| Username |
Post |
| info |
Posted
on 17-Jun-01 12:54 PM
Check out http://www.kingdipendra.com
|
| Palpali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 07:55 AM
Public should know what the black substance is. Palace is hiding too many things. Palace is giving hint that the palace itself might be involved in the killings. It may be trying to put a bad name to the dead crown prince. Public should restore the good name of Dipendra.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 10:04 AM
Re: "Public should restore the good name of Dipendra."
I'm having trouble understanding the logic here. A lot of people seem to base their disbelief about Dipendra's guilt largely on a deep distrust of the palace, the govt, and the investigation. In short, they believe the government lies.
Yet unless someone is a personal friend of Dipendra, the "good name of Dipendra" is ALSO a creation of the same palace-and-govt publicity machine that people distrust. What is it that makes "Dipendra's good name" an easier image to digest than Dipendra's guilt?
I'm not getting into the question of did-he-or-didn't-he-do-it here. Obviously the evidence so far points strongly to Dipendra, however unsavory that may be; just as obviously, there have been serious flaws in the investigation, the most troubling (to me) being the military doctor's apparent revalation about the blood samples, which I think bears looking into.
But I have real problems, as a matter of logic, with understanding how people can "know" that Dipendra was a nice gentle guy who was incapable of such a thing, or can "know" that a person who's drunk and high can't under any circumstances put on combat gear, and so on.
Can anyone help me to understand this type of "knowing"?
|
| Palpali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 12:41 PM
Sally, it's not that I am a good friend of Dipendra. In fact, I hardly know him. What I am trying to explain here is anyone is innocent until proven guilty. The report submitted by the commission does not expound on any substantial evidence to prove that Dipendra was the killer. So I, without a stronger proof of evidence, am not ready to hold Dipendra accountible for the massacre. I would not agree on the statements that have originated from the palace. The king stated that it was "an accident" and later, the commission said it was not an accident. How can anyone hold faith in such a system where such sensitive statements change from time to time? Can we be sure that they would come up with a different scenario later? Remember that the country is being led by several politicians who have been convicts, killers, plane-hijackers and so forth. We tend to forgive those who have somehow fooled the law. In this context, if we demoralize Dipendra without evidence, we are forgiving the people who have fooled the law by convicting Dipendra without proof of evidence.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 01:19 PM
Palpali,
I don't have any problem with the logic of saying "I, without a stronger proof of evidence, am not ready to hold Dipendra accountible for the massacre." Fair enough.
Personally I think unanimous eyewitness testimony is fairly strong evidence, but at the same time I recognize that the eyewitnesses have not been subjected to cross-examination and that there are many other problems that I'm sure we could all repeat ad nauseum. So my basic stance is "I think Dipendra did it but I could be wrong." I don't feel qualified to take it any further than that.
The main problem I have is the tendency to make absolute judgments based on assumptions rather than evidence. To say the "public should restore the good name of Dipendra" without adding "IF he's not guilty" is, I think, jumping to conclusions.
From your comments above, you don't appear to fall into this camp, but a lot of people seem to think that the only possible result of an honest probe would HAVE to be that Dipendra didn't really do it. Personally I think the only possible result of a thorough and honest probe should be the truth--preferably demonstrated in a way that is irrefutable to most logical, informed people.
If you're dissatisfied with the probe, then the reasonable thing to do is NOT to demand the restoration of Dipendra's "good name," but to urge a longer, more comprehensive, and more transparent investigation in order to convincingly determine if his "good name" SHOULD be restored. I'm reminded of the Columbine shootings. Early on, the report was that the two boys acted alone. This was pretty well accepted, and yet there still was a longer investigation that took many months, just to make sure.
What do you think?
|
| Kali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 01:43 PM
Hey Sali,
Why don't you try drinking couple of peg of vodka and see if you can carry a ten pound of weight. All our 'knowings' are coming from our experiences.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 02:14 PM
Hi Kali,
1) Tolerance of alcohol is related to use. Substance abusers can function with higher levels of intoxicating substances in their systems than the rest of us can.
2) Coffee has long been used to "wake up" drunks and make them functional; presumably cocaine or another stimulant could have the same affect.
3) I am NOT saying that Dipendra had a high tolerance for alcohol, or that he consumed cocaine or another stimulant. I don't know. I am simply pointing out that there are some counterarguments.
I agree that the concern about his ability to function after apparently being unable to undress himself is among the serious questions that remain. But to say that it's simply not possible because you personally could not carry that kind of weight while drunk is not an effective argument. In effect, you're saying that "he didn't do it" is the ONLY satisfactory result.
If you're a grad student, would you embark on a research paper with a single, predetermined answer based largely on your own gut feelings? Presumably you'd have a THEORY, which would perhaps be based on your gut feelings. And maybe it would turn out to be right--after extensive research that took into account all possible counterarguments. But at the outset, wouldn't it be sensible to admit of the possibility that research could lead to another conclusion? Just an analogy. Take it or leave it.
|
| Palpali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 02:58 PM
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses."
-C. G. Jung
Condemnation with assumptions and unintelligent probe oppresses even more.
|
| kali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 03:41 PM
Sometimes a single word is worth a thousand sentence.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 03:43 PM
Sometimes.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 05:32 PM
Dear Sally:
I agree with your argument.
It is time we persuade ourselves that a drunken prince did it,
without any thought for consequence. The prince might just be
acting :what difference it makes!
It is time we think about diarrohea victims. Those who don't believe how pernicious the effect of alcohol/marijuana can be
can keep on trying them.
|
| curiousity |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 06:59 PM
If Ranabhat and co. have actually interviewed 100 persons as they claim, it's hard to pull off a conspiracy. Not in Nepal. Not in Kathmandu, where every single act of the royal family comes in the open through their cousins, ADCs, cousins' cousins and their girlfriends...and boozing partners. It's just a matter of time.
That said, the probe report has a number of gaping holes. Deependra used to mix an unnamed black susbstance in his tobacco, for eg. The highs-stakes probe could'nt even find the chemcial content? Why was Gyanendra not attending the party? But why? The question beg a convincing answer. Why did a rampaging D. left Paras alone, while every single person who had tried to dissuade the angry prince got shot?
Yes, D looks like the culprit. But I don't know. As sally, I insist that there be a longer, comprehensive probe to rule out conspiracy. Further, conspiracy can also mean a larger design to instigate the prince...., turn him into a volatile drug addict...love-lorn Romeo...lace him with the most sophisticated assault weapons...lax security arrangements...
|
| Trai |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 08:55 PM
Hi,
I too believe that we should not DEMONIZE Dependra based on the probe committee's report. The report has many flaws, so let's not make any judgements based on that report.
Tyatti bhannu ho, take it or leave it.
Trai
|
