GDG- Another few cents on the New Museum...

Wed Apr 16 22:41:22 CDT 2008

Actually, Scottish jurisprudence has a third verdict, "not proven".  This is from the website http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_8.html

>>The Not Proven Verdict

Scots law is unusual in allowing three alternative verdicts in a criminal trial. Although the "Not Proven" verdict is known, incorrectly, as the third verdict, it has a 300 year history in Scotland. Even though it has a long history it has been the subject of criticism since 1827 when Sir Walter Scott, novelist and Sheriff, described the not proven verdict as "that bastard verdict, not proven."

The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. It is interesting to note that the not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.

Current challenge to the verdict stems from the dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice suffered by the families of victims of crime. Political influence has also been apparent, in 1993 George Robertson tabled a Private Members Bill to abolish the verdict.

The legal profession has been divided over the issue most of this century. A number of eminent judges have attacked the verdict. One saying that it was theoretically and historically indefensible, Lord Moncrieff in 1906. Others have supported it. In 1964 Lord Justice General Clyde stated that "for upwards of 200 years a not proven verdict has been available . . . and no convincing argument has been advanced to justify its elimination from our law." One view from England helped to explain the reason for the not proven verdict, Judge Gerald Sparrow wrote, "I have often thought that the distinction typifies the different spirit of Scottish and English law: the Scottish being the more logical, the English more sporting." The original verdicts in Scots law were "culpable" and "convict"; or "cleanse". Guilty and not guilty were introduced by Cromwell during the Usurpation, when he imposed English judges on Scotland. After the reformation the Scots courts reverted to asking judges to find
 whether the facts in the indictment were "proven" or "not proven." The "not guilty" verdict was reintroduced in 1723 in the trial of Carnegie of Findhorn for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore. In 1975 the Thomson Committee which examined Scottish criminal procedure recommended that the three verdict system be retained. In 1993 the Scottish Office said that "it was not convinced that there was enough groundswell of dissatisfaction from the public and, crucially, from the legal profession" to justify any scrutiny of the not proven verdict. Most recently in 1994 the Government in a White Paper, Firm but Fair, dealing, inter alia, with the verdict made no proposals for any changes as in the absence of "a considerable weight of informed opinion against the verdict" the three verdict system should be retained.

It would appear that there is no immediate prospect that there will be any change in the current three verdict system.<<
Regards,
Margaret

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "John Rudy" <john.m.rudy at gmail.com> 

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> 
> 
> I can't force you to follow industry standards and practices, this is very 
> true. Triangulation of evidence doesn't mean much, apparently. 
> 
> Oh, and just to make one thing clear, the burden of proof NEVER lies on the 
> one claiming against something (the defense). In law, just as in history, 
> the side arguing the affirmative (the prosecution) has a clear burden of 
> proof. Court cases of he-said/she-said end up so often in the dustbin 
> because there is only one witness claiming an act happened. 
> 
> Just because I can't prove that something is not true doesn't make it 
> instantly true. Logic dictates we need to assume claims as untrue until 
> they can be properly tested and verified. Hence innocent until proven 
> guilty, and not the other way around. 
> 
> The problem with you deciding that it is fine for me not to believe it, and 
> you to do the opposite is simple: the NPS has weight and authority far above 
> our poor power. People are not entering that new museum with a skeptical 
> eye, but instead that new museum is seen by 90% of the visitation as gospel 
> truth. It is one thing for us to argue this in an academic forum, where we 
> all presumably are skeptical of any claim placed before us until proper 
> evidence is presented. It is an entire other matter when the claim sits in 
> a museum that the public assumes is THE authority on the Civil War and 
> Gettysburg. Statements need to be doubly measured and weighed in such a 
> setting because of the sheer blind faith of much of the visitorship. 
> 
> 
> -John 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM, jack wrote: 
> 
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello. 
> > 
> > Don't get me wromng either, but there is of course a source here. I'm not 
> > going to get ninvolved in a local thing, as I pride myself on having no axes 
> > to grind. But there is a source and a "single source" is still a source and 
> > a pretty valid source if it is unrefuted. You can dismiss it as being 
> > unsubstantiated, but all that means is you don't agree with it. 
> > 
> > You know, the real problem here is the undocumented nature or the 
> > Underground Railroad. There are no schedules and no t a lot of people wrote 
> > things down. They might send a warning ahead, but they were unlikely to keep 
> > detailed journals. 
> > 
> > This is a situation in where you havev to look at the story and see if it 
> > makes sense. The story makes sense. And it has a source. 
> > 
> > You can believe it or disbelieve it. You have chosen not to believe it. 
> > Fine with me. 
> > 
> > I don't have a dog inthis one. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > jaCk 
> > 
> > 
> > But you still can't disprove it. 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg 
> 
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup 
> 
> View archived posts from May 2004 - present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/ 