Does this in any way validate the testimony given over 4 weeks? NO, absolutely not.
What is interesting here is that with a civil lawsuit seeking $100 in damages, why did the defendant bother to hire a lawyer at over $100 an hour to sit in a court room for weeks on end that did not put up a defense? The reason anyone pays tens of thousands of dollars to save $100 is that there is an expectation of more cash. If the defendant had simply disregarded the call to court and had not shown up it would have been a summary judgment of $100 and the end of the story. The defendant would have received a letter directing them to pay $100. Had the defendant disregarded the order to pay, then the plaintiff would have been back in court seeking a means of restitution.
What is obvious here is that this was a formal version of a mock trial.
What little it did for the MLK claims have been usurped by others as a basis for furthering other conspiracy claims. I think it was White Tiger that was wondering about context. Context is important in understanding the evidence provided.
Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 29 Oct 2009, 08:16Re: Court rules that MLK was killed by government conspiracy!
Posted: 29 Oct 2009, 08:20So Scepcop why don't you change the title of this thread to something closer to the truth:
Court finds that crooked lawyer for King family is exposed as a liar
Lawyer that hookwinked King family guilty of libel for wantonly writing lies
Doesn't really matter which trial you referred to does it? Mock trial or mock trial it seems.
Court finds that crooked lawyer for King family is exposed as a liar
Lawyer that hookwinked King family guilty of libel for wantonly writing lies
Doesn't really matter which trial you referred to does it? Mock trial or mock trial it seems.