Lawyer regrets fatal hit-run (on cyclist)

"The Australian" Wednesday April 13 2005 Page 5

" Hit and Run lawer feared for his career"
"A prominent Adelaide lawer has admitted he kept driving after killin
a cyclist because he was worried the collision could affect his lega
career.

Members of Ian Humprey's family broke down as lawer Eugene McKee tol
South Australian District Court how he hit the cyclist on the Kapund
to Gawler road in the Barossa Valley in 2003.

Mr McKee said he had drank close to a bottle of wine at lunch with hi
mother and brother at a hotel, followed by coffee at his mother's hom
... "

Unfortunately article is not on net but it continues with hi
recollection of what happened and how he knew that he had kille
someone and not stopped, and thinking about the consequences in term
of his profession and that he could feel that he was going into shock.

"Aust" appears to be following this court case.

I dont understand how someone can consume "close to a bottle of wine"
go out and drive on the road, kill a cyclist and then plead not guilt
to the manslaughter(?) charges.

Hug

--
HughMann

HughMann wrote:
"The Australian" Wednesday April 13 2005 Page 5

I dont understand how someone can consume "close to a bottle of wine",
go out and drive on the road, kill a cyclist and then plead not guilty
to the manslaughter(?) charges.

Hugh


Simple , he was a lawyer. They have no concept of the truth at the best
of times.

Jack Russell Wrote:
HughMann wrote
"The Australian" Wednesday April 13 2005 Page

I dont understand how someone can consume "close to a bottle o
wine"
go out and drive on the road, kill a cyclist and then plead no
guilt
to the manslaughter(?) charges

Hug


Simple , he was a lawyer. They have no concept of the truth at the bes
of times.

'Not guilty' just means that he is making the prosecution prove it
case and canvass all the surrounding circumstances. He is not denyin
the 'truth' just making someone else prove it. Just as anyone els
accused of a crime may choose to do. [legal view

IF the facts as reported in the media are true and complete, he shoul
plead guilty [my own view]

Steve

--
SteveA

Silly me.

I thought NOT GUILTY meant "I didn't do it" - not "I did do it, but
just try proving it!!"

And I thought that was the legal view, too. (but not necessarily the
practical, "what its actually used for" view)

AH

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 04:38 GMT, Absent Husband (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Silly me.

I thought NOT GUILTY meant "I didn't do it" - not "I did do it, but
just try proving it!!"

And I thought that was the legal view, too. (but not necessarily the
practical, "what its actually used for" view)

Don't you just wish lying under oath was some kind of crime?

Or that saying "not guilty" in a court and you are found to be guilty
eventually, then you get punished for lying. It'll never catch on.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Bugger you guys.
The babelfish is idempotent on the set above.
I'm afraid that isn't a very good pickup line either, Tim. - MaryG

On 2005-04-14, TimC wrote:
Or that saying "not guilty" in a court and you are found to be guilty
eventually, then you get punished for lying. It'll never catch on.

Ah, but the problem then is, it's still possible that you weren't in
fact lying -- that the guilty verdict is mistaken.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:49:52 GMT, TimC
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 04:38 GMT, Absent Husband (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Silly me.

I thought NOT GUILTY meant "I didn't do it" - not "I did do it, but
just try proving it!!"

And I thought that was the legal view, too. (but not necessarily the
practical, "what its actually used for" view)

Don't you just wish lying under oath was some kind of crime?

It is, it's called perjury

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 05:19 GMT, Carl Brewer (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:49:52 GMT, TimC
wrote:
Don't you just wish lying under oath was some kind of crime?

/sarcasm

It is, it's called perjury

Sorry, forgot to close my tags.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I'm not a procrastinator! I'm temporally challenged! --unknown

Carl Brewer wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:49:52 GMT, TimC
wrote:


On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 04:38 GMT, Absent Husband (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Silly me.

I thought NOT GUILTY meant "I didn't do it" - not "I did do it, but
just try proving it!!"

And I thought that was the legal view, too. (but not necessarily the
practical, "what its actually used for" view)

Don't you just wish lying under oath was some kind of crime?


It is, it's called perjury


Ah but I think in law a QC cannot lie, whatever he says must be true.


9Signed Grumpy old man)

Absent Husband Wrote:
Silly me

I thought NOT GUILTY meant "I didn't do it" - not "I did do it, bu
just try proving it!!

And I thought that was the legal view, too. (but not necessarily th
practical, "what its actually used for" view

AH
A plea of not guilty is essentially "I'm not admitting that I did it
rather than "I didn't do it" or even "I did do it, but just try provin
it". Yeah, I know its splitting hairs

A finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence either.
Australian courts do not find you innocent, just not guilty, ie coul
not prove that you did it. If I recall Scottish courts can find
person innocent

This is why a criminal court can find a person not guilty (must b
proven beyond reasonable doubt - ie almost certainly they did it) but
civil court can find that a person did do something (must be proven o
the balance of probabilities - most likely they did it

Steve

--
SteveA