The verdicts are in and both the accused were found innocent. What a joke. Nineteen years, $100 million, strong evidence and two accused that have violent histories and the judge says the witnesses couldn't remember details and weren't credible, so therefore he can't convict. It was 19 years - who remembers all the details? Credibility? What about the credibility of the two accused? Meanwhile, Scott Pederson has been sentenced to death for killing his wife.
Air India Farce
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
charged but not ever taken to trial doesn't make a violent history. As for the speech at the Madison Square Gardens, I haven't seen the tape of it, but I do know that the defence claim that the transcript of the speech was badly mistranslated at trial.hifisex said:
By most accounts Adolph Hitler was a fairly benign individual in person and loved animals. Could anyone say he wasn't violent in his background? There was more than one translation of the speech a MSG. Naturally the defence would take the more ambiguous interpretation. Malik has a history, too, in the community, but the incidents were never brought to court.
The accused were Canadians and many of the victims were Canadians. However the airline was from India and many of the victims were from India. If this case was held in India, extradited a few people here and there, it surely would have been convicted in the India court. At a much lower price tag than $100 million.
Wow! That's an attitude that'd make George W. Bush and his boys proud. Send anyone who might possibly be a problem to a government that has no problems with torture and sham trials. Indian courts would convict you of the bombing if I gave them enough money to make it worth their while.shark said:
Bush Pilot -- a new version of outsourcing?
Such a serious matter as this murderous act should not be treated jocularly. However, your post in response to the "India less than $100 Million and conviction" post by Shark raised the spectre of The Texan Idiot allowing the U.S. Justice Dept. to outsource to India for trial all of the white collar scoundrels who perpetuated the string of frauds and violations of SEC regulations these past six years. And even dear old Martha could have been included. You can't beat cost savings and guaranteed convictions. To hell with proven guilt.
Seriously now, it is a sad day for justice because of the verdict even with obvious complicity of the defendants, but the burden of proof (or lack thereof in this case) speaks highly for the Canadian legal system.
bigguy
Such a serious matter as this murderous act should not be treated jocularly. However, your post in response to the "India less than $100 Million and conviction" post by Shark raised the spectre of The Texan Idiot allowing the U.S. Justice Dept. to outsource to India for trial all of the white collar scoundrels who perpetuated the string of frauds and violations of SEC regulations these past six years. And even dear old Martha could have been included. You can't beat cost savings and guaranteed convictions. To hell with proven guilt.
Seriously now, it is a sad day for justice because of the verdict even with obvious complicity of the defendants, but the burden of proof (or lack thereof in this case) speaks highly for the Canadian legal system.
bigguy
Jury??
Could anyone of you tell me why this important case wasn't trialed with jury? Are we not in Jury system? If these guys were in China, their families even have to pay for the bullets for their execution let alone wasting us tax-payers money for almost 20 years.Cock Throppled said:
Learn to read, pal. That was not playing the 'George W. Bush is an evil war monger' card, it was playing the 'George W. Bush has no regard for civil rights or the rule of law' card. And it was shot at the Indian justice system.hifisex said:
You say that because they they may have been involved even though they were found 'Not guilty', but you don't spare a thought for the fact that they may, indeed, be entirely innocent, yet they spent almost five years in jail. There was not a shred of evidence that linked either of them to the attack, other than the say so of witnesses that the judge said lacked any credibility. You have decided that they did it and they've gotten away with it. You haven't even considered the other view.
Of course, you claim to have read all there is to read on the case and you insist that they pose a risk to Canada now that they're out. Care to enlighten us with even a single piece of information that lead you to form that opinion? Since CSIS, the RCMP, or the Crown couldn't find that information in almost twenty years, I'd love to see it from you.
Hugedman, in Canada, an accused has a choice between trial by judge and jury, or trial by judge alone. In this case it made sense for the accused to choose to be tried by judge alone because they knew there was a total lack of real evidence against them and a judge would be less emotionally swayed by the enormity of the crimes and just look at the evidence. Plus, they figured that by going with a judge only trial, they saved about a year that would have went into jury selection. When you're sitting in jail waiting trial, it's a no-brainer to try to cut the trial short as much as you can.
Read the damn judgement
If anyone truly wants to engage in an intelligent conversation re Air India as opposed to just rant or run off at the mouth he should first invest the time to read the judgement which is available at
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/03/2005BCSC0350.htm
Lets remember that police work conducted in the world of reality versus the world of fiction does not have the benefit of scriptwriters who can conjur up a satisfying ending......In the real world, police are often contronted with facts that are messy....witnesses who are less than truthful....and resources that are insufficient to do the job......and at the same time have to work under the considerable hydraulics of public pressure to deliver justice.....
Unfortunately delivering justice is not like delivering pizza...though sometimes it arrives in the same cold soggy and unsatisfying manner.....
I stated above that a read of the judgement is essential to an intelligent conversation....but that alone would not provide an appreciation of the intricacies of this unfathomable crime......inctricacies which makes a John LaCarre novel seem positively transparent....
That stated, there is nothing particularily wrong with mere ranting as long as you don't attempt to pass it off as anything more.....
G
If anyone truly wants to engage in an intelligent conversation re Air India as opposed to just rant or run off at the mouth he should first invest the time to read the judgement which is available at
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/03/2005BCSC0350.htm
Lets remember that police work conducted in the world of reality versus the world of fiction does not have the benefit of scriptwriters who can conjur up a satisfying ending......In the real world, police are often contronted with facts that are messy....witnesses who are less than truthful....and resources that are insufficient to do the job......and at the same time have to work under the considerable hydraulics of public pressure to deliver justice.....
Unfortunately delivering justice is not like delivering pizza...though sometimes it arrives in the same cold soggy and unsatisfying manner.....
I stated above that a read of the judgement is essential to an intelligent conversation....but that alone would not provide an appreciation of the intricacies of this unfathomable crime......inctricacies which makes a John LaCarre novel seem positively transparent....
That stated, there is nothing particularily wrong with mere ranting as long as you don't attempt to pass it off as anything more.....
G
A trial of this magnitude should have been conducted with a panel of jurists. Not sure why that isn't in our system. It is a really impossible task that one man and one man's opinions settle a case like this. This judge threw out testimony that was given in sworn statements and didn't realize a key piece of testimony (the presence of the plaza outside the temple) was indeed correct, even when a newspaper published proof during the trial.
Mmm, actually...jakesmith said:
In Canada, you are presumed inocent unless proven guilty, therefore if you are not guilty, you are inocent!
If you don't like those potatoes, there are many places in this world which are probably more suited to you.
rickoshadows
Rick, I don’t get to say this very often, so I need to chime in…..rickoshadows said:
I agree with you….
sometimes that means people who I think are the scum of the earth are found not guilty and therefore remain innocent. It bugs the shit out of me, but if we didn’t have a legal system that demands the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then we would have a very flawed legal system.
M
My Name is Mud
In our system, it is the accused's decision whether to have a trial by jury or by judge alone. And in the case of whether a jury is better, I have just one thing to say: OJ SIMPSON.Cock Throppled said:
I heard a lawyer describe a jury as letting 12 people to stupid to get out of jury duty be in charge.
Admissable Evidence
In a Jury trial in Canada, if the admissability of evidence is challenged, the Judge first hears or sees it without the Jury. The Judge then rules on whether it is admissable. If it is held to be admissable, the evidence is repeated in the presence of the Jury. If it is ruled inadmissable, the Jury never hears it or sees it.
In a trial by Judge alone, it is a bit of a legal fiction, but the Judge first rules on the admissability of the evidence. If the evidence is ruled inadmissable, the Judge at least tries to ignore it - certainly does not rely on it in his or her reasons.
In Canada, it is illegal for jurors to reveal what occurs during their deliberations. You never learn the reasons why a jury comes to the decision they do, only that they are unanimous. In the case of a trial before Judge alone, the Judge almost always gives detailed reasons why he or she reached the decision they did.
Much of our perspective on criminal law is coloured (note the spelling) by our exposure to US television. It is useful, however, to have some historical perspective as well.
As an example, if you watch US television, they refer often to the Grand Jury. Much of the US criminal law came over from England in the late 1700s at the time of US independence. By the time Canada became a country, in the mid to late 1800s, English law had basically dispensed with the Grand Jury, retaining only the trial Jury (also refrred to as the petite jury - from the Norman roots). Many might find it surprising, but in many ways, Canadian criminal law and procedure is more modern than that in the United States. Sadly, however, our Criminal Code is based on what is often referred to as the "Stephens" criminal code, which was developed for use in India, when India was a colony, but rejected there as being too harsh.
In a Jury trial in Canada, if the admissability of evidence is challenged, the Judge first hears or sees it without the Jury. The Judge then rules on whether it is admissable. If it is held to be admissable, the evidence is repeated in the presence of the Jury. If it is ruled inadmissable, the Jury never hears it or sees it.
In a trial by Judge alone, it is a bit of a legal fiction, but the Judge first rules on the admissability of the evidence. If the evidence is ruled inadmissable, the Judge at least tries to ignore it - certainly does not rely on it in his or her reasons.
In Canada, it is illegal for jurors to reveal what occurs during their deliberations. You never learn the reasons why a jury comes to the decision they do, only that they are unanimous. In the case of a trial before Judge alone, the Judge almost always gives detailed reasons why he or she reached the decision they did.
Much of our perspective on criminal law is coloured (note the spelling) by our exposure to US television. It is useful, however, to have some historical perspective as well.
As an example, if you watch US television, they refer often to the Grand Jury. Much of the US criminal law came over from England in the late 1700s at the time of US independence. By the time Canada became a country, in the mid to late 1800s, English law had basically dispensed with the Grand Jury, retaining only the trial Jury (also refrred to as the petite jury - from the Norman roots). Many might find it surprising, but in many ways, Canadian criminal law and procedure is more modern than that in the United States. Sadly, however, our Criminal Code is based on what is often referred to as the "Stephens" criminal code, which was developed for use in India, when India was a colony, but rejected there as being too harsh.
I wasn't suggesting a tral by jury - I was speculating as to why our system doesn't have a provision for trial by a panel of judges. When something is this complicated and a bit of an endurance test why not have three or four judges confer? When things get to the Supreme Court they decide by commitee not individually.
Canada Gov't Fucked up when it happend..
The goverment with CSIS had the power to charge and get everyone involved. They left it when the evidence was fresh, they strongly believed this incident was not there obligation...they felt Indians should try Indians and the same focus was not brought to this case as it should have AT THAT TIME .. now it is too late..
but they must look at the Causes of these events... CIA were on this topc from the US side before it even happend.. they spun a bigger web to increase unstability thru Sikhs/Hindu;s during the regime of the area.. no different then today... as the drug trade in Northern India /Pakistain border was no differ than the oil of iraq today.. Hindhu's went into houses and kidnapped sikh children , rapped sikh woman.. slaughtered sikh men....
Was the retribution needed of course not .. was it justified HELL no .. should of the Sikhs been in the temple prior to the masacre No ..
But 300 + gave there lives to a political game.. and that same institution that caused much hatred worlwide.. could not put away the bastards that executed the killing of innocent lives
The goverment with CSIS had the power to charge and get everyone involved. They left it when the evidence was fresh, they strongly believed this incident was not there obligation...they felt Indians should try Indians and the same focus was not brought to this case as it should have AT THAT TIME .. now it is too late..
but they must look at the Causes of these events... CIA were on this topc from the US side before it even happend.. they spun a bigger web to increase unstability thru Sikhs/Hindu;s during the regime of the area.. no different then today... as the drug trade in Northern India /Pakistain border was no differ than the oil of iraq today.. Hindhu's went into houses and kidnapped sikh children , rapped sikh woman.. slaughtered sikh men....
Was the retribution needed of course not .. was it justified HELL no .. should of the Sikhs been in the temple prior to the masacre No ..
But 300 + gave there lives to a political game.. and that same institution that caused much hatred worlwide.. could not put away the bastards that executed the killing of innocent lives
I highly doubt that the CIA had anything to do with this affair.
The root of this conflict came during the partition of India in 1947. At the time, when Muslims were pushing for a separate state, the Indian National Congress, the party of Mohan Das K. Ghandi and Jawarhalal Nehru, was courting all minority groups to support for their vision of a single, secular Indian state.
While numerically minor, Sikhs in the Punjab weilded a great deal of power in India, through their huge overrepresentation in the military and government. Sikh leaders agreed to support Congress in exchange for a promise for greater autonomy for the heavily Sikh regions of Punjab. Congress agreed because they needed Sikh support.
During partition, more than half of the Punjab region was ceded to Pakistan, and it was the scene of massive bloodshed on both sides of the new border. Sikhs in Punjab suffered greatly during partition, but stayed loyal to the new, secular India.
In the ensuing three decades, calls for greater autonomy for the Sikhs were ignored by the Indian central government. They felt that they couldn't allow any great autonomy for the Sikhs in the Punjab, because the Punjab has the greatest concentration of natural resources in the subcontinent. It is the most fertile agricultural land, has the lion's share of the fresh water, and provides a majority of the country's hydroelectric power. The central government, led first by Nehru, then by his daughter Indira Ghandi, held on to control of the region's resources with an iron fist, alienating many Sikhs.
This led to an eventual flareup over the Sikhs' claims that they were unfairly being barred from utilising their own natural resources, mainly water, which led to calls for a separate Sikh state. The ringleader of the separatists was a preacher named Bhindranwale, who was originally supported by the central government as a means to destabilise the Sikh opposition. That shit blew up in their faces and they were faced with a small, yet violent, uprising.
The sad part is that the support for the separatist movement was very small until Indira Ghandi ordered the Indian army to invade the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the Sikh's holiest site, to crush the uprising that was based there. After the invasion, support for the separatist amongst Sikhs in India and abroad went through the roof. That was the reason that the next ten years were so violent in Punjab, and sadly in Canada with the Air India bombing.
So, this tragedy was clearly made in India. No need for CIA interference on that one.
The root of this conflict came during the partition of India in 1947. At the time, when Muslims were pushing for a separate state, the Indian National Congress, the party of Mohan Das K. Ghandi and Jawarhalal Nehru, was courting all minority groups to support for their vision of a single, secular Indian state.
While numerically minor, Sikhs in the Punjab weilded a great deal of power in India, through their huge overrepresentation in the military and government. Sikh leaders agreed to support Congress in exchange for a promise for greater autonomy for the heavily Sikh regions of Punjab. Congress agreed because they needed Sikh support.
During partition, more than half of the Punjab region was ceded to Pakistan, and it was the scene of massive bloodshed on both sides of the new border. Sikhs in Punjab suffered greatly during partition, but stayed loyal to the new, secular India.
In the ensuing three decades, calls for greater autonomy for the Sikhs were ignored by the Indian central government. They felt that they couldn't allow any great autonomy for the Sikhs in the Punjab, because the Punjab has the greatest concentration of natural resources in the subcontinent. It is the most fertile agricultural land, has the lion's share of the fresh water, and provides a majority of the country's hydroelectric power. The central government, led first by Nehru, then by his daughter Indira Ghandi, held on to control of the region's resources with an iron fist, alienating many Sikhs.
This led to an eventual flareup over the Sikhs' claims that they were unfairly being barred from utilising their own natural resources, mainly water, which led to calls for a separate Sikh state. The ringleader of the separatists was a preacher named Bhindranwale, who was originally supported by the central government as a means to destabilise the Sikh opposition. That shit blew up in their faces and they were faced with a small, yet violent, uprising.
The sad part is that the support for the separatist movement was very small until Indira Ghandi ordered the Indian army to invade the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the Sikh's holiest site, to crush the uprising that was based there. After the invasion, support for the separatist amongst Sikhs in India and abroad went through the roof. That was the reason that the next ten years were so violent in Punjab, and sadly in Canada with the Air India bombing.
So, this tragedy was clearly made in India. No need for CIA interference on that one.
