OT: What would you do?

"Greegor" Nobody

How would you explain him turning it in to Police?

** Some fanciful theory explaining *any damn thing you like* can be invented by anyone who cares to use their imagination and will appear to fit with the known circumstances to the uninformed.

It is impossible to prove such theories wrong - cos absolutely nothing proves them right.

The " presumption of innocence" is derived from this blindingly obvious fact.

..... Phil

"Greegor"

Judges and prosecutors HATE Jury Nullification or Fully Informed Jury Association!

At Voi Dir they screen out anybody who has ever known of a corrupt cop, court or government.

Anybody who was ever charged with anything, whether found guilty or innocent, is excused.

** Is that automatic or do they have to ask for such excuse in the US ??

Anybody who ever HEARD of FIJA is screened out. FIJA was handing out pamphlets outside of court house. Anybody who got one to read while waiting, screened out.

** Must be a US thing where defence attorneys and prosecutors get to question prospective jurors.

In Australia and the UK no questions are allowed, the very limited number of objections are based solely on a jurors appearance.

Juries are given a thick stack of Jury Instructions.

** No so in Australia or the UK - AFAIK.

In a case with mandates like the Brit one above, they would be instructed NOT to consider intent.

** But never told that crimes cannot ever be committed by accident.

Judges at all levels tend to be attorneys and are well aware of confirmation bias and "risky shift".

** Jargon for ????

Juries have to waste so much time waiting that they are angry and basically just want to convict the accused bastard and go eat lunch.

** The main problem is that nearly all jurors see themselves as part of the legal system, brought in to " help out " with getting cases through the courts. And, being the nice, respectable folk they falsely imagine themselves to be - they are only too happy to oblige.

Prosecutors then brag about their ""success"" rate.

** As did government paid henchmen in the good old days.

If you've got a "public pretender" you are screwed.

** Never met one of them that did not recommend entering a plea of guilty.

And also refuse all help otherwise.

** Been there too - but luckily for me a smart magistrate saw right through a police case based on witness collusion & perjury.

In his summing up, he gave the smug, slimy looking police persecutor a right bollocking for bringing an obviously innocent person before his court.

Still cost me a bunch of money & 18 months of worry.

The chance of anybody on the jury objecting to the jury instructions that are like horse blinders or cattle stanchions or giving a rats ass? They just want lunch.

** Ever see a 1957 movie called "12 Angry Men" ??

Should be compulsory viewing for all prospective jurors.

Then they must pass a test on what it is all about.

Only dreaming, I know.

..... Phil

A desire to get rid of it?

If his fingerprints and/or DNA were all over it, or someone saw him handling it (e.g. while trying to dispose of it), turning it in and claiming to have found it might seem less of a risk than disposing of it and hoping it's never found.

Because people like you and I would never run for political office?

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Well, maybe it's only dreaming, but it's a damn good idea.

Ed

>

Yes, and rather than take action to fix it, he immediately made the bag bigger and smellier.

Thanks, Rich

Tripling? Nope, that's just the promotional literature.

You can't tell what the real deficit is because "the most transparent administration ever" led by "the most honest Treasury Secretary ever" Tim Geithner is, basically, lying about it.

For one thing, the Treasury's amassing (bad) mortgages. Direct bank bailouts quietly continue, on a huge scale. And there's the FHA, poised to collapse. All secured by the full faith and credit. This is big stuff.

No, we can't tell what the deficit really is right now. But it's waayyy bigger than $1.4T, guaranteed. Not less than ~$2T, AFAICT. And you can take that to your local (government-owned) bank.

-- James Arthur

At least it looks like Blair won't be eu president now. What with his conversion to catholicism after leaving no 10, one could be excused for thinking that as president of the eu, he would be directed from behind, as it were, from the Vatican.

Not that i have any problem with religion taking care of the spiritual needs of man, but definately not involved in management of the eu, even by proxy :-)...

Regards,

Chris

With laws and courts like that, the UK still wonders why they are the butt of "delusions of empire still intact" jokes.

Last i heard of guns were made of strong steel, though often with wood or plastic components (rifles stocks, handgrip parts, and similar). Perhaps you were thinking of ammunition?

a

the

Crikey John, you just pegged my knucklehead meter again. You seem to be doing a lot of that lately. Have you heard the Demoncrats or the Repugnicans in unguarded speech recently?

=20

they'd=20

law.

U.S.=20

I think unpredictable idiot sums it up the best. =20

Here in the US if i were the desk Sergeant and some unpredictable idiot pulled a large gun out of a bag in front of me, that SOB would get arrested, thrown in a holding cell, and a thorough search of their residence, inside and out, conducted on a firearms warrant. The idiot would stay in the holding cell as long at it took to try to verify the story. Beyond that i likely would let the fool go if there were no priors and no related evidence turned up in the warranted search.

Unfortunately, since the 1970s public schools have been programmed to produce unpredictable idiots.

If you thought Bush the lesser was bad have a look at the Imperial Grand Vizier Pelosi.

:->

give=20

Correct me if you know different, but AIUI, the Brits (Poms?) got rid of double jeopardy a while back, shortly after they effectively got rid of the right to silence.

They've never had the right not to self-incriminate, either.

"Cradle of democracy"? I think not.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
                                             (Stephen Leacock)

..

She hasn't started any pointless wars recently. Dubbya still has loads more badness points.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The court of appeal can quash an acquital for certain offences[1] if new evidence comes to light.

[1] Specifically, for offences in Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

[The offence in question, i.e. unlicensed possession of a firearm, isn't in Schedule 5.]

The right to silence remains; the only change is that the court is allowed to take account of whether a defence offered in court was mentioned in interview. Failing to answer questions in an interview isn't evidence of guilt, but it may weaken a defence should you choose to offer one.

I thought that was supposed to have been Greece?

** The principle still applies and would apply in the case in question absolutely.

Some jurisdictions allow a new prosecution in certain types of cases if compelling new evidence comes to light.

** Nonsense.

... Phil

"Nobody"

** The thing about folk who are innocent of a crime is that they generally have no bloody idea what the hell really happened or is supposed to have happened at the time the police decide to interview them - ostensibly to tell "their side of the story".

The fact the police are not obliged to show them any evidence from other people means an innocent person would have to have a miraculous sixth sense to come up with any kind of a defence a that time. Then they are penalised for coming up with one in court !!!!

If the police proceed to laying charges, which is very likely when no defence is forthcoming, then the accused but innocent person is legally entitled to see all police evidence that is to be used against them. But actually getting hold of that evidence may take months or years and involve getting an order from the court.

Meantime, the police will have deleted any evidence that would help the innocent but accused person, carefully reworded statements from witnesses, removing any glaring inconsistencies to make them look far more credible than when originally given. Any witness that comes forward at this stage with evidence that would immediately acquit the accused is ignored and told to go away.

Another nice touch is that the identities of witnesses is suppressed from the accused as well, names are given but contact details are not. So the accused may well have no clue who these witnesses against them are nor any way of finding out anything about them - like their motives for lying.

Also, neither the accused nor their lawyers are allowed to approach police witnesses - or do so only at great risk of being accused of the crime of tampering.

Finally, any witness who has signed a perjured statement is told ( afterwards, by the police ) that if they try to withdraw the statement before the case comes to court or fail to stick to their claims in court they will be very likely charged with perjury themselves. Normally, words to this effect appear in tiny print on witness statement forms.

.... Phil

technically,=20

=20

get=20

I think you raise an interesting idea. In what little i have studied historic English law (from which the US system is an adaptation), the jury does have the power to disregard a clearly inappropriate application of the law. Then again this may have disappeared (recently) at the suasion of the Barristers lobby.