I thought that we in the UK were the one who had to be concerned about being guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent, but it seems from a report I read today that your lawyers and justice departments are taking this theory to the next level, that being guilty even if no crime has been committed.
The case concerns one of your actors, Daniel Baldwin. It seems that he was given the keys to a friends car by a relative who omitted to tell the friend. Mr Smith, unaware the care had been borrowed, reported it stolen and Baldwin was subsequently arrested and bailed. According to Mr Baldwin’s lawyer, Mr Smith will vouch that it was all a mistake.
However, the reason I was surprised about this case is that when everyone turned up in court, Mr Smith included, they all expected the matter to be dealt with and dismissed. This did not happen. Despite Mr Smith willing to testify the district attorney was not prepared to dismiss the case. Am I a little behind the times here or what? If there is no case to answer, what purpose is being served in the district attorney refusing it to be settled? Thus, at this time, the DA is pressing ahead with the charges against Mr Baldwin for a crime that he could not possibly have committed because their was no crime to answer in the first place! This procedure is even tougher than ours in the UK, and I would not have thought that possible.
Mind you, it could be worse, he could get sent to prison yet for a crime he did not commit because no crime too place to begin with, if you understand my logic.