An experiment

[Pierre]

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.

Yes, you do need to check. I donīt.

But you are still putting words in my mouth.

[Pierre]

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."

Yes, David. I have asked you a question which you did not answer. Instead, you answered a question I did not pose. But you are getting further away from that question now, so every time you try to say that I did not ask such a question, the probability that you will remember it or find it becomes smaller. I bet Steve could help you find it. He is good at reading. Very good.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, you do need to check. I donīt.

I was talking to GUT about civil trials only Pierre.

Trials in which issues of guilt or innocence were not decided.

Do please pay attention.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David. I have asked you a question which you did not answer. Instead, you answered a question I did not pose. But you are getting further away from that question now, so every time you try to say that I did not ask such a question, the probability that you will remember it or find it becomes smaller. I bet Steve could help you find it. He is good at reading. Very good.

Why is my gibberish detector flashing?

[Pierre]

Why is my gibberish detector flashing?

Because you have problems with reading perhaps?

How difficult can this be:

1. I have asked you a question which you did not answer.
2. Instead, you answered a question I did not pose.
3. You are getting further away from the question now,
4. so every time you try to say that I did not ask such a question, the probability that you will remember it or find it becomes smaller.
5. I bet Steve could help you find it. He is good at reading. Very good.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Because you have problems with reading perhaps

No Pierre, I'm quite sure that's not the reason.

[Pierre]

No Pierre, I'm quite sure that's not the reason.

You are off topic.

[David Orsam]

You are off topic.

I was doing no more than responding to your post so if I'm off topic it's because of you.

[GUT]

Still not holding my breath for Pierre's Judge only Criminal Trial.

[David Orsam]

On Topic Post

The topic is this:

Did Steve find the right word in the dictionary?

Yes or no?

And was this a word you already had in mind as being the correct word on the wall instead of "Juwes"?

I'm prepared ignore your mistaken belief about the role of judges because it's just not worth bothering about.

[Pierre]

Still not holding my breath for Pierre's Judge only Criminal Trial.

You mean "Davidīs Judge only Criminal Trial".

Obviously, you missed my question too. And now you have exclusively Davidīs words in your ears.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

You mean "Davidīs Judge only Criminal Trial".

Obviously, you missed my question too. And now you have exclusively Davidīs words in your ears.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

This is getting very confusing. I therefore feel strangely compelled to seek clarification. Are you referring to civil cases?

[David Orsam]

You mean "Davidīs Judge only Criminal Trial".

Obviously, you missed my question too. And now you have exclusively Davidīs words in your ears.

What ARE you talking about Pierre?

I said: "In a criminal trial in England, it was (and remains) the role of the jury to "lay guilt on people"."

You replied: "Do you know about cases without a jury?"

I answered: "I am aware of such things Pierre. But not in England in 1888 tried by judges."

You then replied: "But if you look for it you will find it."

To which my response was: "I don't think so Pierre otherwise you would have told me about it."

Your reply was: "David, just because you donīt know about a certain thing does not mean it did not exist. It did."

And I said: "Nice try at bluffing Pierre but I can tell you that there were no trials without juries in England at the time which involved judges".

So I answered the only question you asked me.

You were wrong, and remain wrong, to say that judges would "lay guilt on people".

[Elamarna]

Pierre

not debating the word here but i would like some clarification please given that you have mentioned me.

The only relevant question I can see you asked David was in post 173:

Hi David,

Do you know about cases without a jury?

Regards, Pierre

he replied to you in post 174

"I am aware of such things Pierre. But not in England in 1888 tried by judges".


what other question are you saying he has not answered? given you said I would have read the question you asked, i am confused my friend

regards

steve

[David Orsam]

Pierre,

This is getting very confusing. I therefore feel strangely compelled to seek clarification. Are you referring to civil cases?

I do hope not because I specifically started the discussion by saying "In a criminal trial in England...".

And Pierre's reference to "Davidīs Judge only Criminal Trial" shows that he understood this, even though I am actually saying there were no such things.