it is hard to see...fail to convict

< Previous | Next >

joel123

Senior Member
persian
What does "it is hard to see...fail to convict" mean?

(...)This table can now be seen at the offices of the London Spiritualist Alliance, and one marvels at the audacity of a witness who could imperil another man's liberty by so false a statement, which must have powerfully affected the course of the trial. Indeed, in the face of the evidence of Ray Lankester, Donkin, and Maskelyne, it is hard to see how Mr. Flowers could fail to convict, for he would say with truth and reason, "What is before the Court is not what has happened upon other occasions—however convincing these eminent witnesses may be—but what occurred upon this particular occasion, and here we have two witnesses on one side and only the prisoner on the other." The "tricktable" probably settled the matter.
from history of spiritualism
 
  • joel123

    Senior Member
    persian
    It is difficult to understand how Mr. Flowers could not win his case...
    thanks, but can you explain clearer? because it seems that the judge Flowers sentenced Slade. the following text is : Slade was sentenced, under the Vagrancy Act, to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. An appeal was lodged and he was released on bail.
    i mean, the judge won the case, not?
     

    Keith Bradford

    Senior Member
    English (Midlands UK)
    No, a judge can't win a case. The prosecution brings the case and the defence defends the case. Whichever side has the best argument wins the case, as the judge (or jury) decides.

    I'm not at all clear what this particular case was about: I thought Mr. Flowers was the prosecutor. However, if you're saying that Mr. Flowers was the name of the judge, then I must correct my #2:
    It is difficult to understand how Mr. Flowers could not find the accused guilty... Sorry!​
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top