The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II DISCUSSION

I guess the excitement was all too much for him.

Does this mean that the trial has collapsed due to the Prosecution not being in a position to continue the case?

VP :noangel:
 
So how long is a no show allowed before the case is thrown out? It seems unreasonable to leave someone with an accusation hanging over their head indefinitely just because the prosecution declines, or is incapable for whatever reason, of continuing the case.

VP :noangel:
 
I think it would be more than reasonable to set a deadline for prosecutions final questions and summing up now. Failing to meet the deadline should result in the charges being thrown out, prosecution being unable to continue, or the judge making a final decision based on the evidence and arguments presented to date.

I would suggest no more than 48 hours be allowed as prosecution last entered a comment 31st August and this will have allowed him 4 weeks to act.

VP :noangel:
 
The decision to acquit was the right one purely and simply on the grounds that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Blue Wolf was guilty. Do not criticise the system because of the inept manner in which the case was constructed and delivered.

VP :noangel:
 
WEll, the court has rendered it's verdict and I await with some anticipation the full account of that decision.

But long experience in tnp has led me to conclude that any court in this region will, after six months of silly buggers, be unable to prove beyond resonable doubt that a smoking gun is not, in fact, a Jerusalem Artichoke, and therefore be unable to deliver a guilty verdict.
 
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree as there is clearly no evidence of a smoking gun. Where is the evidence of planning orimplementation of a plot? Where are the mysterious agents of insurrection identified? What indeed was the fabric of the plot?

Without these fundamental foundations it was obvious that the case had no merit and was doomed to failure.

Beyond reasonable doubt is an essential minimum to avoid miscarriages of justice but it is not an insurmountable barrier to obtaining a conviction if the case is sound, has merit and robust evidence. Nothing presented during the trial came close to being robust evidence, as was very apparent when it was challenged.

VP :noangel:
 
I was thinking generally about a smoking gun, rather than referring specifically to this case.

Also I did not see much of a challenge from the defence "team", just the usual fuckwittery.
 
Flemmy's definition of a successful trial is those he disagrees with being convicted and those he likes being found innocent. Anything short of that is a "failure of justice".
 
Not having seen any previous trials I can only draw my experience from this one so it was only reasonable I assumed your smoking gun reference related to this trial. If it wasn't then what are you bitching about Flem?

VP :noangel:
 
Then I suggest that you read my words more carefully in future rather than making assumptions:

But long experience in tnp has led me to conclude that any court in this region will, after six months of silly buggers, be unable to prove beyond resonable doubt that a smoking gun is not, in fact, a Jerusalem Artichoke, and therefore be unable to deliver a guilty verdict.

The underlined phrases should have informed you that I was making a general comment.
 
haor chall:
  I wrestled for quite some time with this seeming technicality.
Click to expand...

loophole_thumb%5B4%5D.jpg


Seriously, I think Haor has obviously done the best he can in interpreting the law as we have it.

I stand by my comments in the posts above about the impossibility of finding anyone guilty of anything in TNP.*






*Disclaimer: the above statement should not be taken as a specific reference to the trial of Blue Wolf (tm) or any other legal proceeding onward. All statements in this thread by Flemingovia are provided "AS IS" - THAT IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, FLEMINGOVIA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, INFRINGEMENT OR OTHERWISE. FLEMINGOVIA DOES NOT WARRANT THAT HIS STATEMENTS OR THE ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STATEMENTS WILL BE COMPLETE OR ERROR-FREE, THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THIS THREAD OR THE SERVER(S) THAT MAKES THIS THREAD AVAILABLE ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. FLEMINGOVIA DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THIS THREAD IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS THREAD ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. FLEMINGOVIA DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT ANY MATERIAL IN THIS THREAD IS CORRECT, COMPLETE, OR UP-TO-DATE. FLEMINGOVIA MAY CHANGE OR DELETE HIS POSTS ON THIS THREAD WITHOUT NOTICE AT ANY TIME. USE OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS AT THE USER'S OWN RISK.
 
flemingovia:
I stand by my comments in the posts above about the impossibility of finding anyone guilty of anything in TNP.*
Click to expand...

If the law had been different, the result of this trial would have been different. If the prosecution had done a better job then we may also have a had a different result - admittedly I do not know whether they tried to obtain the evidence that would have resulted in a conviction or not.

As for the particular point of law, I did re-read the original threads in the Regional Assembly to establish if there was a specific intent behind the wording, as I generally do believe in applying RAI over RAW - which I would say is best called "common sense". In this particular case I did not feel that an alternative interpretation was possible.

It would help, as I mentioned in my recommendations, if the law was a little more robust to ensure co-operation with the Court and to provide for a wide scope in terms of offenses and sentencing. Of course trials happen so rarely that the lessons learned will probably be forgotten by the time we do this again.
 
Looking back over the law and the trial I can see why you came to the verdict you did. I do not agree with the conclusion you came to - The law was intended to provide security, not loopholes - but it is evident that a tightening up of the legislation is needed, as well as a more robust trial structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top