Gaming4 mins ago
Oh No Here We Go Again.
82 Answers
http://
I wonder how long it will be before Coronation Street is taken from our screens, due to the lack of actors?
I wonder how long it will be before Coronation Street is taken from our screens, due to the lack of actors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/But still wrong, else the verdict would have been, "cleared of all charges due to lack of evidence". /
Don't worry Pixie it's only aog being 'comprehension challenged' again.
Of course there was evidence
- in the form of testimony from the defendant and the alleged victim.
the jury found that the alleged victim's evidence did not persuade them beyond reasonable doubt of leVell's guilt.
Hence 'Not Guilty'
But the Jury weren't asked to decide if he was 'innocent' - and they may well have been unable to for similar reasons.
As in any such case, we will never know and it is irrelevant anyway
Don't worry Pixie it's only aog being 'comprehension challenged' again.
Of course there was evidence
- in the form of testimony from the defendant and the alleged victim.
the jury found that the alleged victim's evidence did not persuade them beyond reasonable doubt of leVell's guilt.
Hence 'Not Guilty'
But the Jury weren't asked to decide if he was 'innocent' - and they may well have been unable to for similar reasons.
As in any such case, we will never know and it is irrelevant anyway
sir.p
I think you are confusing the 'facts' of something known by somebody; with what a Court can judge to have happened based on various pieces of evidence
If I did break into a shop last night - then 'I did'
But if a Court can't present sufficient evidence I will be 'Not Guilty' of doing it
And 'presumed' innocent
(definition - presumed: to think that something is true without knowing that it is true
I think you are confusing the 'facts' of something known by somebody; with what a Court can judge to have happened based on various pieces of evidence
If I did break into a shop last night - then 'I did'
But if a Court can't present sufficient evidence I will be 'Not Guilty' of doing it
And 'presumed' innocent
(definition - presumed: to think that something is true without knowing that it is true
Zeul - in that case Jim Davidson, Michael Le Vell, Mike Osman and another couple of non celebrities have been accused and repeatedly bailed but can never ever prove their 100% innocence. Humbug.
It will be interesting when MC takes on the CPS in the new year. He will come well armed and they better have some good evidence. Should be interesting!
It will be interesting when MC takes on the CPS in the new year. He will come well armed and they better have some good evidence. Should be interesting!
In cases like this, how can anyone "prove" their innocence? Or guilt, come to that, in the absence of forensic or other corroborating evidence?
All any jury can do is make a presumption of either innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence, assumptions of character and which is the more compelling and plausible narrative put before them by prosecuting and defence teams.
All any jury can do is make a presumption of either innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence, assumptions of character and which is the more compelling and plausible narrative put before them by prosecuting and defence teams.
I agree sir.p
It is far from satisfactory but it has always been that way
The serious issues aren't helped by confusing what the judgements mean with what we might like to think they mean
Personally, I'm still not certain what Mr LeVell did or didn't do, but the legal process has done it's work and he should be allowed to get on with his life 'presumed innocent'
It is far from satisfactory but it has always been that way
The serious issues aren't helped by confusing what the judgements mean with what we might like to think they mean
Personally, I'm still not certain what Mr LeVell did or didn't do, but the legal process has done it's work and he should be allowed to get on with his life 'presumed innocent'
Zeul - so relating to your thinking, no one can ever prove they are totally innocent of an accusation. One can merely be 'presumed' to be innocent.
Zeul - (definition - presumed: to think that something is true without knowing that it is true
You must be using a different dictionary to me.
presumed v.tr.
To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Zeul - (definition - presumed: to think that something is true without knowing that it is true
You must be using a different dictionary to me.
presumed v.tr.
To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
aog
/can't provide sufficient evidence/
= the Jury were not convinced
/insufficient evidence/ n.
a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
/can't provide sufficient evidence/
= the Jury were not convinced
/insufficient evidence/ n.
a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
sir.p
/You must be using a different dictionary to me./
I suppose so LOL
but your version is fine too
/so relating to your thinking, no one can ever prove they are totally innocent of an accusation. One can merely be 'presumed' to be innocent./
In criminal courts yes - unless as stated earlier, a case is thrown out due, for example, to incontravertible evidence e.g. forensics that the accused couldn't possibly have done it.
I suppose someone in LeVell's case could bring a private prosecution against his accuser seeking exoneration but I suspect the evidential problems will dissuade him whatever the 'truth' of the matter is
/You must be using a different dictionary to me./
I suppose so LOL
but your version is fine too
/so relating to your thinking, no one can ever prove they are totally innocent of an accusation. One can merely be 'presumed' to be innocent./
In criminal courts yes - unless as stated earlier, a case is thrown out due, for example, to incontravertible evidence e.g. forensics that the accused couldn't possibly have done it.
I suppose someone in LeVell's case could bring a private prosecution against his accuser seeking exoneration but I suspect the evidential problems will dissuade him whatever the 'truth' of the matter is
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul23 mins ago
