From: "Paul J. Adam"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:51:54 +0100
Organization: Wholesale Lunacy
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:53:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S ()
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Brian Sharrock
>"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
>> I posted the same thing several days ago BUT it
>> scarcely disproves the point that a court is the
>> instrument for declaring that a criminal act occurred.
>Let's rephrase what Vince said
>"No Conviction by a criminal court means no crime occurred".
>or "only a conviction in a criminal court determine,
>legally, that a crime has been committed".
>Vince states that only a conviction in a criminal
>court can declare that a criminal act occurred.
If I publicly accuse you of being a criminal, then either I need to be
able to point to a conviction or I have to hope you don't choose to
pursue an action for defamation.
>All I'm pointing out is that a Coroners Court, in
>England and Wales, can deliver a verdict of 'unlawful
>killing'. _Without_ , not even citing suspects, let
>alone making a conviction. Thus, in England & Wales,
>a court - part of the legal albeit not criminal, nor
>ecclestiacal, nor chancery, nor Admiralty, nor family-
>but still a court can deliver a verdict that a crime has
True enough - but that finding isn't enough to allow you point at one
person and say "That's the killer!"
Paul J. Adam