Tatman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 so a murderer should get away with murder just cos its a black man? It takes a twisted imagination to see that from what ive typed. Clear attempt to bait for reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 did you miss out my second bit on purpose where i said i said the bit you quoted as your talking like hes completely innocent, obviously NONE of us know any of the facts or evidence For what its worth i think hes innocent. If he were guilty theyd had got him the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 does it mean he wasnt guilty? innocent people have been locked up and found to be innocent, im sure guilty people get off with things too im sure we'll find out in due course whether hes guilty or not and what the newist evidence is? im sure guilty people hid behind the double jeopardy law to get off with things, why was it there anyway? surely if your in the frame twice theres more than enough reason to think your guilty? they dont just randomly accuse you twice with no good reason?? One is presumed innocent pre- conviction, the prosecution are obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, the prosecuting authorities go to trial with a 'tight' case when that case fails the defendant has been acquitted and that should be the end of the matter. Do we constantly re-try until the jury convicts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It takes a twisted imagination to see that from what ive typed. Clear attempt to bait for reaction. not to me, you seem to be accusing me of taking sides when in fact you instantly took a side too, trying to twist things to make out they were gunning for anybody purely to get a result, why would they get anybody purely for a conviction? you tell me? cos hes black? cos its taken them 18 years? cos theyre embarressed that they screwed up in the first place? maybe the guys theyve got are actually guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 You never think. I'm not interested in horse racing. Try the double jeopardy card. You'll no doubt be relieved BP that 3 wannabe Muslim terrorists originally acquitted of various terrorist offences in 2008, were subsequently returned to court in 2009 and convicted for offences they'd previously been found not guilty of and sent to prison. http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/muslim-terror-trials-in-the-wake-of-77/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 You'll no doubt be relieved BP that 3 wannabe Muslim terrorists originally acquitted of various terrorist offences in 2008, were subsequently returned to court in 2009 and convicted for offences they'd previously been found not guilty of and sent to prison. http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/muslim-terror-trials-in-the-wake-of-77/ If the Prosecution failed first time they shouldn't have been tried again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 not to me, you seem to be accusing me of taking sides There you go again. Jeez your a nutter. Do you SERIOUSLY believe what your typing? Well donr by the way, you got your reaction. Your a stirrer. P.S. I wont be responding to any more of your twisted, trouble causing posts. But ill respond the the sensible ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 For what its worth i think hes innocent. If he were guilty theyd had got him the last time. One is presumed innocent pre- conviction, the prosecution are obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, the prosecuting authorities go to trial with a 'tight' case when that case fails the defendant has been acquitted and that should be the end of the matter. Do we constantly re-try until the jury convicts? as i stated above coverage of this new trial mentions the **** ups and followup reports which resulted in the aquittel hence a new trial, they MUST think hes guilty to reopen it, especially as new laboratory evidence has come to light alledgedly so this arguement seems to be about two outcomes hes guilty and the cops know that hes innocent but they want somebody for it no matter what take your bets tbh i really do think theres more chance of the first option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 There you go again. Jeez your a nutter. Do you SERIOUSLY believe what your typing? Well donr by the way, you got your reaction. Your a stirrer. P.S. I wont be responding to any more of your twisted, trouble causing posts. But ill respond the the sensible ones. Mel never manages more than a one-liner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 There you go again. Jeez your a nutter. Do you SERIOUSLY believe what your typing? Well donr by the way, you got your reaction. Your a stirrer. P.S. I wont be responding to any more of your twisted, trouble causing posts. But ill respond the the sensible ones. hahahahaha spat the dummy out already you really really dont think youve taken a side in the debate from the off, id go back and read your previous posts, seems to me you were opting for the innocent but gonna be done anyway angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.