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

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.

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" wrote in message
...
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

"Randy Bauer" writes:
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.

Randy,
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" wrote in message
news:PtNcb.579637$YN5.417714@sccrnsc01...
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.

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" wrote in message
...
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

Yours is one of the more reasoned and reasonable posts I have seen on this
topic.

"garrubal" wrote in message
news:koOcb.5775$Rd4.2142@fed1read07...
Randy,
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" wrote in message
news:PtNcb.579637$YN5.417714@sccrnsc01...
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.

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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...

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, you forgot about my support to Sherzer ;-)
And calling winners and losers in this case is a little misunderstanding. We
didn`t participate in the trial.
Although Sherzer won the case he is a kind of loser because of having fallen
into such a trap and it should make him clear what deeds are good and what
are bad.

Regards,
Jerzy

Dear Randy,

Heil Dubya!

If one uses the 24-hour-day -- as does most of humanity that measures time in
"hours" -- a stopped clock is right only once a day.

Randy Bauer has posted the following:

Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


(Much snipped.)

Of course, you are right that you did not express an opinion concerning the
"legal" guilt or innocence of Sherzer and Scam Spam would be in error were it
to call you a "loser" in that respect. It is an asshole (of course, also) for
naming me as a "winner" among Sherzer's "friends". I consider myself his
friend -- but only casually, as we've never even dined together, although we
have spent time together at chess functions. I think he would have known he
could have counted on me, if needed, as a human and even as a casual friend,
were he to have thought of it. (To make sure, I sent a couple of messages to
Paul Truong, who identified himself as being in contact with Sherzer.)

However, WE ALL ARE WINNERS in that the jury in Alabama refused to honor the
lies of one of the most vile liars in human history: the Government of the
United States of America. As a United Statesian, myself, I take hope in that,
and my spirits are raised concerning my own trial on 15 October. (I still
don't have a lawyer. The New York Civil Liberties Union doesn't consider the
case worthy of its efforts.)

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?)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

Sam, you forgot about my support to Sherzer ;-)
And calling winners and losers in this case is a little misunderstanding. We
didn`t participate in the trial.
Although Sherzer won the case he is a kind of loser because of having fallen
into such a trap and it should make him clear what deeds are good and what
are bad.

Regards,
Jerzy

Sherzer is KIND of a loser? REALLY?? A 32 year old man wanting to have sex with
a 15 year old girl and he is KIND of a loser??? Please. He's a loser alright
and the only reason any of you are afraid to say that is because he's a
Grandmaster. He's a pervert any way you slice it. He's supposed to be a doctor?
So I suppose if he ever gets the chance to practice he can get his rocks off
examining young girls. Yeah, this is someone that is KIND of a loser. You
Sherzer supporters are all pathetic.

"Mogath3" wrote in message
...

Sherzer is KIND of a loser? REALLY?? A 32 year old man wanting to have sex
with
a 15 year old girl and he is KIND of a loser??? Please. He's a loser
alright
and the only reason any of you are afraid to say that is because he's a
Grandmaster. He's a pervert any way you slice it. He's supposed to be a
doctor?
So I suppose if he ever gets the chance to practice he can get his rocks
off
examining young girls. Yeah, this is someone that is KIND of a loser. You
Sherzer supporters are all pathetic.

Bwahahahaha ...
No Sir, You are really pathetic.
You make your own verdict opposite to the court`s verdict but you are not
the judge in the trial so it`s really pathetic.
BTW I believe that professional judges have made the right decision in
Sherzer`s case so my support for him was right too.


Regards,
Jerzy

(Sam Sloan) wrote

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."