From: "Brian Sharrock"
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 07:56:35 +0100
Organization: [posted via Easynet UK]
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
> "Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
> > "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> > news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > snip
> > >
> > > In other words, Vince, the difference between your position and mine
> > > is this. By my lights, breaking the law constitutes a crime, whether
> > > you get caught and convicted or not. By your lights, the only crime
> > > is getting caught and convicted for something.
> > >
> > Vince obviously missed my several posts where I stated;-
> > Within the juristiction of England and Wales a Coroners
> > Court/Jury may render a verdict of 'Unlawful Killing'.
> > That is a legal finding that a crime had been committed.
> > Such courts are not permitted to cite suspect(s).
> > So within England & Wales, a crime is declared without
> > any finding of guilt.
> Quite so
> 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.
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