Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L
Ok. now I understand your thinking.
so do you think Saville is guilty?
|
Based on what I've read over the past couple of days, I believe what's being said about him.
---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
The thing is, there is the concept of Guilty and the legally defined concept of Guilty. The legally defined concept of Guilty requires evidence. In life, people can be guilty without fulfilling the legal definition of being guilty.
Let me give an example of that. A few years ago, my mother served on a jury trying a local drug dealer. He was only a small time dealer, but the evidence presented was apparently convincing. The police had, however, handled some of the evidence incorrectly (I don't know the ins and outs of it), so that evidence was inadmissable.
The judge made a point (in his summing up) of telling the defendant that he believed the defendant was guilty but was unable to find him guilty because of the way the Police had mishandled the evidence, and chastised the Police.
|
Very true, but as I posted above, it pays to keep that distinction in mind when you are discussing someone's alleged guilt in a public space. There are only a very few public spaces where anybody has the right to allege someone's guilt without fear of recourse, and a judge speaking from the bench is one of them (also, a news reporter quoting him, with certain limitations).