Another view of Trask

Sorry, but nobody is going to convince me that Trask was just a 'misunderstood' man doing what he believes to be the right thing. I realize Vicki made herself all too obvious a suspect blabbing what was going to happen, but as others pointed out, she gained nothing from any of the weird things that had happened at Collinwood and Angelique did.

And, a man of God does not stoop to perjury and blackmail. Trask may have thought the end justified the means but that just proves how deluded he was. The Almighty does not look kindly on lies, Trask deliberately chose to turn a blind eye to that in order to get his witch.

I agree that Vicki fed into the established superstitions and fears in the era she found herself.  She was clueless in that regard.

But above and apart from the kind of suspicions she aroused, no man of God stoops to perjury and blackmail and IluvBarnabas hit that nail on the head, IMO.

Trask's character minded me of Joe McCarthy and his own witchhunt during the 1950s.

nancy

And, a man of God does not stoop to perjury and blackmail. Trask may have thought the end justified the means but that just proves how deluded he was. The Almighty does not look kindly on lies, Trask deliberately chose to turn a blind eye to that in order to get his witch.

Supposing you knew for an ironclad fact that somebody had committed coldblooded murder, but you couldn't prove it to the police.  That person is going to get away with murder.  Now suppose you have the opportunity to fake some evidence in the case so the murderer will get what he (or she) deserves.  Would you do it?

Faking evidence is as much of a crime as the original crime. And besides, Trask didn't know for an ironclad fact that Vicki was a witch, so that sort of speculation lends little to this discussion. Yes, Trask believed in his heart that Vicki was a witch so to him that was why it was perfectly fine to do what he did. But his belief was totally wrong. And that's the problem with him faking evidence and having Nathan perjure himself.

I'm not saying that faking evidence isn't a crime.  What I'm saying is that if Trask truly believed that Vicky was a witch, then the temptation to fake evidence to keep her from continuing in her evil, harmful ways must have been very strong.  I added the "ironclad fact" part as an attempted simulation of the certainty that Trask felt.

See, I believe that if the evidence was so strong that Vicki was a witch, there would be no need to fake evidence at all.   

nancy

I'm not saying that faking evidence isn't a crime.  What I'm saying is that if Trask truly believed that Vicky was a witch, then the temptation to fake evidence to keep her from continuing in her evil, harmful ways must have been very strong.  I added the "ironclad fact" part as an attempted simulation of the certainty that Trask felt.

But again, the actual fact is Trask, no matter how certain he was in his heart, was totally wrong. There's no way to be that certain that anyone is guilty of anything unless one knows for an ironclad fact that they are, in which case one can testify with ironclad evidence. Faking evidence is not only criminally wrong, it's also morally wrong no matter how certain one may be that they're doing it for all the supposedly right reasons.

See, I believe that if the evidence was so strong that Vicki was a witch, there would be no need to fake evidence at all.

Exactly.

No.  That is taking the law into one's own hands and if we as a society go that route we set a dangerous precedent.  Besides, if there is such an ironclad fact that someone had committed the murder existed, why can't the police be convinced?

nancy

Supposing you knew for an ironclad fact that somebody had committed coldblooded murder, but you couldn't prove it to the police.  That person is going to get away with murder.  Now suppose you have the opportunity to fake some evidence in the case so the murderer will get what he (or she) deserves.  Would you do it?

Anyone involved in the Innocence Project and other legal defense organizations know how many times honest citizens have been certain they saw so and so commit a crime only to find out later down the road the person who supposedly committed the crime was, in fact, innocent.  The notion of due process is not without reason.  People can be very sure of something and still be wrong.

nancy

But again, the actual fact is Trask, no matter how certain he was in his heart, was totally wrong. There's no way to be that certain that anyone is guilty of anything unless one knows for an ironclad fact that they are, in which case one can testify with ironclad evidence. Faking evidence is not only criminally wrong, it's also morally wrong no matter how certain one may be that they're doing it for all the supposedly right reasons.

No.  That is taking the law into one's own hands and if we as a society go that route we set a dangerous precedent.  Besides, if there is such an ironclad fact that someone had committed the murder existed, why can't the police be convinced?

I think, then, that I may have a stronger belief than you that one should not take the law into one's own hands, because I do believe that it is possible to know of a murderer via evidence that will not convince the police or stand up in court - but I still wouldn't fake evidence.  At least, I hope I wouldn't.  I've never been in a situation that tested my resolve.

I think, then, that I may have a stronger belief than you that one should not take the law into one's own hands, because I do believe that it is possible to know of a murderer via evidence that will not convince the police or stand up in court - but I still wouldn't fake evidence.  At least, I hope I wouldn't.  I've never been in a situation that tested my resolve.

I sure hope you don't have a stronger belief in that regard than I do because I am about to embark on a full-time position in law enforcement !  Yikes!  

Oh, gosh, good luck!  And congratulations, this sounds like something very new and exciting for you!

Oh, gosh, good luck!  And congratulations, this sounds like something very new and exciting for you!

Thanks.  Yes, I am very excited about things right now. 

nancy