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: "Keith Willshaw"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:54:13 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> :> "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> :> :news:email@example.com...
> :> :>
> :> :> But only with regard to CONVICTION. There is no effect on the
> :> :> of whether they actually committed the crime or not. It is this
> :> :> latter claim of yours that I find simply astounding.
> :> :
> :> :Without a trial you haven't even established a crime
> :> :was committed
> :> You may not have legally established it, but the facts don't change
> :> just because you hold the trial.
> :> It is this latter position with which I disagree. Facts are facts.
> :> The only place reality actually changes when you look at it is at the
> :> quantum level.
> :But an act only becomes a crime when a court confirms
> :its criminality
> Well, no. An act becomes a crime when it contravenes laws passed by a
> legislative body or ordinances passed by various other legally
> constituted bodies. What a court says has nothing to do with whether
> an act is ACTUALLY criminal.
No the court decides that the act committed is one that
contravenes the laws passed by the legislative body.
In the case of homicide in the UK the coroners court can
make a preliminary ruling that the cause of death was murder
by person or persons unknown. Until such a ruling is made
the police are careful to describe the death as suspicious
rather than as a murder
> :If someone is found dead in my house with a stab wound
> :all that is known as a fact.is that
> :a) The person is dead
> :b) He or she had been stabbed
> :The determination of the casue of death may be made
> :by a pathologist but only a court can decide if the
> :act was a crime
> :It could be accidental, suicide, a cold blooded act of murder or
> :self defense. Only the courts can decide this.
> No, a full knowledge of the facts determines if the act was a crime.
> If the court does not have full knowledge, it may make a mistaken
> interpretation. Or the court may cut a deal. Or the jury may just
> decide to ignore the law and refuse to convict anyway.
True but the court is the method that we as a society
make that determination.
> Consider the following situation. Suppose that I murder someone; just
> walk up to them, stick a pistol in their mouth, and pull the trigger.
> Suppose further that the police search my house and find the gun with
> matching ballistics and my fingerprints. Suppose further that,
> confronted with this evidence, I confess.
> Has a crime been committed? I would say yes, and it is obvious before
> any of the facts are known. You would apparently say that no, no
> crime has been committed yet.
Correct, the court may for example decide you were mentally
incompetent and that you were not in control at the time
of the incident. It may turn out that you have made a false
confession to shield someone else.
Only the courts may make such determinations. You
are in fact innocent until proven guilty.
> Now, suppose further that the evidence used by the police to obtain
> the search warrant was illegally obtained and that the court rules
> that the finding of the weapon and everything stemming from it,
> including my confession, are fruit of the poisoned tree and not
> admissable in court. There is no other concrete evidence and the
> court acquits.
> Have I committed a crime? My answer is yes, I have committed a crime
> (and have gotten away with it). Apparently, your answer is that I
> have committed no crime because the facts as the court allowed them to
> be known were insufficient to convict.
Correct, as uncommon as it is the police have planted
evidence before to obtain a conviction
> We are going to disagree on this, no matter what arguments you put
> forward. The ACTUAL facts and the ACTUAL law are the determiners, not
> what the court decides.
There is no such thing as an undisputed fact. The
mechanism for deciding what the facts are in criminal
matter is given exclusively to the courts.
Consider the following guidance to jurors given by the
State of Michigan (emphasis added)
"As a juror, YOU decide the facts of the case."
" Jurors are the SOLE judges of whether a witness is
telling the truth and is to be believed. "
As to the Law consider the following
"Toward the close of the trial, the judge will give you instructions. The
purpose of these instructions is to indicate to you the applicable rules of
law. That is, once the jury has determined which version of facts is to be
believed, it must then apply the rules of law given by the judge to reach
its verdicts. "
This clearly establishes that the decisions on both fact and law
are the perquisite of the courts.
A jury decides the facts of a case, the judge directs them as to the law.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of