From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: In article ,
> keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk says...
> > Without a trial you haven't even established a crime
> > was committed
> > Keith
> Are you sure about that? I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem right.
> Back to OJSimpson, as an example: Since there was no conviction, does
> that mean that there was no crime?
No because you could go back and convict someone else.
> Seems to me like there are still 2
> dead people, made so illegally. Isn't that a crime, even though no
> perpetrator has been convicted?
it is a difficult concept to grasp , but no, crimes in the legal sense do
not exist until someone is convicted. for example
"After the presentation of evidence, the Grand Jury deliberates in
secret. A minimum of nine members must agree that probable cause exists to
believe a crime has been committed and the defendant committed it. If the
Jury finds probable cause exists, it instructs the prosecutor to prepare
an indictment listing the charges the Grand Jury feels are appropriate.
The grand jury does nto find that a crime ahs been committed but that
Cause exists to believe that one has been committed. the Trial jury makes
the decision in the context of a given defendant. but until someone is
convicted in the criminal law it has not yet been proven that a crime ahs