[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[Stephen Lawrence]

thanks jamie 

for holding my corner 
 


To: gathering at misera.net
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 04:42:15 -0400
From: jpwhkj at aol.com
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

Brendan,

Stephen said that he opted for a not-guilty verdict because "there was an element of doubt".

You replied (see below) that he should have been "making a judgement based on
the weight of probability".

Given that we're on a Killing Joke mailing list rather than in a courtroom, I'd accept his phrase as being equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt"; yours is clearly equivalent to "the balance of probability".  So, in short, his comment was in line with the requirement for being a juror; yours was not.

I rather suspect that you picked up on it because you're in the middle of a disagreement with him, and it looked like an opportunity to make him look stupid.  True or false?

Jamie














-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: 'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)' <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:50
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion



there was an element of doubt in the case

That's my point. There's an element of doubt to an awful lot of stuff. We have the same distinction with weight of evidence in criminal / civil cases here, less is required for Civil. You can't just decide not guilty as soon as there's an element of doubt?



From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On Behalf Of jpwhkj at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2009 12:02 AM
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion


Hi Brendan,

In the UK criminal charges have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt".  Civil cases rest on "the balance of probability".

So it sounds like (a) Steve did indeed do his job as a juror, and (b) the judge did explain it.

Jamie QC


-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:32
Subject: Re: [kj] MJ Conclusion


I'm not taking the piss, but is that HONESTLY what you believe your job as
a juror is? A good lawyer can create an element of doubt about practically
anything, it's about weighing the evidence and making a judgement based on
the weight of probability. As such even circumstantial evidence can result
in convictions, in criminal and civil cases, if it's strong enough etc.
You can't see a single crack in a case and instantly make up your mind
that there's doubt so can be no conviction? Didn't the judge explain your
role as a juror?


>

> personally i think the truth has not been revealed

>

> didn't someone on here say that the kid who accused him said that his dad

> made him do it for the money

>

> so in my opinion if there is an element of doubt

>

> when i did jury service i voted against as there was an element of doubt

> in the case

>

> l liked a few of his songs

>

> out of my life /dirty diana /beat it / earth song /black or white

>

> i suppose an elvis type conspiracy may rear it's head

>

>

>

> From: fluke1 at live.co.uk

> To: gathering at misera.net

> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:25:12 +0000

> Subject: [kj] MJ Conclusion

>

>

>

>

>   Do you feel that he was guilty of the charges

>  What is your favourite song of his

>  Is he really dead ?


 



Click here to get the very best of AOL, including news, sport, gossip, lifestyles updates and email. 
_________________________________________________________________
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090701/fc2257ab/attachment-0001.html>