0
   

94% OF YOU BELIEVE DIANA WAS MURDERED

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 04:09 pm
Quote:
Scott Baker set out the possible verdicts the jury could reach, but stressed: "It is not open to you to find that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed in a staged accident."
Why? Its for the jury, having heard all the evidence to settle on a verdict. Its not for the coroner to rule out this or that. I sincerely hope the jury do find for unlawful killing in a staged accident, just to teach the coroner a lesson. And nobody has explained the carbon monoxide level in Henri Paul's blood, which would have rendered him unconscious. However I'll accept the jury's verdict whatever it may be because there will be no end to this.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 04:12 pm
all that needed was a drum roll
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 04:26 pm
Steve: Did you read dlowan's post on the previous page?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 04:48 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Steve: Did you read dlowan's post on the previous page?
yes.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 05:36 pm
the coroner scott-baker said (to the jury)

Quote:
"You have heard the evidence and it is your decision that matters and not anyone else's"


however, just to make sure the jury doesn't come to the wrong decision scott-baker said (to the jury)

Quote:
"I have determined that it is not open to you to find that this was unlawful killing...in a staged accident"


Laughing Laughing

Why? If unlawful killing in a staged accident is such a ludicrous and remote possibility, why not leave it as an option? What are they afraid of? The jury have heard all the evidence, why not just leave it to them to decide? If the Establishment had any balls they would do that, but they daren't risk it. Why? Lets face it if this was the straight-forward accident it appeared to be in August 1997, there would have been a meticulous investigation, an inquest, and a verdict of "accident" a decade ago.

But I don't care any more, I'll go along with whatever verdict the jury is asked to return.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 05:47 pm
What is the percentage of those who--like me--don't give a rat's ass, and don't consider it important? If you'd ditch those self-styled "royal" freeloaders, you'd not have this nonsense to plague you.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 05:55 pm
dunno

I only became interested in Diana the day she died.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 06:08 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
I only became interested in Diana the day she died.


Shocked












Oh. Wait.

"International News", not "Relationships & Marriage"....
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 06:40 am
I'm with Dlowan here.

This archtype has teeth.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2008 04:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
What is the percentage of those who--like me--don't give a rat's ass, and don't consider it important? If you'd ditch those self-styled "royal" freeloaders, you'd not have this nonsense to plague you.


Me.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2008 07:34 pm
Quote:
Jury says driver, paparazzi killed Diana
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 12:52 pm
So as I said, I'll accept the verdict.

Which was UNLAWFUL KILLING

Lets just spell this out a little more. Princess Diana, the most famous woman on the planet, was unlawfully killed. She did not die in a tragic accident. The verdict was that she was unlawfully (that means someone did it) killed. It was no accident. Have you all got that? Smile
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 01:19 pm
Steve, it is still an accident and of course, a tragic one. "Negligent Homicide" is the term in U.S. law.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 01:52 pm
how can it be an accident if the verdict of accident was rejected in favour of unlawful killing?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 01:57 pm
Quote:
The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure should be considered on the balance of probabilities.
Source: wikipedia
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 02:38 pm
from Walter's link

Quote:
In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales. The verdict means that a death was caused by another person, without lawful excuse and in breach of the criminal law, in other words homicide.


doesn't seem to indicate intent
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 04:44 am
ehBeth wrote:
from Walter's link

Quote:
In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales. The verdict means that a death was caused by another person, without lawful excuse and in breach of the criminal law, in other words homicide.


doesn't seem to indicate intent
its for the criminal court to decide if there was intent.

Again, to all the folk who selected accident on the poll for this thread, I say you were wrong.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 05:09 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Again, to all the folk who selected accident on the poll for this thread, I say you were wrong.


I don't know about the English law, but in other laws only after an accident the courts can rule that there's been an unlawful killing (additionally there are some reasons as as well).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 05:35 am
I think there is a subtle difference in the meaning of the word accident. There was an event that led to someone's death. Commonly that event is described as an "accident". But its not truly an accident until the coroners court has ruled it as such. In the case of Diana the court found that the event that led to her death was not accidental, but as a result of actions by others who caused her death. So quite literally the "accident" was not an accident! It would not have happened if other people had not done what they did.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 06:13 am
As I told you, such is seen (and handled) differently in other law systems.
And as said, I don't know that much about the English/British system.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The "naked revolution" at Belarus' workplaces - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Russian FSB describes its Tsarnaev letter to FBI - Discussion by gungasnake
Who Really Cares About the Palestinians? - Discussion by Advocate
Accomplices in Destroying UN Member - Discussion by Advocate
Israel Court Rejects Delay In Settlement Evacuation - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Germany's President Resigns in Scandal - Discussion by Pamela Rosa
6-year-olds working in gold mines in Mali, says Human Rights Watch. Would Newt Gingrich approve? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Palestinian Solidarity Campaign disrupts Israeli Concert. Yeah!!! - Discussion by izzythepush
Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
"The assault on the 'Mavi Marmara' was wrong, and a gift to Israel's enemies" - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Outrage as gay pair get 14 years' hard labour - Discussion by tsarstepan
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 94% OF YOU BELIEVE DIANA WAS MURDERED
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:09:02
▲ ▼