[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[Brendan]

Comes down to this. "An element of doubt" does not equal "beyond reasonable
doubt"...that's my point. Happy to admit I'm wrong if I actually am (gasp),
but I don't see it that way. 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of Darren A. Peace
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 11:38 AM
To: 'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)'
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion



Heh!

 

Haven't kept up enough to take sides, and that's not really my style anyway.
I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of one thing Brenda said.
Not tremendously effectively, as it turns out.

 

Darre

Hungerford, UK

 

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of jpwhkj at aol.com
Sent: 01 July 2009 10:44 PM
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

 

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.

& nbsp;

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:  <mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net> gathering-bounces at misera.net [
<mailto: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 a bout 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 argument, 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:  <mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net> gathering-bounces at misera.net [
<mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net?> mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]
On Behalf Of  <mailto:jpwhkj at aol.com> jpwhkj at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 1:14 AM
0ATo:  <mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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 < <mailto:bq at soundgardener.co.nz> bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <
<mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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 of taking 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 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 < <mailto:bq at soundgardener.co.nz> bq at soundgardener.co.nz>

> To: 'A list about all thin

gs Killing Joke (the band!)'

> < <mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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:  <mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net> gathering-bounces at misera.net

[ <mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net?>
mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]

> On Behalf Of  <mailto:jpwhkj at aol.com> jpwhkj at aol.com

> Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2009 12:02 AM

> To:  <mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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".

>&

nbsp;

> 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 < <mailto:bq at soundgardener.co.nz> bq at soundgardener.co.nz>

> To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)

> < <mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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:  <mailto:fluke1 at live.co.uk> fluke1 at live.co.uk

>> To:  <mailto:gathering at misera.net> 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

>  <mailto:Gathering at misera.net> Gathering at misera.net

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

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

> 

 
 
_______________________________________________
 
Gathering mailing list
 <mailto:Gathering at misera.net> Gathering at misera.net
 <http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering>
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





  _____  



 
 
 
 
 <http://www.aol.co.uk/?ncid=acquktaglinehp01> Click here to get the very
best of AOL, including news, sport, gossip, lifestyles updates and email. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
 <mailto:Gathering at misera.net> Gathering at misera.net
 <http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering>
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
 



 





  _____  



 <http://www.aol.co.uk/?ncid=acquktaglinehp01> Click here to get the very
best of AOL, including news, sport, gossip, lifestyles updates and email. 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090702/6101790e/attachment.htm>