Re: CALLING ALL QUAKERS!


<Ian.usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1120819607.402838.325120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> 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.

Giving another the benefit of the doubt, and assuming another's honesty in
the absence of any other concrete reason to doubt them is not being
gullible. It is, however, being Quakerly in my view. I get accused of alot
of things...gullible has never been one of them.

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.

Yes, it arouses suspision. It did in me. However, having no further reason
than suspision is not yet enough for me to believe the post has any other
agenda than the one presented.
>
> 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.

If you return to earlier postings, I wrote that the poster was very
imprudent in posting this information on the internet. She claims she does
not want to be identified as the instigator of an investigation. She does
not say she is worried about the criminals finding out about her instigation
of an investigation. She does not give a reason for not wishing to be
identified. This leaves open a host of reasons ...some of them very poorly
thought out, I think. But I have no idea what her reasons are. I can
follow no reasoning that would lead me to conclude that there is a greater
liklihood of not wishing to be identified by the Police than many others
reasons.

>
> 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.

Erle Stanley Gardner is a pretty decent writer IMO, but I have always
preferred the TV series. I especially like the interplay of the character
of Perry and Della Street. At any rate the books, and especially the TV
series follow pretty constrained plot development. On TV there is always
the tortured courtroom confession by the real culprit. The crimes and
motives may be pretty boilerplate, but the courtroom confessions Perry slyly
pulls out of the murderers are far more unlikely than the crimes.
>
> 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."

If the allegations are true I can think of many reasonable scenarios for not
yet going to the police. Fear. Confusion. Perhaps even doubt. But I agree
that if she believes the allegations are true posting them at SRQ was
burdening others with information and responsibility and I said so. I think
there is a chance (if I accept the posters words at face value) that she
believed someone would take up her cause for her, although initially she
says she was looking for guidance. At any rate, in the absence of any other
information about the poster or the allegations *I* am simply left with
little option than to accept what she says are her motives.
>
> 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.

There is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly the correct thing to
do. OTOH, I also know that by doing that, the poster will have to face
realities that she seems to have tried to avoid. Maybe this is/was a first
step for her. Maybe it is a hoax. Maybe she believes her allegation but no
such murder took place. Maybe it is a complicated, convoluted mix of the
above. Or maybe the poster knows the allegations to be untrue and means to
harm another.
In the absence of knowing the truth I feel it is much better to take
the posters words at face value, and to watch the nature of the posters
responses to others. The poster's behavior did not seem to me to be that of
a "troll". I have no idea what situation she finds herself in, but I am not
ready to assume the worst in her. Whether her allegations are true or not I
can only hope that she and those around her find peace. Therefore I
continue to stand by what I think is a very reasonable desire. That
"justice (not revenge) is served". If the accusations are true I hope
justice(not revenge) is served and the perpetrator is held accountable. If
the accusations are not true, or partly true I hope justice is served (not
revenge) is served and the story is made clear to all. If the allegations
are false I hope justice (not revenge) is served and the accuser is found
incorrect. If the allegations are to be knowingly levelled against an
innocent person I hope justice (not revenge) is served by the accuser
realizing the harm she could do by pursuing those false allegations...and if
whe were to knowingly accuse an innocent person I hope justice (not revenge)
is served by her being held accountable for harming another. In any other
scenario I am bound to express the same wish.
Our conversation has become one that has less to do with the post than
about truth and responsiblity, it seems to me. My approach to situations
like these is to allow that the other is relating the truth until I find
compelling evidence that I am being lied to. I set the mark pretty high.
That's because I believe the only thing a person can truly "own" is his or
her "good word". Their self-honesty and the ability of others to know that
the person speaks truth in all things is an incredibly valuable posession to
my way of thinking. Since I feel so strongly about that, I feel I am
obligated to accept at face value the word of others until I have a reason
to not believe it. Doubt, assumption, and suspicion should not come into
play merely because I am by nature a skeptical person. Express patterns of
behavior, facts, personal knowldege, state of mind, and the historical value
of an individual's words may lead me to believe a person is not being
truthful to me, but I must apply individual criteria to every individual
before making a judgement.
This conversation is not about liklihood or unliklihood for me. It is
simply about adhering to principles that are informed by my faith and their
track record. I have no idea what is in the posters heart and/or mind. So
my honest response to her, in all truthfulness remains simply that I hope
justice (not revenge) is served. No matter who that justice must be applied
to.

Dennis



.