Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:07:22 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Brian Sharrock wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
>> In message <email@example.com>, Brian
>> Sharrock writes
>>> "Keith Willshaw" wrote in
>>> message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
>>>> 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'.
That has been the WHOLE point of this thread. That there can be a crime
without a conviction. Most states allow for a Coroners Inquest, which can
make a ruling on the manner of death, i.e. accidental or murder. That is in
fact a determination that a crime has occurred. No one has to have been
arrested or charged or convicted.