[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[Darren A. Peace]

No, the fault in understanding was mine, rather than ambiguity on your  
part.

Personally, I think you're both being truculent now, but I often  
wonder what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable  
object.

The tribal Lord Of The Flies thing going on is a little distasteful,  
though.

Darren
Hungerford, UK

On 2 Jul 2009, at 05:39, "Brendan" <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:


> 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 convic 

> t. 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: 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: 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

> 0ATo: 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 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 thin

> gs 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".

> >&

> 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 <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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Click here to get the very best of AOL, including news, sport,  

> gossip, lifestyles updates and email.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090702/c063d314/attachment.html>