witch hunts
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Kermit8  Hevon 14 Sep 15 10.01am |
  |
|---|---|
|
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
jamiemartin721  Reading 14 Sep 15 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour? Which is why I described it as possibly 3 and as many as 9 jurors, rather than just decide she was not guilty because she had an unblemished record and the accuser was now a drug addict. The point is I'm not basing my view on an opinion of either the accused or the defendant, but on the events. You seem to think the case should never have been brought and it was clearly obvious he was a liar, when in fact the jury in the first incidence wasn't unanimous at all. She is not guilty, and now its down to the CPS and Police to establish if he is guilty of false testimony, perjury etc
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Sep 15 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 14 Sep 15 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. Clearly being accused of a crime you may not have committed is terrible. That's one side of the coin. But what is your message to those who have actually been sexually abused as children and later become alcoholics or drug addicts to deal with the pain? That they are 'feckless', 'just some addict' making 'poor life choices' and should be considered liars by default? That's why the case went to court - to decide. The first jury was much less certain than you it seems, even though they were privy to the facts. You know better of course.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. So it would be ok, for example, to abuse children who will later turn out to be alcoholics, drug addicts or otherwise considered 'feckless', even if the prosecution believes it has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction? Provided the accused has a decent job record?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. Was he a feckless drug addict at the time of the alleged offence?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Sep 15 1.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. So it would be ok, for example, to abuse children who will later turn out to be alcoholics, drug addicts or otherwise considered 'feckless', even if the prosecution believes it has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction? Provided the accused has a decent job record? I shouldn't think so, only when he thought he would try his scam.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Sep 15 1.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. So it would be ok, for example, to abuse children who will later turn out to be alcoholics, drug addicts or otherwise considered 'feckless', even if the prosecution believes it has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction? Provided the accused has a decent job record? Well he was not abused was he - she was found not guilty. Of course it is not ok to abuse any children.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Sep 15 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 14 Sep 2015 12.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. Clearly being accused of a crime you may not have committed is terrible. That's one side of the coin. But what is your message to those who have actually been sexually abused as children and later become alcoholics or drug addicts to deal with the pain? That they are 'feckless', 'just some addict' making 'poor life choices' and should be considered liars by default? That's why the case went to court - to decide. The first jury was much less certain than you it seems, even though they were privy to the facts. You know better of course.
He was not abused though - she was found not guilty. Also absurd to suggest that childhood experiences inextricably lead to drug addiction. Certainly what drug users say should be treated with a great deal of caution, they tend to do and say anything that will help them feed their chosen life style.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 14 Sep 15 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 1.18pm
Quote oldcodger at 14 Sep 2015 12.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 12.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2015 10.01am
V Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Sep 2015 9.45am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 4.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Sep 2015 3.28pm
To play devils advocate, just because she was found not guilty it doesn't mean that he necessarily lied, but that reasonable doubt existed in the jurors minds - proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is different from establishing a concrete proof. That of course doesn't mean that the guy was lying, only that he may have made it all up. That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the prosecution should never have been brought forward in the first place. Asking a jury to convict someone on the mere word of one person concerning alleged events that happened 20 years before. Was that the only evidence offered, his word? The actual outcome seems to be that the jury could not reach a majority verdict. In reality she's been bailed for a week for the prosecution to decide whether it wishes to pursue a retrial. So I'd say its not quite as clear cut as people seem to think. It doesn't surprise me at all that the prosecution will waste yet more time and money trying to conjure up a case out of nothing - it is the fashion. The key phrase here is 'non-majority verdict' - The judge was willing to accept a 10-2 verdict, but that couldn't be reached. Which means at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 of the Jury returned a guilty verdict based on the prosecution and defences evidence. How on earth do you come up with the idea that 9 members of the jury found her guilty? I didn't say that, I said between 3 and 9 members of the jury found her guilty. The failure to return a 10-2 verdict. You are referring to the first trial when they could not reach a verdict. Yet a few days later a jury hearing the very same 'evidence' finds her not guilty. Don't you think it highly likely that the first trial split was 9-3 in her favour?
And I bet you a pound to a penny that if you found out it was 4-8 in favour of a guilty verdict your stance on the accuser still wouldn't change. What that he is a feckless drug addict? No it wouldn't. Clearly being accused of a crime you may not have committed is terrible. That's one side of the coin. But what is your message to those who have actually been sexually abused as children and later become alcoholics or drug addicts to deal with the pain? That they are 'feckless', 'just some addict' making 'poor life choices' and should be considered liars by default? That's why the case went to court - to decide. The first jury was much less certain than you it seems, even though they were privy to the facts. You know better of course.
He was not abused though - she was found not guilty. Also absurd to suggest that childhood experiences inextricably lead to drug addiction. Certainly what drug users say should be treated with a great deal of caution, they tend to do and say anything that will help them feed their chosen life style. I was stating that since you're willing to tar dug addicts in such a way with your 'just a drug addict' talk what would be your attitude towards those abused as children who find themselves in this exact situation? A shrug of the shoulders it seems. I also didn't claim that these experiences inextricably lead to drug addiction. I'm saying that those with such histories are more likely to have such issues than is typical. In your latest reply 'drug users' is such a vague almost meaningless term too but that's another issue. You appear to be claiming that people routinely make up child abuse claims to get money for drugs, which is of course a fantastical claim in its own right. Edited by oldcodger (14 Sep 2015 2.03pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Sep 15 1.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Say she did bone him, didnt seem to fussed at the time did he ? He was probably bang up for it, I know if one of my teachers (Miss Sullivan) was snogging my cock I would be over the friggin moon. Not depressed and start doing gear. Blokes a chancer end of.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 14 Sep 15 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 14 Sep 2015 1.40pm
Say she did bone him, didnt seem to fussed at the time did he ? He was probably bang up for it, I know if one of my teachers (Miss Sullivan) was snogging my cock I would be over the friggin moon. Not depressed and start doing gear. Blokes a chancer end of.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.