egafd.com

Isn't it about time that a verdict of Not Proven is introduced in England?

This ISN'T a comment about Mr jenkins finally being aquitted of a crime he surely didn't commit, and absolutley NO reference is intended to a group of footballers who DIDN'T cause affray and assault in Leeds a year or so ago, neither will I dwell upon the case of an American footballer who DIDN'T commit murder, and certainly the famous 1, 2, 3, 4 5,6 or even 7 from whichever location who DIDN'T plant any bombs whatsoever....

BUT: there must be a good argument for a jury to be able to return a verdict, if appropriate, suggesting that there isn't enough evidence for a case to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather than let the accused go free an' innocent' man/woman.

Yours as ever!

Sid

SID THE CYNIC wrote:


> BUT: there must be a good argument for a jury to be able to
> return a verdict, if appropriate, suggesting that there isn't
> enough evidence for a case to be proven beyond reasonable
> doubt, rather than let the accused go free an' innocent'
> man/woman.
>
> Yours as ever!
>
> Sid

Thats what "not guilty' is under the current set-up.

'Not Proven' means 'you did it, but we can't prove you did it' which, to me, give too easy an option for people to be lax with collecting and examining evidence.

Not Guilty does not mean not guilty!!

In law Not Guilty does mean didn't do it. However in the real world it is sometimes obvious to ordinary people that in all probability the accused did do it. Indeed one rather suspects that many of the cases Sid is probably thinking of, the accused would have been found guilty if the standard of proof had been the civil court one of 'on the balance of probabilties'.

If the american footballer that Sid is talking about is Ray Lewis then I followed that case and I thought it was made clear that he didn't murder anybody.

He may well have seen and known who did as he sped off in his limo but I was of the impression that he was not directly involved in it.

One thinks he may have been talking about OJ, as for the present case, difficult to make an opinion unless you sat through the trial and heard all the evidence, the jury in both trials did and could not agree.

Always thought the evidence that was printed and came out on tv in the Jill Dando case provided no evidence that the accused actually had anything to do with it and was amazed when he was convicted. Interesting to see how long it will be before he gets a decent Lawyer and gets the verdict overturned.

"Plate sin with gold and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks"
Shakespeare
Mike Freeman.

That conviction surprised me too.