[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[jpwhkj at aol.com]

Hey Brenda - I thought Darre was on your side?

Looks increasingly like a majority verdict of "guilty" to me.

Jami




-----Original Message-----
From: Darren A. Peace <dpeace at bigfoot.com>
To: 'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)' <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:12
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion




Sorry Brenda. Can’t let that one pass.

 

The absolute presumption, under English law, is that someone is innocent. The only obligation defence council has is to rebut the prosecution argument to the extent that reasonable doubt is introduced. So you don’t decide not to convict, you decide to convict. Until or unless your mind is swayed, not convicting is a given.

 

This is not always an ideal situation, but I can’t offhand think of a better.

 

Although jousting has its merits.

 

Darren

Hungerford, UK

 



From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On Behalf Of Brendan
Sent: 01 July 2009 4:56 PM
To: 'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)'
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion



 

His statement is unequivocal. There was an element of doubt. That's simply NOT the criteria. There is very often an element of doubt present. You only decide not to convict (against evidence strong enough to otherwise convict) is if there is enough evidence to the contrary. "An element of doubt" doesn't cut it for me, without qualification it never would, I don't buy the context argume
nt, that's being too generous in my opinion. Legal speak has to be as precise as possible, that's half the issue here. Stephen hasn't cleared it up and in the eyes of the law the longer that goes on, the more it creates a sense of implicit acceptance.

 



From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On Behalf Of jpwhkj at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 1:14 AM
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

Brendan,

He said - as you can read for yourself at the bottom of this thread - that 


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

>> in the case


He didn't say - as you allege below - that he "made up his mind as soon as there was an element of doubt".

If you did indeed read it like that, you need to slow down and read more carefully.

Wait - you're a hippy living in one of the most laid-back countries in the world.  Don't slow down, your pulse rate would disappear.

For the avoidance of doubt, the last two lines are intended lightheartedly <grin>

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: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:17
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion


I totally disagree, and I prefaced it by saing I wasn't taking the piss,

believe that or don't, up to you. Perhaps I was being argumentative...fair

enough. I bite just like anyone else.

 

I'm guilty of20taking things literally, and what I gathered was he made up

his mind as soon as there was an element of doubt. That's how it reads to

me.

 

I've been involved in one each of civil and criminal cases, you're right

in the distinction of course. NZ's legal system derives from the british.

I think we can still appeal to the highest court in the UK as well.

 

I was describing the conditions of a civil case (my most recent). I can't

remember if he mentioned which kind, but it's irrelevant to the point that

if you make up your mind as soon as there's an element of doubt (which is

exactly how he described it), you're not judging the evidence either based

on weight of probability or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's generally

going to be doubt on both sides, short of a clear cut case with

overwhelming evidence or an admission of guilt.

 

It's up to interpretation whether his comments would be worthy of being

struck as a juror, if I was a lawyer on the other side that's what I'd be

going for however.

 


> 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=2

0is 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 res

t 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 diana20/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 ?



> 



> 



> 



> 



> 



> 



> 



> ________________________________________________________________________



> AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the



> move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today.



> _______________________________________________



> Gathering mailing list



> Gathering at misera.net



> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering



> 


 

 

_______________________________________________

Gathering mailing list

Gathering at misera.net

http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering



 



Click here to get the very best of AOL, including news, sport, gossip, lifestyles updates and email. 





_______________________________________________
athering mailing list
athering at misera.net
ttp://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


________________________________________________________________________
AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090701/1aab4ace/attachment.html>