Replies

One point that I forgot to make regarding your claim that the 'witnesses' mentioned in the testimony could step forward and refute what was said about them.

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible's studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrust big government. Any of these may qualify but certainly more than one would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference."

Do you know who said that? Many people attribute that quote to Janet Reno. Now, I'm no fan of Mrs. Reno, but I know that the above quote is a bogus urban legend without any evidence to link it to her. Nonetheless, there are still people who believe that she said it. She's still alive to refute the claim, yet it still surfaces now and then despite the available references on the Internet that expose it as a hoax.

Now, 2000 years ago the Internet didn't exist, so urban legends would have been much harder to refute. Why should I believe that a story is true simply because someone mentioned in the story never came forth to deny it? How do we know that none of them did deny it and there was simply no recording of the denial? I see the same thing happening to day, with far more efficient means of broadcasting such a denial, so why should I believe that it never hapepned then?

Now, with regards to Michael Skakel, are you saying that he was convicted based on nothing more than the testimony of less than four eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradicted one another in various key places? I find that hard to believe.