Winners and Losers in the Sherzer Case
Sam Sloan
For example, John Fernandez, who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to
be a friend of Sherzer, is difinately not his friend. Fernandez was
the first to blast the news of Sherzer's arrest all over the internet
and has been proclaiming since day-1 that Sherzer was guilty.
So, Fernandez is definitely one on the losing end of the Sherzer
verdict.
Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
drahmiel and several others.
On the other side of the isle are those who always said that Sherzer
was not guilty and would prevail. These include myself, Alan Fifield,
Paul Rubin, Larry Parr, Jerome Bibuld, Paul Truong, plus
"LeModernCaveman".
This is just a short list. Somebody should compile a complete list of
those who expressed an opinion for or against Alex Sherzer.
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
"loser" if you did not. Nobody who posted an opinion actually had access to
all the evidence, testimony, or jury instructions. This was crystal ball
stuff, and for the first time in a long time, Sam gazed in and got it right.
Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
For the record, I expressed no opinion on whether or not Sherzer would be
found "not guilty." I did, in fact, suggest that he may win on the legal
point of entrapment. However, I also stated, and continue to hold the
opinion that if he is found not guilty, he is far from innocent.
Randy Bauer
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f7399c6....@ca.news.verio.net...
Fifiela
found not guilty, he is far from innocent>>>
Yes....
Paul Rubin
> How typical of Sam. You are a "winner" if you argued for acquittal and a
> "loser" if you did not. Nobody who posted an opinion actually had access to
> all the evidence, testimony, or jury instructions. This was crystal ball
> stuff, and for the first time in a long time, Sam gazed in and got it right.
The jury instruction about the definition of entrapment was in one of
the newspaper articles posted to the ng. Once it was posted it was
completely obvious (to me, anyway) that Sherzer had slam-dunk
entrapment defense. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that before the FBI got involved, Sherzer was already ready and
willing to have sex with Jane Doe. And there was no proof of that and
it probably wasn't true. I was surprised and concerned that the jury
deliberated for more than 2 minutes before acquitting Sherzer.
However, I don't think I ever predicted an acquittal; I felt Sherzer
should be acquitted, but was not too optimistic about it.
garrubal
you are absolutely correct that we did not have the evidence that the jury
saw. All we had to go by was the newspaper articles that were displayed on
the internet. However, I'd like to point out that things could have been
done a little different. With the benefit of knowing what the veredict was
these are my comments:
1. I don't believe it was right for a 32-year-old male to be communicating
via email with a 15-year-old girl in the manner in which Sherzer did (even
before he was planning to see her to have sex with her). He did not commit a
crime before the FBI got involved, but he certainly made the mother of the
daughter quite upset.
2. Once the mother found out about the internet relationship, rather than go
to the FBI, she could have handled the matter directly and contacted
Sherzer, telling him in no uncertain terms that she did not approve of the
language he used in communicating with her daughter. This should have ended
the relationship.
3. The FBI did not have to try to lure Sherzer into action. They could have
also told him, "hey buster, we're watching you as a potential pedophile, so
stop it!" and that would have probably been the end of it.
4. I was leaning more towards finding Sherzer guilty than not guilty. The
jury found the entrapment defense to be plausible. I probably would have
gone the other way simply because the tempting words that the FBI used were
more subtle than a direct invitation to have sex. I think the FBI provided
more provocative language, but that's about it. But this is all besides the
point now, as the veredict is in. I think one of the reasons the jury
acquited Sherzer was because in the real relationship (which lasted several
months) Sherzer did not push for sex, while after the FBI got involved,
Sherzer reacted [dare I say, predictably] in a way that he offered to have
sex with her.
5. Even after having been acquitted, there are no real winners here. Sherzer
may walk free, but his reputation is tarnished with the general public. He's
shown a pedophiliac propensity, even if he didn't carry out the act. The
girl, unknown to all of us, is no winner either. This is another traumatic
event in her already troubled life.
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PtNcb.579637$YN5.417714@sccrnsc01...
Randy Bauer
topic.
"garrubal" <garr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:koOcb.5775$Rd4.2142@fed1read07...
Bruce Draney
> Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
> was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
> that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
> drahmiel and several others.
You can never quite get anything right can you? I did not "declare that
he was guilty". I quoted from his own testimony where he admitted what
he did was wrong, and why he had come to Alabama. I predicted that I
thought he would be found guilty, by a jury in a conservative southern
state. This is of course up to your normal standards of accuracy,
which is none too surprising.
If my hunch that he would be convicted by an Alabama jury after he
testified and admitted what he had done, makes me a "loser", it's a
burden I'm willing to bear.
If Mr. Sherzer is a "winner", then I'd just as soon be a "loser" rather
than a "winner" by that rather strange definition of the two terms.
I am surprised that he was acquitted. I thought there was a chance he
might get away with a hung jury, but I will admit I was surprised at a
unanimous verdict of not-guilty.
In my opinion Mr. Sherzer will be a scarred man for many years to come.
Maybe not forever, depending upon where he goes and what he does to
rehabilitate his damaged reputation.
I will say, that in a way, I am glad that he won't have to do hard time
for this, because I have a strong dislike for law enforcement trolling
which is what I think this came awfully close to.
Mr. Sherzer in my opinion needs to seek some help. If he believes it is
normal behavior to strike up e-mail relationships with troubled 15 year
olds, when he is in his 30's, I don't believe that he is completely
normal.
I am glad this matter is over, that he can try to pick up the pieces of
his life, and that we can start discussing chess matters, rather than
the prurient stuff that most of your posts are made of, here on RGCP.
Best Regards,
Bruce
drahmiel
>Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
>was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
>that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
>drahmiel and several others.
>
I only lose the next time an internet predator goes free and gets a chance to
lure my sister or my friend's daughter to some quiet location where he can rape
and kill her, at which point Parr and Gordo and their ilk will no doubt
rejoicing at another "victory for freedom"
Bruce Draney
If you're really worried about this and not just engaging in hyperbole,
I'd suggest that it might be better for you to have a serious talk with
your sister or your friend's daughter about the dangers of having
intimate conversations with unknown males online. I view this as being
similar to accepting candy or a ride from a stranger. How many times
did our parents warn us about this? Yet in today's world, many parents
have the attitude that their child talking online with a total stranger
is no big deal. I think it's bizarre for 15 year old females to be
posting their photos on the internet and talking to total strangers
about their personal feelings, lives and desires.
I don't think people that dislike the law enforcement tactics used in
this case, like rapists and murderers. I think they feel that there are
less intrusive methods of capturing internet predators than by
suggesting that they perpetrate lascivious actions, and then arresting
them for meeting with someone to follow through.
I feel that Sherzer has a problem if he thinks what he did was
"normal". I also think it is pretty clear in this case anyway that the
law enforcement officials need to find proper ways to protect children,
prevent rapes and murders to the extent that they are able, and to
capture predators that are clearly dangerous to others, and not just
troll the internet with baited hooks to plant ideas in people's minds.
Best Regards,
Bruce
PhilDPage
or against Alex Sherzer.
Sam Sloan
-------------------------
Just what a future EB needs, a guy who wants to draw up lists perhaps to carry
out a vendetta.
PhilDPage
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Sam Sloan gives me a mite too much credit. I thought the jury would
convict, though I believed Alex Sherzer committed no crime. And I said this
case never should have gone to court. Instead of going after a real criminal,
the FBI had nothing better to do than try to destroy a productive member of
society in the name of political correctness.
I'm delighted by the verdict. NOT mainly for the sake of Alex Sherzer,
who acted badly, although in the general horror of it all, he has received more
than his fair share of punishment for being a louse, though not a criminal.
I am delighted by the verdict because it is a grain of sand on the
right side of the legal scales. It has embarrassed the federal bureaucrats a
tad, and that is good. It shows that many ordinary Americans are still
uncomfortable with the concept of victimless crimes and criminalizing low
thoughts. "He was tricked," said a jury member who had more common sense than a
bevy of prosecutors who thought they could win a weak case.
The Reign of Virtue has suffered a setback, albeit a minor one.
Hip, hip hooray!!
On the subject of John Fernandez's cheerleading for destroying the life
of his "friend" Dr. Sherzer, the word "guttersnipe" intrudes on the mind. If
Mr. Fernandez were capable of physically defending himself, which he evidently
is not, and if there were no heavy civil suits to reckon with, I would counsel
Dr. Sherzer to plant four knuckles in the form of a short, sharp, chopping
right on what boxing aficionados call "the sweet spot," thereby assisting Mr.
Fernandez in assuming a recumbent posture in the arms of Morpheus for 20
seconds or so.
Justice would then be in perfect balance: Dr. Sherzer, acquitted yet
punished; Mr. Fernandez, reposing in deep thought.
drahmiel
>If you're really worried about this and not just engaging in hyperbole,
>I'd suggest that it might be better for you to have a serious talk with
>your sister or your friend's daughter about the dangers of having
>intimate conversations with unknown males online.
I believe this is just naivete on your part. Teenage girls are on line ALL THE
TIME, IMing their friends, playing games, surfing, etc. It is the equivalent
of the stereotypical teenage girl tying up the phone of years past. There is
no way for even the most responsible parent to monitor them constantly.
Furthermore, otherwise responsible teens will inevitably think it is "cool" and
"grown-up", to flirt with older guys on-line, just like they often do in real
life. It is even an oportunity for the shyer or less attractive ones to enact
some otherwise repressed fantasies of being "sexy" or "the popular girl". I
have had numerous conversations with teenage girls on line, all of which
remained innocent, but which could have easily digressed into something not
innocent were I a different type of person. These girls flirt, they act
mature, and some of them even think they can handle a situation where they
quite obviously can't. And despite what naive people on this group think, an
internet predator would not jump if a teenage girl said "how about sex?" at the
outset. Some are very crafty and smart, and they would smell a rat and move on
to another victim. Similarly, they would not suggest a roll in the hay right
away, the same way you wouldn't leap after a rabbit you want to have for
dinner. You'd coax it, cajole, it, gain it's trust, make sure it didn't run
when you WERE ready to make your move, and that's what internet predators do.
People like Gord may think this is OK cause its cool to do teenage girls, but
it's not, and most mature intelligent adults should be able to see that.
LeModernCaveman
You're a little extreme there.
I believe the law he was tried under is unconstitutional, and that he was
entrapped.
LeModernCaveman
You'd be wise to discontinue your defamatory imputations.
I date women age 18 and up. That's LEGAL.
The age of consent in my state is 16. Where would you rather it be?
Bruce Draney
>
> >From: Bruce Draney bdr...@novia.net
>
> >If you're really worried about this and not just engaging in hyperbole,
> >I'd suggest that it might be better for you to have a serious talk with
> >your sister or your friend's daughter about the dangers of having
> >intimate conversations with unknown males online.
>
> I believe this is just naivete on your part. Teenage girls are on line ALL THE
> TIME, IMing their friends, playing games, surfing, etc. It is the equivalent
> of the stereotypical teenage girl tying up the phone of years past.
What part does this have to do with preparing young girls for the
potential dangers of being on line all of the time? All the more reason
to talk with them, caution them and give them some tips on what to do
and not to do when they aren't certain to whom they are talking.
There is
> no way for even the most responsible parent to monitor them constantly.
> Furthermore, otherwise responsible teens will inevitably think it is "cool" and
> "grown-up", to flirt with older guys on-line, just like they often do in real
> life.
Kids are kids, and I've been around kids and adolescents for the last
30 years. If you think I'm naive about what kids are like these days,
you are sorely mistaken. Kids make mistakes, kids often defy the
authority of their parents particularly between the ages of 13-18. Kids
mostly want to assert their maturity, their identity and in some cases
their independence and freedom. Freedom when first experienced is a
wonderful but dangerous thing. All things in moderation, and a well
raised youngster with caring and involved parents is far less likely to
be victimized than one whose parent pays no attention to their child's
activities, including what they're doing when they're online.
It is even an oportunity for the shyer or less attractive ones to enact
> some otherwise repressed fantasies of being "sexy" or "the popular girl".
I don't disagree with you. What I'm trying to figure out is whether you
believe parents SHOULDN'T talk with their children about the dangers of
chatting on line with unknown guys that they've never met? Because that
was all I suggested when you went into your rant about your sister and
her daughter being raped by an internet predator. You seem to have made
this comment seriously, which prompted me to remark that rather than
ranting about it on a chess newsgroup that you might want to do
something to prevent such a horrible thing from happening to a loved
one. Complaining about people who disliked the police's methods here
isn't going to accomplish a whole lot, although it might make you feel
better.
I
> have had numerous conversations with teenage girls on line, all of which
> remained innocent, but which could have easily digressed into something not
> innocent were I a different type of person. These girls flirt, they act
> mature, and some of them even think they can handle a situation where they
> quite obviously can't.
And despite what naive people on this group think, an
> internet predator would not jump if a teenage girl said "how about sex?" at the
> outset. Some are very crafty and smart, and they would smell a rat and move on
> to another victim. Similarly, they would not suggest a roll in the hay right
> away, the same way you wouldn't leap after a rabbit you want to have for
> dinner. You'd coax it, cajole, it, gain it's trust, make sure it didn't run
> when you WERE ready to make your move, and that's what internet predators do.
> People like Gord may think this is OK cause its cool to do teenage girls, but
> it's not, and most mature intelligent adults should be able to see that.
If you think I'm naive you are wrong. I did not suggest that parents
try to monitor their children 24/7, which would be as impossible as
monitoring their driving 24/7, monitoring their conversations with their
friends 24/7 or have someone follow them around to make sure they aren't
doing anything foolish or risky.
If you're like me, you've done some foolish or risky things in your
life and you and I were lucky enough to survive them with nothing worse
than perhaps a scratch or a broken bone. My mom and dad couldn't
monitor my conduct 24/7, nor did they need to. All they really needed
to do was raise me properly, teach me to be cautious around people I
didn't know and act honestly and ethically as much as possible. Don't
talk to strangers, don't get in someone's car if you don't know them,
and think before you act.
What I suggested was a serious talk with younger female members about
the dangers and pitfalls of internet chatting. And what was the point
of your rant on here other than to scream at Parr and others who felt
the law enforcement in this case was trying to lure a foolish foreign
person into doing something illicit?
A jury of 12 ordinary people in a conservative southern state
unanimously agreed that law enforcement did not do the right thing
here. You as I recall were demanding his head as a perv, as were a few
others. I thought he was foolish (and still do), but I don't really
like government stings that throw out baited hooks in the hopes of
pushing someone into doing something illegal and then arresting them for
it, when they wouldn't have done it had someone not enticed them into
doing it. As you point out the real predators are crafty and well aware
of how to avoid prison, unlike the unfortunate Mr. Sherzer who in my
opinion needs some counseling.
Why don't you tell us what your point is, other than to vent, and we'll
all move on to chess political topics. (Or at least, I will).
Best Regards,
Bruce
drahmiel
>Why don't you tell us what your point is, other than to vent, and we'll
>all move on to chess political topics. (Or at least, I will).
Talking to your kids is not an adequate substitute for the protection of the
law against internet predators.
Bruce Draney
Okay. Suggestions on how the government can protect your children and
your loved ones better, since you are apparently not equipped or able to
do it yourself?
Since an Alabama jury completely rejected the law enforcement methods
in this case, how could the police and law enforcement practices be made
better so that someone who really is a predator doesn't get away because
of police stupidity and improper behavior?
Now days, the standard excuse used by many adults is that, "I can't
figure out what to do to protect my children, instill good study habits
in my children, communicate with my children, get my children to obey or
listen to me, or motivate my children. Can the government please
establish a program and pay to get my children to be able to do all of
the things, I am unable to get my children to do? My child won't study,
won't sit still, is rude to others. Is there a doctor who will write a
prescription for my child so that he'll do these things?"
By the way, I don't recall saying that merely talking with one's
children was a substitute for law enforcement officials protecting
children from internet predators. When your parents told you not to get
in the car of a stranger, did you feel that your parents were also
saying that if you would follow this rule, that there would be no need
for police to protect children from strangers offering children rides?
I said it would certainly be a good idea, to still having the government
trying to catch predators. Again, is it your feeling that it is a bad
idea for parents to seriously talk with their daughters about the
dangers of internet chatting? What methods other than trolling can law
enforcement officials use to make the internet safer from predators,
since parents are apparently no longer responsible for the actions of
their children, and children are no longer responsible for their own
actions?
No problem is unsolvable if enough money, power and resources are
devoted to it. Of course, money and power and resources must be
tempered with the liberties of the society in which we live, here in the
United States. In a totalitarian state, there is lower level of crime
than there is in a democracy, because the power and authority of the
state is imbalanced with the liberties of the people who are governed by
it. We could make the U.S. real damn safe, if we wanted to turn
ourselves into a police state where government surveillance was standard
and people's rights were curtailed or eliminated altogether.
So I'm asking for what you think needs to be done, keeping in mind what
just failed in Alabama, to make the U.S. safer for young foolish girls
on the internet and whose parents feel helpless to protect them?
Best Regards,
Bruce
John Fernandez
> On the subject of John Fernandez's cheerleading for destroying the
>life
>of his "friend" Dr. Sherzer, the word "guttersnipe" intrudes on the mind. If
>Mr. Fernandez were capable of physically defending himself, which he
>evidently
>is not, and if there were no heavy civil suits to reckon with, I would
>counsel
>Dr. Sherzer to plant four knuckles in the form of a short, sharp, chopping
>right on what boxing aficionados call "the sweet spot," thereby assisting Mr.
>Fernandez in assuming a recumbent posture in the arms of Morpheus for 20
>seconds or so.
>
> Justice would then be in perfect balance: Dr. Sherzer, acquitted
>yet punished; Mr. Fernandez, reposing in deep thought.
If Sherzer punches me in the face, I'll let you know.
And, uh, what makes you think I'm not capable of defending myself?
John Fernandez
Danny Purvis
> One thing for sure, [...]
I argued both ways, so I am a loser as well as a winner. But I am not
about to make the same mistake twice. Now that Dr. Sherzer has been
found not guilty, I will go on record as saying that I believe the
verdict is proper and that Dr. Sherzer is, in fact, entirely innocent.
People vary. Some people are not really mature at age 30. Alexander
the Great, on the other hand, conquered the world at age 15. I
believe that Dr. Sherzer's original judgment was vindicated by the
trial testimony as reported in the various journalistic renderings.
The particular 15-year-old who so attracted Dr. Sherzer was already a
fascinating woman, fully capable of taking care of herself, and who
indeed did take care of herself. Note the extreme caution with which
she treated Dr. Sherzer's cell phone gift. I believe Dr. Sherzer is a
wonderful man and a man of courage, as his conduct and frank testimony
proved, even for those who have never met him or watched him play
chess. He was found not guilty by a jury who observed him for several
days and who listened to his lengthy testimony and his reaction to the
most strenuous of cross-examinations. Our law, our very constitution,
presumes a man innocent unless and until proved guilty in a court of
law. I will do no less, especially in a case like this where
innocence shines through so clearly. For all who would cast stones I
say, "May you never become the target of a law enforcement sting.
There are very few of us who are immune to every temptation."
Paul Rubin
> trial testimony as reported in the various journalistic renderings.
> The particular 15-year-old who so attracted Dr. Sherzer was already a
> fascinating woman, fully capable of taking care of herself, and who
> indeed did take care of herself. Note the extreme caution with which
> she treated Dr. Sherzer's cell phone gift.
I don't remember or didn't notice what happened with the cell phone,
but I wonder how her mom got hold of her email. That suggests
carelesness.
Jerome Bibuld
Heil Dubya!
Like the child who had lost both his/her parents? (On these fora, I've seen no
comments concerning the obvious contempt for the privacy and dignity of her
child by the mother who rang in the "authorities".)
Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!
Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!
(Was 11 September 20001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)
Fraternally,
Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus
Paul Rubin
> Like the child who had lost both his/her parents? (On these fora,
> I've seen no comments concerning the obvious contempt for the
> privacy and dignity of her child by the mother who rang in the
> "authorities".)
I don't understand what you're getting at about the child losing
his/her parents. I do feel the girl's privacy was invaded and I
thought some of my posts expressed that.
Angelo DePalma
The truth is this was a lose-lose proposition. Even I, who argued for
acquittal, realize that for the most part we'd be better off if everyone
with his proclivities would jump off a bridge tomorrow. I'm giving him the
benefit of the doubt because he's intelligent and a chessplayer. If he's
compulsive or psychotic he'll do it again, but I'm hoping he's just horny
and not driven by some unbeatable demon. I'm betting he's smart enough and
sane enough to learn from this mistake and rehabilitate himself.
Nevertheless, if I catch him around here doing the same thing I'll shove a
life-sized rook up his ass so far he'll scream "DOSHVIDANYE BAY-BEEEE."
Angelo
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f7399c6....@ca.news.verio.net...
CJB
>Dr. Sherzer is a
>wonderful man and a man of courage, as his conduct and frank testimony
>proved
One can only hope this is sarcasm. Speaking of courage, he did charge into
battle selflessly and unarmed (except with viagra and sex toys) against an
overwhelming foe, a fifteen year old girl. If he were in the military, he
would get the Medal of Honor. Well, hopefully he will be content with
Presidential Medal for courageous and wonderful conduct above and beyond the
call of duty.
CJ the Brick
Randy Bauer
conversations between Sherzer and her daughter and contacted the FBI. My
recollection of this "fascinating...capable woman" is that she had an eating
disorder and was described by her mother at the trial proceedings as
"troubled." She doesn't exactly sound like somebody ready to take the world
by storm.
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xn0crc...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
Paul Rubin
> The mother found the cell phone, as well as computer print outs of
> the conversations between Sherzer and her daughter and contacted the
> FBI. My recollection of this "fascinating...capable woman" is that
> she had an eating disorder and was described by her mother at the
> trial proceedings as "troubled." She doesn't exactly sound like
> somebody ready to take the world by storm.
I don't get much sense from that of what the girl was like. Lots of
capable people have eating disorders. Just about any overbright,
angst-filled teenager could be described as "troubled". It still
sounds careless if she left the cell phone and printouts where her
mother could find them. It even sounds careless that she made the
printouts at all.
Randy Bauer
be considered defamatory? I'm not a lawyer (but I'm a lot more of a
economist and statistician than Sam Sloan will ever be), so please explain
to me how he can defame you by suggesting that you engage in legal conduct?
"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030926080151...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Jerome Bibuld
Heil Dubya!
I'm sorry, I don't keep records of my postings to usenet newsgroups, but I
don't remember saying, "Like the child who had lost both his/her parents?" If
I did, I'd like to know the context. Please repeat the ENTIRE posting.
I change my statement to " ... I don't remember seeing any comments (from " ...
I've seen no comments ... ") concerning the obvious contempt for the privacy
and dignity of her child by the mother who rang in the "authorities". I may
have missed (or forgotten) yours, so congratulate you on your perception.
Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!
Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!
(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)
Child
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
some mothers go through your things. Some mothers read your diaries. Some
of this snooping is granted.
Paul Rubin
> some mothers go through your things. Some mothers read your
> diaries. Some of this snooping is granted.
I don't know what you mean about granted. I do know that if a teenager
has a private diary and their mother reads it, they're going to have a
fight on their hands, and if the invasion continues, they may end up
with a runaway child who becomes a drug addict and <insert your favorite
hysteria>. It's better to treat the teenager with some respect and leave
their diary alone.
Sam Sloan
>I would have to say that Rich Jackson is the biggest loser in the whole
>affair. He appeared in Mobile as a potential rebuttal witness for the
>prosecution (I don't think he was called to testify in the end). Sherzer
>brought down fifteen friends as potential character witnesses, most of whom
>were not permitted to testify. The only person the Feds could find who had
>a bad word for Sherzer was Rich Jackson, who actually barely knows Alex
>personally.
>
>Joel
>
Very interesting. Is this Rich Jackson the scholastic tournament
organizer by that name?
If he is the same person, and it seems likely that he is, I feel that
he should be blacklisted by the USCF. A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.
Remember that a character witness must appear voluntarily. He cannot
be made subject to a subpoena.
Sam Sloan
Fifiela
he should be blacklisted by the USCF. A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.>>>
Wrong: Sherzer wasn't accused of playing chess.
Larry Tapper
Sam,
I am disappointed to see you come out in favor of official
blacklisting for any reason whatsoever. Of course general opprobrium
is another matter.
Larry
Child
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
if I was concerned about my child, their privacy is less important to me
than their safety.
LeModernCaveman
>conversations between Sherzer and her daughter and contacted the FBI.
What was in those conversations that would have justified FBI intervention?
Obviously nothing, or the jury would have found that he had prior intent to
commit the (unconstitutional) crime that he was charged with (travel and
seeking premarital sex without parental consent are the reasons the "sex" in
question here was criminal).
I would think that if one feels that 15 year-olds shouldn't be engaging in sex,
that they should also believe that the age of consent laws should reflect this.
>My
>recollection of this "fascinating...capable woman" is that she had an eating
>disorder and was described by her mother at the trial proceedings as
>"troubled." She doesn't exactly sound like somebody ready to take the world
>by storm.
Putting down a 15 year-old girl now? Real brave.
LeModernCaveman
>be considered defamatory? I'm not a lawyer (but I'm a lot more of a
>economist and statistician than Sam Sloan will ever be), so please explain
>to me how he can defame you by suggesting that you engage in legal conduct?
Not all defamation is actionable; it is just "wise" in terms of credibility.
Besides, I'm just a posting alias here unless you use my real name or direct
others on how to find it in the same posting.
Robert Lee
wrote:
> A chess player who tries to put
> a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
> should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.
Well, if those are your standards, how about adult chess players who go
to great lengths to gleefully seduce 15-year-olds, whatever the outcome
of their trials? (And it's the right outcome, based on what happened,
I'm not arguing against it.)
--Robert
--
Do not sit next to Dennis
Sam Sloan
wrote:
OK. When I said "blacklisting" I meant general opprobrium.
Obviously, there is no such thing as an official blacklist, nor should
there be one.
I maintain that anyone who tries to mess up a person's life by trying
to put him in prison who is not a victim or a public prosecutor should
be treated with general opprobrium.
Sam Sloan
LeModernCaveman
>acquittal, realize that for the most part we'd be better off if everyone
>with his proclivities would jump off a bridge tomorrow. I'm giving him the
>benefit of the doubt because he's intelligent and a chessplayer. If he's
>compulsive or psychotic he'll do it again, but I'm hoping he's just horny
>and not driven by some unbeatable demon. I'm betting he's smart enough and
>sane enough to learn from this mistake and rehabilitate himself.
He committed no crime. Why the need for rehabilitation?
Miriling
>On 27 September 2003 sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in
>Message-id: <3f7600f5....@ca.news.verio.net>
>
>On 27 Sep 2003 11:15:11 -0700, larry_...@yahoo.com (Larry Tapper)
>wrote:
>
>>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message
>news:<3f7583d7....@ca.news.verio.net>...
>>> At 11:06 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, Joel Benjamin wrote:
>>>
>>> >I would have to say that Rich Jackson is the biggest loser in the whole
>>> >affair. He appeared in Mobile as a potential rebuttal witness for the
>>> >prosecution (I don't think he was called to testify in the end). Sherzer
>>> >brought down fifteen friends as potential character witnesses, most of
>whom
>>> >were not permitted to testify. The only person the Feds could find who
>had
>>> >a bad word for Sherzer was Rich Jackson, who actually barely knows Alex
>>> >personally.
>>> >
>>> >Joel
>>> >
>>>
>>> Very interesting. Is this Rich Jackson the scholastic tournament
>>> organizer by that name?
-snipped-
>>>
>Sam Sloan
>
>
>This sounds like it's the scholastic chess organizer from Greenwich,
Connecticut, who claims to teach chess professionally and operates Rich Jackson
Enterprises in the Constitution State. He also reportedly played in the Chess
Olympiad for the British Virgin Islands at one time.
What's his background?
George Mirijanian
>
>
>
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
I'm shocked to hear about blacklisting anyone for "offenses" unrelated to
chess. This sounds like the kind of stuff that Campomanes tried to pull against
the late Ricardo Calvo for a letter he wrote to New In Chess criticizing the
corrupt leadership in FIDE. Shame on you, Sam!
There's a question from Rich Jackson of Greenwich, Ct., about a Max Lange
Novelty in Larry Evans On Chess (Chess Life, September 2003, page 61). Is this
the same person who allegedly was prepared to "testify" against GM Alex
Sherzer? If so, does anyone know what he was going to say about the case or why
the feds decided not to use him?
Bruce Draney
I met Mr. Jackson personally in Framingham at the Delegates' meeting.
He is a scholastic organizer and was very concerned about dues being
increased in Framingham. He was seriously considering leading a
secession from USCF had dues been raised on Scholastics. They weren't
of course, but in the months prior to the meetings, he was complaining
rather loudly via e-mail and even on this newsgroup if I recollect about
the "mistreatment" of children's chess. At the meetings he told me he
was seriously considering organizing events for the CEA and forsaking
USCF. Apparently, he either decided to run both CEA and USCF events, or
he changed his mind and remained loyal to USCF.
I'm just guessing that he objected to Sherzer's conduct and wished to
see him punished for possibly hurting the image of chess, particularly
among parents with children who might be frequenting his tournaments and
playing in his events.
I imagine the decision to not use him by the prosecution was probably
due more to expecting his singular testimony to be compared to the
multiple prominent chess personalities that testified on behalf of Mr.
Sherzer. I found Mr. Jackson to be a bit unusual, but he was definitely
passionate about his beliefs.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Sam Sloan
>There's a question from Rich Jackson of Greenwich, Ct., about a Max Lange
>Novelty in Larry Evans On Chess (Chess Life, September 2003, page 61). Is this
>the same person who allegedly was prepared to "testify" against GM Alex
>Sherzer? If so, does anyone know what he was going to say about the case or why
>the feds decided not to use him?
I do not know at all, but I suspect that the reason he did not testify
was that the judge ruled that his testimony would be inadmissible. It
appears that he was going to testify that Mr. Sherzer was a bad
character. As far as I know, the prosecution in a criminal case is not
allowed to present negative character witness.
Sam Sloan
Bruce Draney
This is an interesting point. What are the limits of calling character
witnesses in criminal cases? If a witnesses' testimony has no direct
bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, is there any
particular reason why a prosecutor can't object to them testifying on
the grounds that they are irrelevant to the facts of the case?
I suppose that the defense could argue that being allowed to call
character witnesses can establish a past record of good behavior by the
defendant, but wouldn't that also imply that it would be okay for the
prosecution to dig up someone who knows some bad past deed by the
defendant that might call into question his integrity? I'm wondering
if some states don't allow testimony by non-material witnesses in
criminal trials, or at the very least limit such testimony to one or two
maximum.
For years, there have been questions about whether past actions and
behaviors can be admitted as evidence of present guilt or innocence. It
seems at least to me that calling character witnesses for either side is
similar to trying to use the past as an indication of present guilt or
innocence.
Best Regards,
Bruce
ASCACHESS
>Connecticut, who claims to teach chess professionally and operates Rich
>Jackson
>Enterprises in the Constitution State. He also reportedly played in the Chess
>Olympiad for the British Virgin Islands at one time.
>What's his background?
>
>George Mirijanian
>>
Rich has been active in scholastic chess for many years.
When 9/11 happened, he immediately began gathering free chess sets and events
for the children of the tragedy.
That does not mean he is without problems. He has at least one that is well
known.
He was raised as an orphan and feels deeply for children's issues. If he paid
his own way to Alabama for the trial, you can bet he thinks he knew something
which would have had an impact on the trial.
Richard Peterson
Miriling
>On 28 September 2003 asca...@aol.com (ASCACHESS) replied in
>Message-id: <20030928144618...@mb-m21.aol.com>
>
>Rich [Jackson] has been active in scholastic chess for many years.
>When 9/11 happened, he immediately began gathering free chess sets and events
>for the children of the tragedy.
>
>That does not mean he is without problems. He has at least one that is well
>known.
>
>He was raised as an orphan and feels deeply for children's issues. If he
>paid
>his own way to Alabama for the trial, you can bet he thinks he knew something
>which would have had an impact on the trial.
>
>Richard Peterson
>
Do you believe that Jackson paid his own way to Alabama for the trial? Paid his
own lodging expenses? Food, etc.?
It would be interesting to know whether the government paid any expenses for
this potential "character witness" for the prosecution. I think all his trip
got him was general opprobrium from the chess community at large in this
country for his showing up in Mobile with the intent of testifying against a
defendant who was clearly acquitted by a jury that knew that he had been
wrongfully tricked by an overzealous FBI agent.
The real character of this potential "character witness" should be called into
question.
George Mirijanian
>
>
>
>
Angelo DePalma
Cave-Dweller,
Morality and legality don't intersect 100% of the time. Nor do jury verdicts
and guilt/innocence.
Slavery was legal 140 years ago but immoral. Wanting to have sex with a 15
year old is immoral, but it should probably not in and of itself be illegal,
any more than coveting your neighbor's wife or goods (but not actually going
through with it).
Since most civilized people agree that bedding a child is wrong, and he
probably was thinking of doing just that, then he should try to fix whatever
is wrong, even if all that means is he doesn't put himself in that situation
again. If he's a compulsive child molester, which I don't think he is, he
won't be able to control himself and we'll no doubt hear from him again. If
he's just a sort of normal guy who's exceeded acceptable limits under
whatever circumstances then he's probably going to be alright. I wish him
the best.
Angelo
"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote
ASCACHESS
>his
>own lodging expenses? Food, etc.?
>It would be interesting to know whether the government paid any expenses for
>this potential "character witness" for the prosecution. I think all his trip
>got him was general opprobrium from the chess community at large in this
>country for his showing up in Mobile with the intent of testifying against a
>defendant who was clearly acquitted by a jury that knew that he had been
>wrongfully tricked by an overzealous FBI agent.
>The real character of this potential "character witness" should be called
>into
>question.
>
>George Mirijanian
>>
None of us wanted to see Alex's life ruined by foolish action. I like Alex.
My kids like Alex.
Alex was found not guilty, but his actions were pretty clear. His own
statements were pretty clear, his intent was not innocent. Alex may not have
been guilty of violating the law, but Alex was not innocent.
It may be that Rich Jackson had other information which the prosecution could
not use.
I dont' think it is a negative reflection on his character for coming forward.
We just don't know.
Richard Peterson
marc margolies
cousin? 15 is legal in alabama.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f7399c6....@ca.news.verio.net...
> One thing for sure, Alex Sherzer now knows who his friends really are.
>
> For example, John Fernandez, who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to
> be a friend of Sherzer, is difinately not his friend. Fernandez was
> the first to blast the news of Sherzer's arrest all over the internet
> and has been proclaiming since day-1 that Sherzer was guilty.
>
> So, Fernandez is definitely one on the losing end of the Sherzer
> verdict.
>
> Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
> was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
> that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
> drahmiel and several others.
>
> On the other side of the isle are those who always said that Sherzer
> was not guilty and would prevail. These include myself, Alan Fifield,
> Paul Rubin, Larry Parr, Jerome Bibuld, Paul Truong, plus
> "LeModernCaveman".
>
> This is just a short list. Somebody should compile a complete list of
> those who expressed an opinion for or against Alex Sherzer.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
Sam Sloan
<nos...@westnet.com> wrote:
>do you think the girl in the sherzer case is gonna mary the judge now or her
>cousin? 15 is legal in alabama.
>
She is 16 now. She turned 16 just a few weeks after Sherzer was
arrested.
That is the reason the FBI Agent was anxious to have Sherzer come pick
her up when he did. He needed to have Sherzer arrested NOW, because as
soon as the girl turned 16, they would have no case.
So, he sent Sherzer e-mails expressing urgency that Sherzer should
come right away, and told him to be sure to bring a dildo.
It was his/her repeated requests for a dildo that should have alerted
Sherzer that this was a sting operation.
Sam Sloan
KidDon
My only "prediction" was that a hung jury was a real possibility. I
never make solid predictions of outcomes in criminal cases where I do
not hear all of the evidence the jury hears or all of the legal
arguments the judge hears. I'm not willing to rely on media accounts
which only report what they believe makes a good story. I'm not sure
there are any winners or losers in this sad case.
KidDon
LeModernCaveman
>conversations between Sherzer and her daughter and contacted the FBI.
Conversations aren't illegal.
Nick
news:<9a2dfd4d.03092...@posting.google.com>...
> I argued both ways, so I am a loser as well as a winner. But I am not
> about to make the same mistake twice. Now that Dr. Sherzer has been
> found not guilty, I will go on record as saying that I believe the
> verdict is proper and that Dr. Sherzer is, in fact, entirely innocent.
> People vary. Some people are not really mature at age 30. Alexander
> the Great, on the other hand, conquered the world at age 15.
No, Alexander the Great (born 356 BCE) had not even become the King of
Macedonia (at age 20) until after his father's assassination in 336 BCE.
> I believe that Dr. Sherzer's original judgment was vindicated by the
> trial testimony as reported in the various journalistic renderings.
> The particular 15-year-old who so attracted Dr. Sherzer was already a
> fascinating woman, fully capable of taking care of herself, and who
> indeed did take care of herself.
The intellectual and emotional maturity of fifteen-year-old females can vary
widely. At Oxford University, Ruth Lawrence earned a B.A. in mathematics by
the age of 14 and a B.A. in physics by the age of 15, yet reportedly she never
had been out on any romantic dates by that time.
'Those virtues which command esteem do not often inspire passion.'
--Frances Moore Brooke (The History of Emily Montague)
> Note the extreme caution with which she treated Dr. Sherzer's cell phone gift.
> I believe Dr. Sherzer is a wonderful man and a man of courage, as his conduct
> and frank testimony proved, even for those who have never met him or watched
> him play chess. He was found not guilty by a jury who observed him for
> several days and who listened to his lengthy testimony and his reaction to
> the most strenuous of cross-examinations. Our law, our very constitution,
> presumes a man innocent unless and until proved guilty in a court of law.
> I will do no less, especially in a case like this where innocence shines
> through so clearly. For all who would cast stones I say, "May you never
> become the target of a law enforcement sting. There are very few of us who
> are immune to every temptation."
'Those who never have been guilty of any indiscretion are generally people
who have very little active virtue.'
--Frances Moore Brooke (The History of Emily Montague)
'What is it that constitutes virtue? Is it the circumstance of being able and
willing to resist temptation; or that of having no temptations to resist?'
--Anne Bronte (The Tenant of Wildfell Hall)
--Nick
Danny Purvis
> danny_...@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis) wrote in message
> news:<9a2dfd4d.03092...@posting.google.com>...
> > I argued both ways, so I am a loser as well as a winner. But I am not
> > about to make the same mistake twice. Now that Dr. Sherzer has been
> > found not guilty, I will go on record as saying that I believe the
> > verdict is proper and that Dr. Sherzer is, in fact, entirely innocent.
> > People vary. Some people are not really mature at age 30. Alexander
> > the Great, on the other hand, conquered the world at age 15.
>
> No, Alexander the Great (born 356 BCE) had not even become the King of
> Macedonia (at age 20) until after his father's assassination in 336 BCE.
Thanks for the correction. I can't imagine why I said that. I only
remember that I was in a state of exuberance and decided to purposely
disregard the facts. I suppose a spirit of irony and whimsy was in
back of it, but it was very wrong of me.
Danny Purvis
Nick
Thanks for your gracious response.
I lack the time to respond to every error in historical fact that has been
written here. Please understand that I wrote only to address that specific
inaccuracy, not to make any personal criticism of you.
"He looked like a person who would willingly shake hands with anyone."
--Henry James (The American)
--Nick