An experiment

[GUT]

But if you look for it you will find it.

Regards, Pierre

Please give us just one example of a Judge only trial in England in 1888 Pierre, but I won't hold my breath while I wait.

[David Orsam]

OK, David. Believe what you want to believe. You always do.

And I would appreciate if you stopped using words like "bluffing" and "game" in a serious discussion.

It's not a question of belief Pierre, it's a question of knowledge. If you truly regard this as a serious discussion then you need to stop bluffing by saying things existed which did not exist.

It's obvious that you are going to spend the next 24 hours scouring the internet, desperately trying to find a criminal trial by a judge without a jury in England in the 1880s, but I can tell you the bad news is that you won't be able to do it.

[Pierre]

Yes we can find it suggested in a post by Howard Brown on JTR forum as long ago as 14 November 2009 in which he said:

"Although I would side with those who tend to see it as a misspelled expression of the word "Jews", Nina has suggested that it might be a misrepresentation of the word "The Judges"."

Nina found an example of the word "JUDGES" - in block capitals mind - which looks just like "JUWES" as can be seen in post 3 here:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=7972

Interesting. Here is another example.

[David Orsam]

Interesting. Here is another example.

No, I don't think it works in lower case script.

But you seem very interested in it being the word "Judges". Do you think Steve has got it right?

[David Orsam]

Please give us just one example of a Judge only trial in England in 1888 Pierre, but I won't hold my breath while I wait.

Repeating for Pierre in case he missed it.

[GUT]

Repeating for Pierre in case he missed it.

I'd have to confirm, but I am pretty certain that even Civil trials were all by Jury at this time.

[Pierre]

It's not a question of belief Pierre, it's a question of knowledge. If you truly regard this as a serious discussion then you need to stop bluffing by saying things existed which did not exist.

It's obvious that you are going to spend the next 24 hours scouring the internet, desperately trying to find a criminal trial by a judge without a jury in England in the 1880s, but I can tell you the bad news is that you won't be able to do it.

Nothing seems to be obvious to you, David. Actually you canīt even see what I am writing. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Why did you not see what I wrote? What did I write, David? What was my question to you?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

No, I don't think it works in lower case script.

But you seem very interested in it being the word "Judges". Do you think Steve has got it right?

Am I your "suspect" now, David? How intriguing.

Of course Steve has made an interesting find. As Steve said, the word "Judges" is in line with the word "blame". I think it is worth interpreting. But instead of doing so, you are making mistakes.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I'd have to confirm, but I am pretty certain that even Civil trials were all by Jury at this time.

Libel trials would have been by jury but other civil trials were by judge only, with a written judgment, but these were not deciding issues of guilt or innocence, just a finding for or against the plaintiff.

[GUT]

Libel trials would have been by jury but other civil trials were by judge only, with a written judgment, but these were not deciding issues of guilt or innocence, just a finding for or against the plaintiff.

In the 1880s?

We still had Jury trials here in Personal injury cases into the 1970s.

[David Orsam]

Nothing seems to be obvious to you, David. Actually you canīt even see what I am writing. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Why did you not see what I wrote? What did I write, David? What was my question to you?

I saw what you wrote Pierre. You said:

'if you look for it you will find it'

AND

'David, just because you donīt know about a certain thing does not mean it did not exist. It did.'

You were responding to my statement that there were no cases tried by judges in England during the period without juries.

You haven't asked me any questions about this which I haven't answered.

I haven't put any words into your mouth.

I've told you there were no such cases.

[David Orsam]

In the 1880s?

Yes, I'm only aware of jury trials for libel cases - there might have been some other categories, I'd need to check, but very few if so. There are many volumes of law reports from the 1880s full of judgments from civil trials.

[Pierre]

I saw what you wrote Pierre. You said:

'if you look for it you will find it'

AND

'David, just because you donīt know about a certain thing does not mean it did not exist. It did.'

You were responding to my statement that there were no cases tried by judges in England during the period without juries.

You haven't asked me any questions about this which I haven't answered.

Yes, I have.

I haven't put any words into your mouth.

Yes, you did. But that is a minor problem. The big problem is that you canīt read a question correctly.

I've told you there were no such cases.

David,

You could not even answer the question, which was:

"What was my question to you?"

You are merely writing (above): "I saw what you wrote Pierre".

Read this, David:

"What was my question to you?"

Letīs see if you can answer it.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Am I your "suspect" now, David? How intriguing.

Of course Steve has made an interesting find. As Steve said, the word "Judges" is in line with the word "blame". I think it is worth interpreting. But instead of doing so, you are making mistakes.

Why would you be my "suspect" Pierre? What a strange thing to say. I was only asking you if, in your opinion, Steve had found the right word in the dictionary. You know, the dictionary you suggested we all looked in where we could expect to find the answer about what was written on the wall.

And I don't believe I am making any mistakes. I simply pointed out that you were wrong to say that judges were involved in laying guilt on people. The mistake is yours Pierre. Sometimes you need to admit it when you are wrong.

[David Orsam]

Read this, David:

"What was my question to you?"

I not only read it Pierre but I responded to it. If you actually read my post which you quoted, with even a modicum of attention, you will see that I said:

"You haven't asked me any questions about this which I haven't answered."