[kj] OT - MJ Conclusion

[Brendan]

I've never been called truculent before *beams*

Thank you Dazza. (I'm officially Brendo in Aussie it seems...beats Brenda
tho)


> 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

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

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

>