This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
witch hunts
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 13 Sep 15 3.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.30pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 11 Sep 2015 10.27am
My guilt-o-meter says 'she is a very fortunate lady' Your guilt-o-meter! Word of one person against another. On the one hand a teacher of many years with an unblemished record, on the other, a heroin addict who went off with 'travelers' when he was 15. You unerringly plump for the wrong'un - typical lefty. Damn that statistical data that shows a positive correlation between abuse in childhood and addiction, as well as behaviours such as running away. I mean what's the world coming to when the facts support an scenario. So you convict someone of sexual abuse based on the 'victim' being a heroin addict - indeed, what's the world coming to. Is that what I said? No, I said that assuming someone is lying about being abused because they are now a heroin addict is unfounded. You seem to be the one happy to clear someone if 'they're from a better employment background' and have an 'unblemished record'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Sep 15 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Sep 15 4.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Sep 15 4.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.30pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 11 Sep 2015 10.27am
My guilt-o-meter says 'she is a very fortunate lady' Your guilt-o-meter! Word of one person against another. On the one hand a teacher of many years with an unblemished record, on the other, a heroin addict who went off with 'travelers' when he was 15. You unerringly plump for the wrong'un - typical lefty. Damn that statistical data that shows a positive correlation between abuse in childhood and addiction, as well as behaviours such as running away. I mean what's the world coming to when the facts support an scenario. So you convict someone of sexual abuse based on the 'victim' being a heroin addict - indeed, what's the world coming to. Is that what I said? No, I said that assuming someone is lying about being abused because they are now a heroin addict is unfounded. You seem to be the one happy to clear someone if 'they're from a better employment background' and have an 'unblemished record'. It is what you imply, the usual weasel words. I clear someone because a jury has cleared them, you still think she is guilty because she is from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 oldcodger 13 Sep 15 4.39pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Sep 15 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 13 Sep 2015 4.39pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty?
What does the bit I've highlighted mean then?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 13 Sep 15 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 13 Sep 2015 4.39pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty?
What does the bit I've highlighted mean then? 'possibly as many as' he's talking about what a non majority ruling means.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 13 Sep 15 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.30pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 11 Sep 2015 10.27am
My guilt-o-meter says 'she is a very fortunate lady' Your guilt-o-meter! Word of one person against another. On the one hand a teacher of many years with an unblemished record, on the other, a heroin addict who went off with 'travelers' when he was 15. You unerringly plump for the wrong'un - typical lefty. Damn that statistical data that shows a positive correlation between abuse in childhood and addiction, as well as behaviours such as running away. I mean what's the world coming to when the facts support an scenario. So you convict someone of sexual abuse based on the 'victim' being a heroin addict - indeed, what's the world coming to. Is that what I said? No, I said that assuming someone is lying about being abused because they are now a heroin addict is unfounded. You seem to be the one happy to clear someone if 'they're from a better employment background' and have an 'unblemished record'. It is what you imply, the usual weasel words. I clear someone because a jury has cleared them, you still think she is guilty because she is from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. Again, nowhere did he say that she's guilty because she's from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. This is simply something that hasn't occurred.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Sep 15 4.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 13 Sep 2015 4.45pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.30pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 11 Sep 2015 10.27am
My guilt-o-meter says 'she is a very fortunate lady' Your guilt-o-meter! Word of one person against another. On the one hand a teacher of many years with an unblemished record, on the other, a heroin addict who went off with 'travelers' when he was 15. You unerringly plump for the wrong'un - typical lefty. Damn that statistical data that shows a positive correlation between abuse in childhood and addiction, as well as behaviours such as running away. I mean what's the world coming to when the facts support an scenario. So you convict someone of sexual abuse based on the 'victim' being a heroin addict - indeed, what's the world coming to. Is that what I said? No, I said that assuming someone is lying about being abused because they are now a heroin addict is unfounded. You seem to be the one happy to clear someone if 'they're from a better employment background' and have an 'unblemished record'. It is what you imply, the usual weasel words. I clear someone because a jury has cleared them, you still think she is guilty because she is from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. Again, nowhere did he say that she's guilty because she's from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. This is simply something that hasn't occurred. Obviously I was merely parodying his statement that I considered her innocent because she was "from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'" (his words not mine). As for the majority verdict issue. She was found not guilty by a majority verdict, how can that possibly mean that up to 9 jury members found her guilty?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 13 Sep 15 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.50pm
Quote oldcodger at 13 Sep 2015 4.45pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.30pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 11 Sep 2015 10.27am
My guilt-o-meter says 'she is a very fortunate lady' Your guilt-o-meter! Word of one person against another. On the one hand a teacher of many years with an unblemished record, on the other, a heroin addict who went off with 'travelers' when he was 15. You unerringly plump for the wrong'un - typical lefty. Damn that statistical data that shows a positive correlation between abuse in childhood and addiction, as well as behaviours such as running away. I mean what's the world coming to when the facts support an scenario. So you convict someone of sexual abuse based on the 'victim' being a heroin addict - indeed, what's the world coming to. Is that what I said? No, I said that assuming someone is lying about being abused because they are now a heroin addict is unfounded. You seem to be the one happy to clear someone if 'they're from a better employment background' and have an 'unblemished record'. It is what you imply, the usual weasel words. I clear someone because a jury has cleared them, you still think she is guilty because she is from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. Again, nowhere did he say that she's guilty because she's from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'. This is simply something that hasn't occurred. Obviously I was merely parodying his statement that I considered her innocent because she was "from a better employment background and has an 'unblemished record'" (his words not mine). As for the majority verdict issue. She was found not guilty by a majority verdict, how can that possibly mean that up to 9 jury members found her guilty? What I am trying to say and probably not going a good job of it, is that if or where a non majority verdict can't be reached this would mean that up to 9 members of the jury thought she was guilty.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Sep 15 9.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.