From: "Brian Sharrock"
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:16:32 +0100
Organization: [posted via Easynet UK]
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
> 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.
The point you are making is a non-sequitor to the original point.
Vince stated, No conviction - no crime. I state Coroners
Court verdict, crime - no conviction. Respondents agree that
statement is correct. Read, understand, move on.
> >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
> >taken place.
> True enough - but that finding isn't enough to allow you point at one
> person and say "That's the killer!"
For God's sake, read what I wrote ... "_Without_ , not even citing
suspects, let alone making a conviction". Why? Oh, why, do you feel
it was necessary to add your little bit? Has it moved the conversation
on? Have you words; "(not) ... allow you point at one person and say
"That's the killer!"" contradicted mine? BTW; _I_ never intended to
point (to) (any) 'one person', why did you use the second person
pronoun to infer that _I_ did?
I reiterate the _single_ (that means one) point. Within the
jurisdiction of England and Wales a Coroners Court can deliver a
verdict of unlawful killing without citing a suspect.
By any reasonable interpretation that means a court (in
proscribed circumstances) can say 'Here is a CRIME without
a CONVICTION', contrary to the view expressed by 'other'.