Malik's lawyer son cited by Law Society
- Thread starter PeterLongwood
- Start date
I am impressed that jjinvan was so closeley able to follow a twenty year investigation and trial process. Even more impressed that jjinvan was in a position to make a better judgment than the judge about jury instruction and the admissibility of evidence. It's not like those subjects require complex legal education or anything.jjinvan said:Simpson was found LIABLE in the civil case, not guilty. There's a difference there.
As far as Malik being found innocent goes, just another case of lame-ass left wing judges. If you actually followed the trial you'd see that it was clearly the result of the judge's instructions to the jury (which the crown strongly protested and filed complaints over) and the exclusion of a great deal of testimony and evidence (again by the judge) which resulted in the verdict.
All in all, yep, I'd say that Malik and Simpson were both found to be equally innocent...
As well, there's nothing as impressive as not understanding a subject, not having the basis to understand a subject, implying you have the basis to understand a subject and then to regurgitate second-hand information as an authentic opinion.
Ahh, guys?
I don't normally wade into these discussions, but.........
Wasn't the "Air India Trial" a "Judge only" event? I don't think that a jury was in place for this trial.
Might be wrong, but a quick search says otherwise.
I don't normally wade into these discussions, but.........
Wasn't the "Air India Trial" a "Judge only" event? I don't think that a jury was in place for this trial.
Might be wrong, but a quick search says otherwise.
Last edited:
jjinvan said:As far as Malik being found innocent goes, just another case of lame-ass left wing judges. If you actually followed the trial you'd see that it was clearly the result of the judge's instructions to the jury (which the crown strongly protested and filed complaints over) and the exclusion of a great deal of testimony and evidence (again by the judge) which resulted in the verdict.
All in all, yep, I'd say that Malik and Simpson were both found to be equally innocent...
That's very interesting. With a trial over two years in length having over 100 witnesses testifying, I can admit I paid little attention to the testimony of the event.James said:Ahh, guys?
I don't normally wade into these discussions, but.........
Wasn't the "Air India Trial" a "Judge only" event? I don't think that a jury was in place for this trial.
Might be wrong, but a quick search says otherwise.
jjinvan, can you tell us which jury instruction you objected to and why the crown strongly protested the inclusion of those instructions?
You could probably ask her.jjinvan said:Funny thing is, she's the one who abhorrs EI men, not me.
I wonder how she came to feel that way?
You're thinking of the long string of appeals I think.. there was a jury initiallyJames said:Ahh, guys?
I don't normally wade into these discussions, but.........
Wasn't the "Air India Trial" a "Judge only" event? I don't think that a jury was in place for this trial.
Might be wrong, but a quick search says otherwise.
Get off your lazy ass and read about all of it for yourself. There was a rather large inquiry into the whole trial etc... try reading the report.ericestro_88 said:That's very interesting. With a trial over two years in length having over 100 witnesses testifying, I can admit I paid little attention to the testimony of the event.
jjinvan, can you tell us which jury instruction you objected to and why the crown strongly protested the inclusion of those instructions?
This judgment contains the following:jjinvan said:You're thinking of the long string of appeals I think.. there was a jury initially
"Empanelling of the jury will take place on November 1, 2002, with the commencement of evidence on November 15, 2002."
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/01/17/2001bcsc1758internet.htm
It seems there was a re-election to a judge-alone trial part way through the whole process.
PLW......I was hoping to see if ericestro would actually get off his lazy ass and check or was just going to wait and see if someone else would do the legwork like the last time so he could piggyback someone elses info to bash others.
By the way, I should have said 'transcripts' of the inquiry because the report won't be ready for quite some time yet, but there has been quite a bit of testimony, statements, etc etc so far.
But, of course, it must have been a bunch of white racists who blew up that plane, probably headed by GW Bush or something, right?
But, of course, it must have been a bunch of white racists who blew up that plane, probably headed by GW Bush or something, right?
And yet you seem to know more about this than the law society of BC, eh?ericestro_88 said:I am impressed that jjinvan was so closeley able to follow a twenty year investigation and trial process. Even more impressed that jjinvan was in a position to make a better judgment than the judge about jury instruction and the admissibility of evidence. It's not like those subjects require complex legal education or anything.
As well, there's nothing as impressive as not understanding a subject, not having the basis to understand a subject, implying you have the basis to understand a subject and then to regurgitate second-hand information as an authentic opinion.
glass houses, bricks...
twit
It's super easy. The BC Courts have a website with its own search engine. Take a couple of minutes, max.athaire said:PLW......I was hoping to see if ericestro would actually get off his lazy ass and check or was just going to wait and see if someone else would do the legwork like the last time so he could piggyback someone elses info to bash others.
Here it is for anyone who want to check it out:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search/search.asp
I believe Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted of manslaughter in the Narita bombing. I'm sure further investigation will enlighten us to whether he worked alone or in orchestration with others.jjinvan said:But, of course, it must have been a bunch of white racists who blew up that plane, probably headed by GW Bush or something, right?
Wow, he's got a really good disguise on, too!!ericestro_88 said:I believe Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted of manslaughter in the Narita bombing. I'm sure further investigation will enlighten us to whether he worked alone or in orchestration with others.
You can hardly tell that he's a white guy, eh?
ericestro_88 said:I am impressed that jjinvan was so closeley able to follow a twenty year investigation and trial process. Even more impressed that jjinvan was in a position to make a better judgment than the judge about jury instruction and the admissibility of evidence. It's not like those subjects require complex legal education or anything.
As well, there's nothing as impressive as not understanding a subject, not having the basis to understand a subject, implying you have the basis to understand a subject and then to regurgitate second-hand information as an authentic opinion.
I never claimed to know more than the law society of BC. However, unless the member or members who wrote the report were present for all of the testimony they are not in a position to know more about that trial than the presiding judge. Were they their to measure the credibility of the witnesses on the witness stand? Are they as experienced as that judge in presiding over a trial of such proportions?jjinvan said:And yet you seem to know more about this than the law society of BC, eh?
glass houses, bricks...
twit
Nonetheless, I never claimed to know more than the law society of BC. I was just wondering what your basis was to make such claims. You just had to say that you were regurgitating a report of the law society of BC rather than implying you were intimately situated with the trial.
???ericestro_88 said:rather than implying you were intimately situated with the trial.
how on earth did I 'imply' any such thing?
and, I wasn't just using a single source of information, but I was, as I always do, basing my ideas on the opinions of those who I feel know what they are talking about.
And, yes, I think the Law Society collectively knows a lot more about the law than a single judge. You do know that the Law Society has a whole lot of judges in it, right?
If you paid any attention to the trial whatsoever (or were you in diapers when all this happened?) you'd know that the judge was far more concerned with being PC and not offending anyone than with dispensing justice.
You remind me of all the 20 year old Iranian kids running around saying that Ronald Reagan and the CIA 'faked' the whole hostage thing back in the 70s, because that's what they were taught in school in Iran. Nevermind those of us who actually followed the story as it happened before they were born.
jjinvan said:???
how on earth did I 'imply' any such thing?
and, I wasn't just using a single source of information, but I was, as I always do, basing my ideas on the opinions of those who I feel know what they are talking about.
And, yes, I think the Law Society collectively knows a lot more about the law than a single judge. You do know that the Law Society has a whole lot of judges in it, right?
QUOTE]
I have no doubt the Law Society knows a lot more about the law than a single judge. However, no law society member knows as much as the presiding judge about that trial. Unless, they were present during all of the testimony they are not in a better position to make procedural decisions.
ericestro_88However said:Because of course, the crown attorneys at the trial aren't members, right?
And, of course, no one in the law society pays any attention to such high profile trials, they just read the Vancouver Sun stories about them, right?
You should shush before you embarass yourself any further
The only problem is that the guy that is in charge of the inquiry into the whole mess somehow thinks his job is to decide if the trial was PC enough or not. They might as well have put Layton in charge of it.
Were the crown attorneys the individuals who wrote the report? Could you edit your post and add a link to the post. Nonetheless, it would be difficult for the crown attorneys to give an unbiased opinion on the matter.jjinvan said:Because of course, the crown attorneys at the trial aren't members, right?
And, of course, no one in the law society pays any attention to such high profile trials, they just read the Vancouver Sun stories about them, right?
You should shush before you embarass yourself any further
The only problem is that the guy that is in charge of the inquiry into the whole mess somehow thinks his job is to decide if the trial was PC enough or not. They might as well have put Layton in charge of it.
I don't think you have a good grasp of a criminal trial. The presiding judge doesn't just pay attention in passing to the trial. He is there weighing the credibility of witnesses by studing everything from their posture to their tone of voice. Unless, you are there for every moment, you are in a weaker position than his.
As well, if you do some more reading I think you can learn about the policy reasons behind giving such deference to decisions made by a presiding judge during the trial.
