Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Moved on from what point? That they're dreadful people. That's obvious, but this shouldn't tarnish any court case...I'm not talking about the character of the defendants but the legal process and the problems this case has brought.. There seems to be an impression, by some, that because they are dreadful people it doesn't matter if they're locked up for life even if they didn't do it. Before the vultures circle, I'm not saying they didn't do it...I don't know and nobody does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoatScape Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yes I know that but that's their opinion I'm reading the evidence in the newspapers and asking myself the questions if I was on the jury. Are the questions and doubts you have based on what you read in the papers more substantial than the questions and doubts the jurors have when they are present at the trial, listening to both sides of the case, and seeing all the evidence? If they do reach a guilty verdict it means the defendants have been found guilty, but that doesn't mean they are guilty. It means the jury have listened to all the arguments and seen all the evidence and decided the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If this still doesn't mean they are guilty, which in a sense it doesn't, then it seems to me that that is a position that would be taken on all guilty verdicts, not just this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 History is littered with the cases of people who were found guilty but then released because they were innocent. They were found guilty, but they weren't really guilty, they were innocent.. In the eyes of the law they are guilty until proven innocent after a guilty verdict. Them knowing their innocent is only relevant to them, not the law of the land. That's why we have a judicial system rather than Wyatt Earp on a pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 In the eyes of the law they are guilty until proven innocent after a guilty verdict. Them knowing their innocent is only relevant to them, not the law of the land. That's why we have a judicial system rather than Wyatt Earp on a pony. What are you trying to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Are the questions and doubts you have based on what you read in the papers more substantial than the questions and doubts the jurors have when they are present at the trial, listening to both sides of the case, and seeing all the evidence? It means the jury have listened to all the arguments and seen all the evidence and decided the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If this still doesn't mean they are guilty, which in a sense it doesn't, then it seems to me that that is a position that would be taken on all guilty verdicts, not just this case. Indeed but that's only the case if the defendant has committed the crime, which most of the time they have, I'm talking about the small amount of cases when the defendant hasn't. I appreciate the point that we're only reading the evidence in the paper and it's difficult for us to reach an opinion, whereas the jury have a more detailed understanding. However, the same rule applies to the numerous posters on here who have declared them guilty only by evidence they have read, or heard, whereas I remain unbiased and interested in the legal aspects and intrigue of the case...I don't know if they're guilty...I haven't had the benefit of being in the court. If however the only evidence is the blood spec and this is the only evidence, I think it would be unwise to convict... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 What are you trying to say? Erm...what do you want me to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 14, 2011 Author Share Posted December 14, 2011 I see the prosecution has raised the issue of the secret recording of the alleged again. I don't understand why. The accused obviously didn't know they were being recorded and yet none of them mentioned the murder. This proves to me that they didn't do it and I'm sure this was a mistake by the prosecution.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddie Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I remember seeing a drama on TV about the "let him have it" case I think I was about ten at the time and it did effect me. Was it Derek Bentley? That was a shocking example of British "Justice.".. Yes it was Derek Bentley, he was found guilty and hanged for his crime. He was later given a Royal Pardon, his body exhumed them buried in consecrated ground, so that made it alright. British justice at it's finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.