Re: Yet another ethnic plod with a chip on their shoulder
Von: JNugent (jn@noparticularplacetogo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 06.11.2009 00:47
Message-ID: <0qqdnVoDDrdh_m7XnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@pipex.net>
Newsgroup: uk.politics.misc uk.legal
Datum: 06.11.2009 00:47
Message-ID: <0qqdnVoDDrdh_m7XnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@pipex.net>
Newsgroup: uk.politics.misc uk.legal
Cynic wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:10 +0000, JNugent > <JN@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> "Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury think >> they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty). > > No, it really doesn't mean that at all. > > A jury may well believe that the defendent probably is guilty, yet > still deliver a verdict of "not guilty" because they are not *certain > beyond reasonable doubt* of his guilt. You are assuming that. You cannot know it. All you can know is that they don't think he did it (maybe by a majority).[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten
- !!!BAWK!!! (06.11.2009 01:03)
- AlanG (06.11.2009 12:00)
