Re: CALLING ALL QUAKERS!



Dennis White wrote:
> <Ian.usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > What she believes to be the truth, though, may not be quite the same to
> > someone on the outside.

> You're argument is well-considered. However, in the absence of knowing what
> the truth actually is, I feel I need to give the writer the benefit rather
> than assume the worst in people. That is my leading as a Christian. Mine
> is not an uncommon Quaker stance.

And an honourable one. However, to be trusting does not mean to be
gullible. Here are the things which worry me about the original post:

1) The poster does not give his or her name. References to "husband"
suggest that it's a woman, but the headers say "John". Anonymous or
clearly pseudonymous postings always arouse a hint of suspicion in me.
I'll assume it's a woman for the moment.

2) The poster does not wish to be identified as the originator of this,
but gives details (husband is the son of Philip Wilbur Cummings,
deceased, or Princeton) which would make identification trivial. If the
allegations are true, why would she be so worried about the criminals
finding out who complained? Thanksgiving doesn't sound like much fun as
it is. It seems far more likely that the poster does not want the
police department to know her identity. Perhaps there is a good reason
for that, but I can think of several bad ones.

3) No evidence is given, save the vague statement that "As related to
me by my husband, his Mother had 1st shopped around a criminal element
to find some one to do the deed. When that failed she made it look
like an accident." That's the plot of about seventy three Perry Mason
(qv) novels. Excellent books, and it may happen in real life, but the
absence of any further details seems a bit odd.

In short: if the allegations are true I cannot think of any good reason
why the original poster would not simply approach the relevant police
department. By posting here, s/he is either shirking a moral
responsibility by passing it on to someone else or attempting to cause
problems for at least three (widow, son, daughter-in-law) people. This
latter seems likely, since the whole message equates to me as "My
mother-in-law, who is readily identifiable from this posting, is a
murderess but I don't want to tell the police or say who I am."

It seems to me that the correct response is to pass the original
posting onto Vermont State Police Department and let them worry about
it.

Ian

.