(Bruce Draney) wrote in message om...
I am fairly surprised that Sherzer and his attornies would agree to
allow him to testify in his own defense. Once he answers questions he
gives up his 5th Amendment rights of self incrimination and must
answer any and all prosecution questions under oath.

Perhaps his attorney figured that his client, being a GM, had
the intelligence to avoid getting tripped up by the Prosecutor during
the cross-examination.

My guess is that he must be basing his entire defense upon entrapment,
because if the jury doesn't buy that excuse, his own testimony will be
more than enough to convict him of the crime.

The evidence that he intended to "sex the 15-yr-old" is
overwhelming. Therefore, the only decent try is to try to sell the
entrapment defense.



Had he refused to testify, the state would have had to have proven
beyond reasonable doubt what his intentions were.

Apparently, he and his attorney thought that the State could indeed
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sherzer intended to have sex with
That Girl.

By testifying, he
has pretty much admitted everything to the jury and places his fate in
convincing them that the FBI agents pushed him over the edge into
arranging a meeting with the girl.

Yes, his testimony makes his argument for entrapment a bit more
persuasive, since he can give details as to how the FBI agent
"seduced" him.

Moreover, it is his chance to garner sympathy from the jury, by
"'fessing up" and playing the remorse card. If he keeps silent, and
only acknowledges that he did wrong when standing before the judge
waiting to be sentenced, it's a bit late in the game. A jury is more
likely to be swayed by expressions of contrition than the judge.

It's a long shot in my opinion. Given that he has more or less
admitted everything under oath, I don't give him a very good chance of
winning his case.

The case is strong (especially in front of an Alabama jury)
whether or not he chose to testify. However, whatever chance he has of
being acquited is probably maximized by a stellar performance by
Sherzer on the stand.

His attorney probably told him what to wear, what to say, and how
to say it.

This case would be interesting to appeal, even if Sherzer loses, which
I believe he will.

Of course, but he will have to appeal the case from prison, I
believe.

He risks nothing by launching an appeal, except for his parents'
retirement savings.

I think that virtual crimes based upon people's
intentions rather than any criminal actions raise major legal
questions.

If a person mentions an intention to do something but never does it,
should that be a crime? If someone is joking when they say something,
but still says it, is that a crime?

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...

The evidence that he intended to "sex the 15-yr-old" is
overwhelming. Therefore, the only decent try is to try to sell the
entrapment defense.

Consider the alternative. He gets convicted and spends seven years in a cell
with some guy named Bubba. In the end will Bubba be a GM or will Alex be
bowlegged?

StanB

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...

The evidence that he intended to "sex the 15-yr-old" is
overwhelming. Therefore, the only decent try is to try to sell the
entrapment defense.

Consider the alternative. He gets convicted and spends seven years in a cell
with some guy named Bubba. In the end will Bubba be a GM or will Alex be
bowlegged?

StanB

A number of people who know Stan B personally have mentioned in rgcp
that he is really not such a bad guy.

If that is so, then we have here one of the stronger bodies of
evidence for the case that there's something seriously pathological
about the psychology of Usenet.

LT

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
m...

If that is so, then we have here one of the stronger bodies of
evidence for the case that there's something seriously pathological
about the psychology of Usenet.

What's Usenet got to do with the price of eggs. I'd crack the same joke at
the club if the subject came up. Maybe a taste of his own medicine is
fitting.

StanB

"StanB" wrote in message
...



What's Usenet got to do with the price of eggs. I'd crack the same joke at
the club if the subject came up. Maybe a taste of his own medicine is
fitting.

StanB

I must admit that I found the joke entertaining! Whether or not you're a
nice guy, I have no idea. I do appreciate a good sense of humor though.
Seriously though, for Alex's sake, I hope they keep him segregated from all
the Bubbas.

"Larry Tapper" wrote ...

A number of people who know Stan B personally have mentioned in rgcp
that he is really not such a bad guy.

Yes he is.

I was having dinner with Stan in New Windsor last month, and the waiter
brought me a hot fudge sundae for dessert.

Stan leaned toward me and said, "You know, Eric Johnson packed that fudge."

Tim Hanke

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:EKucb.426614$Oz4.225405@rwcrnsc54...

I was having dinner with Stan in New Windsor last month, and the waiter
brought me a hot fudge sundae for dessert.

Stan leaned toward me and said, "You know, Eric Johnson packed that
fudge."

I said no such thing.

StanB

(Larry Tapper) wrote in message om...
"StanB" wrote in message
...
Consider the alternative. He gets convicted and spends seven years in a
cell with some guy named Bubba. In the end will Bubba be a GM or will
Alex be bowlegged?
StanB

A number of people who know Stan B personally have mentioned in rgcp
that he is really not such a bad guy.

Dear Mr. Tapper,

In his response to you and your evident hypothesis that StanB would behave
himself quite differently in real life than on Usenet, Stan Booz wrote:
"What's Usenet got to do with the price of eggs. I'd crack the same joke
at the club if the subject came up."

Moreover, Stan Booz's preferred kind of 'joke' is not unprecedented here.
For example, here's a link to a 'joke' by Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"),
which was apparently about how to rape a woman or a girl:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

By the way, I have no doubt that some writers here who know Stan Booz in person
would believe that "he is really not such a bad guy". For instance, the members
of the Klu Klux Klan (which is *not* to say that I believe that StanB ever has
been in the KKK) prefer to march together, not alone, in public. And I have
little doubt that nearly all of them also could have some friends come forward
to say that they are "really not such bad guys".

If that is so, then we have here one of the stronger bodies of evidence for
the case that there's something seriously pathological about the psychology
of Usenet.

Rec.games.chess.politics seems to be an extreme pathological case even for
Usenet groups, and Stan Booz might well be an extreme case even for RGCP.

Here are some comments by William Hyde to me about RGCP (4 August 2003):
"I am not an easily depressed person. Nonetheless, I found rgcp to be
depressing. Circular argument, endless and witless insult, infinite energy
wasted on trivial points, endless repetition, stale debate, fact-free, an utter
and complete waste of time....I see no earthly reason to read this group unless
you are interested in USCF backbiting and/or the sociology/pathology of small
groups. I have had interesting, pleasant and valuable email discussions with
people whose posts on that group are not worth reading. So it's something
about the group, not the participants."

'Opium is so far like a human creature that you always hear what can be said
against it, but seldom what can be said in its praise.'
--Charles Dickens (The Mystery of Edwin Drood)

--Nick