Soham Murders - Huntley Guilty

[lynni]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Look, I'm just saying, I dont think you can make a sound judgement based on hearing "evidence" from the case second hand via the news media. You can provide an opinion, but I dont think you can legitimately use the word "correctly" in this instance.

If you were the judge presiding over the case then I think you could make that sort of statement.

There's no need to get wound up about it.

Is that commented directed at me or nichomach? cos im not getting wound up, i just think you should let it be

[nichomach]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Look, I'm just saying, I dont think you can make a sound judgement based on hearing "evidence" from the case second hand via the news media. You can provide an opinion, but I dont think you can legitimately use the word "correctly" in this instance.

If you were the judge presiding over the case then I think you could make that sort of statement.

There's no need to get wound up about it.

Then I refer you to my earlier comment. On the facts as reported, the verdict was legally correct. And yes, the use of the word "correct" is entirely appropriate in this context. Unless you have some evidence that the provable facts as regards Maxine Carr's state of knowledge or belief were other than reported, I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it.

[DaBeeeenster]

The facts as reported will only be a small subset of the facts as presented in the court room.

Look, I think that what you said was probably correct, I just think it sets a tenuous precedent to make sweeping statements about the "correctness" of the result when you were not present in the first person for the duration of the case.

It's not a matter of either of us being right or wrong. I think we are both right, I just found the media coverage of the case extremely distasteful, and as a result I found your initial comment yesterday a little hard to swallow. I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong. I'm just trying to point out that there is a difference between the case as reported and the case itself.

edit: Sorry, Lynni, my comments were not directed at your post.

[nichomach]

Fine, I found the media coverage distasteful as well (specifically the tabloid stuff). The task for any media reader, however, is to winnow the facts from the sensationalist editorialising, and anyway I certainly do not rely upon the gutter press for accurate reportage.

Look, you're trying to make a point about tabloid distortions and sensationalism; fine, I agree with you, but then I have never relied upon sources like that anyway, and I don't like the fact that you've decided to have a go at me over an entirely appropriate use of language in order to make that point. You may be correct in stating that a subset of the factual evidence disclosed in the case is reported, but really with regard to the charges under S4(1) only three facts are relevant; that Maxine Carr acted to impede the prosecution of Huntley, that she maintained that she believed Huntley had committed no crime, and that the prosecution had no evidence to show otherwise. All of those facts have been disclosed.

[DaBeeeenster]

I was not making a point about tabloid sensationalism. I was talking about the media in general. Newspapers that are normally restrained about that sort of news story felt that they had to cover the goings on from every possible angle in order to keep up with public interest.

As I stated above, I think there is a difference between learning about the case via second hand sources and learning about the case personally, first hand. This was the reason that I made my inital post. I apologise if it was a little curt, but I have found both the presupposition of guilt as well as the mob mentality "burn him" opinions somewhat trying.

As I said, I think that you are probably correct in your analysis, I just took exception to the way you described them. I dont believe that anyone is above the law, either when abiding by it, or trying someone with it. IMHO your initial post overstepped the mark with respect to the latter, and that is why I posted my comment.

[nichomach]

With the greatest respect, when I am commenting approvingly upon the acquittal of Carr on some charges, how the bloody hell can I be supposed to be presupposing guilt OR indulging in a mob "burn them" mentality? And if I am thus commenting with approbation upon a correct application of law, how on earth am I supposed to be holding myself above it? Or is no-one allowed an opinion as to whether the law has been correctly applied in a given case?

[DaBeeeenster]

Of course you are entitled to an opinion on the result. The issue I took originally was that you stated your opinion as fact.

I just found the language that you used in your first post somewhat hard to swallow:

and also that Maxine Carr has been correctly convicted of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge

I personally read this as a statement of fact; a statement that I do not believe anyone is in a position to make.

I dont want to go round and round in circles with this. I have stated that I apologise if my original statement was somewhat harsh; that was not its intention. I simply dont feel that people can be in a position to make such a cut and dry judgement about something such as this.

If you disagree with me, fine. If you want to start a thread regarding legal justice and certainty in a modern court I will gladly discuss it.