XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.talk.royalty, uk.media   
   From: abelard3@abelard.org   
      
   On 15 Jan 2007 15:23:33 -0800, "Mel Rowing"    
      
     typed:   
   >   
   >abelard wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 15 Jan 2007 12:13:20 -0800, "Mel Rowing"    
   >   
   >> i don't believe it will work they way you suggest...   
   >   
   >But it does!   
   >   
   >A coroner should be seen as an investigative officer rather than a   
   >judge.   
   >   
   >An inquest is a public enquiry into the cause  of a death (except,   
   >rarely, to determine the rightful ownership of discovered  treasure)   
   >and nothing else. In theory anyone may address a coroner if they have   
   >anything to say with regard to the inquest under consideration (hence   
   >the bidding statement).   
   >   
   >In reality of course one would be expected to approach the Coroner's   
   >Office in the first instance. You would then receive a visit from the   
   >Coroner's Officer  (these days usually a retired police officer) who   
   >would prepare a statement of any evidence in the usual way. The Coroner   
   >himself assesses the statement and decides whether or not the witness   
   >has a part to play in the inquest.   
   >   
   >I know all this because my wife some years ago expressed   
   >dissatisfaction with evidence offered by a witness at an inquest. She   
   >was unexpectedly sworn in and required to give evidence.   
   >   
   >With regard to the need for a jury. A coroner does not even have to   
   >take into consideration as to what the public reaction might be if he   
   >does or does not summon a jury.   
      
   obviously i won't argue with that...   
      
   >Bearing in mind that he has seen all   
   >the evidence in advance in statemented form if he deems that on the   
   >basis of evidence only one possible verdict can be reached he will   
   >dispense with a jury. If the possibility of alternative verdicts exists   
   >he will enlist a jury. Even in these circumstances he will direct such   
   >jury as to the only possible verdict they can return based on the   
   >evidence or if appropriate alterntive verdicts which might be brought   
   >in particular circumstances of belief.   
   >   
   >One other thing regarding the Coroners court, is that since it carries   
   >out an inquiry rather than judges a 'case'. The 'case' is never closed.   
   >An inquest can always be reopened should new evidence merit it.   
      
   you seem oblivious to the public perception....   
      
   if public perception didn't matter...or even as it does....this exercise   
        is worse than pointless...   
      
   regards   
      
   --   
   web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics   
    energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   ---------------   
     all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry   
     the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.   
     good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words   
                       only when it's funny -- roger rabbit   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   ---------------   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)