craig 5,199 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 You only need to convince a jury. And that burden of proof is on the prosecution. Good luck convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Thus prove it if the jury does it's job. You are playing with words to suite your case. I disagree. I'm convinced there's no sentient life on Mars but I've never seen a shred of conclusive proof of that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I disagree. I'm convinced there's no sentient life on Mars but I've never seen a shred of conclusive proof of that. The last thing a judge says to the jury is it must be proven without any reasonable doubt. I have no idea what your last post means but again it sounds like nonsense to convince yourself in a lost case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 In any case it's not a sash it's a collarette. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The last thing a judge says to the jury is it must be proven without any reasonable doubt. I have no idea what your last post means but again it sounds like nonsense to convince yourself in a lost case. As I say you can talk about proof all you like but you only need to convince them. You can prove all sorts of things. Like it was Orange and a sash. Like you can prove a persons dna was on a body. You use those proofs to convince them. If your looking for absolute proofs you won't win many cases. It's not that long ago that people in Scotland were convicted of murder when no body could be produced. They couldn't even prove a murder had happened. You only need to convince a jury. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 As I say you can talk about proof all you like but you only need to convince them. You can prove all sorts of things. Like it was Orange and a sash. Like you can prove a persons dna was on a body. You use those proofs to convince them. If your looking for absolute proofs you won't win many cases. It's not that long ago that people in Scotland were convicted of murder when no body could be produced. They couldn't even prove a murder had happened. You only need to convince a jury. Yes The sky is green. Lets put it to a jury and prove otherwise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Yes The sky is green. Lets put it to a jury and prove otherwise. Your mistaking evidencing and proving and now your being flippant as you know your wrong. Like I say 2 convictions in Scotland recently for murder where they couldn't even prove one had happened. But they could evidence all sort of things. Right down to damage to car shock absorbers. And biggest thing of all they convinced a jury a murder took place. Edited October 2, 2016 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Your mistaking evidencing and proving and now your being flippant as you know your wrong. Like I say 2 convictions in Scotland recently for murder where they couldn't even prove one had happened. But they could evidence all sort of things. Right down to damage to car shock absorbers. And biggest thing of all they convinced a jury a murder took place. There is no point in arguing with you anymore. I can only say that I as a Rangers supporting Jury member would not vote for a guilty verdict as I think it was a stupid thought out way to annoy Rangers supporters. I do not believe for a second that there was real religious hate involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 There is no point in arguing with you anymore. I can only say that I as a Rangers supporting Jury member would not vote for a guilty verdict as I think it was a stupid thought out way to annoy Rangers supporters. I do not believe for a second that there was real religious hate involved. That's OK you only need to convince 8 out of 15. Plus this wouldn't see a jury just a sheriff. As I say if you can get a murder conviction with no body the absolute proof is clearly not required for a conviction. You just need enough evidence to convince. If you have a proper answer to that point let's have it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 There is no point in arguing with you anymore. I can only say that I as a Rangers supporting Jury member would not vote for a guilty verdict as I think it was a stupid thought out way to annoy Rangers supporters. I do not believe for a second that there was real religious hate involved. Even if say the prosecution could provide evidence of religious hatred perhaps from social media. You wouldn't make much of a juror. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.