[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[Karen Weil]

Brendan  -- are you an attorney? Or work in the legal system?
(if I may inquire.)

Cheers,

Karen W.
the States
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brendan" <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)" 
<gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:17 AM
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 <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 ?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ________________________________________________________________________

>> 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

>