The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Brian Sharrock"
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:36:26 +0100
Organization: [posted via Easynet UK]
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
> "Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
> > >
> All I'm pointing out is that a Coroners Court, in
> > England and Wales, can deliver a verdict of 'unlawful
> > killing'. ...
> > ... can deliver a verdict that a crime has
> > taken place.
> I agree with Vince in so far as it takes a court judgement
> to decide a crime has been committed but disagree if he
> insists that only a trial in a criminal court can decide that.
> However its clear that a criminal court has the final
> word. Say for example that the coroners court declares
> a averdict of unlawful killing, a defendant is arrested and put
> on trial and is acquitted on the grounds of self defense.
> In that case no crime was committed despite the
> finding of the coroners court.
The thread is becoming ridiculous; however, rising to
the bait ...
I cannot follow your logic. The Coroners court declares that a crime
has occurred. That is a fact in law.
You wrote 'a defendant is arrested ', actually all the
'cop shows' seem to use phrases such as "I'm arresting you on
suspicion of murder' never 'I'm arresting you so you
can defend yourself against a charge of murder ..."
The police will have investigated the unlawful killing,
obtained evidence and drawn a conclusion about who committed
the crime. Following a Police Arrest, which may be followed
by a release, if a Arresting Officer can make a case that
satisfies a Custody Office then the _suspect_ will be charged,
by the Police, for arraignment at a court of first instance.
The court of first instance may dismiss the charge or remand
The prosecution in your fr'instance have determined that the unlawful
killing justifies an indictment of a _suspect_ on a count of murder.
[There is an important GO/NO_GO (prosecute/dismiss) step
whereby the prosecutors consider the Police file and
determine whether, in their minds, a case can be made and/or
that it is in the 'public interest' to prosecute a suspect
for the _unlawful killing_.]
The _accused_, arraigned before a criminal court morphed into
_a defendant_ uses his mothpiece to obfuscate the jurors' minds
into entertaining a smidgeon of reasonable doubt.
The prosecution may not be able to establish that a named individual
committed the indicted crime ... but does not negate the finding of the
On a slight change of tack, ...
Applying your logic, is it your assertion that in the
well-known 'OJ trial': because the suspect>accused>defendant
was determined to be 'Not Guilty' by twelve of California's
finest 'no crime was committed '?
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of