Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Mad_Moriarty, Sep 5, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Ive always kept an open mind on the conviction of Barry George.
Did he or did he not???
None of them did it.
Lie to your lawyer
Lie to the police
Lie to the court
Leave to simmer for 2 years.
Spend jail time researching every document associated with your case, especially the more obscure weighty scientific documents.
Find a spelling mistake (or a semtex-related chemical that is also found on playing cards in minute quantites). Tell a friend who tells a journalist.
Awaiting 'startling new evidence' to be uncovered.
Conviction = unsafe
Compensation = Â£1m +
I've always said that the guy was fitted up, simply because the Old Bill were desperate to find a culprit.
But if he's found not guilty (as he should be), who did do it?
"But if he's found not guilty (as he should be), who did do it?"
So you know all the evidence then do you?
Why are you ascerting he should be found not guilty?
What is it that you know that the jury did not?
How do you know he was fitted up?
I didn't say I know he was fitted up, Inf/MP. And I only followed the case as closely as the media allowed. However, I chanced upon a website dealing with miscarriages of justice and this case was on there with all the evidence that led to the conviction. As my Grandpa used to say: "'Twas t'in, 'twas ferocious t'in!"
As far as I remember, it was only that one grain in his sky which led to his conviction. Not what you'd call "beyond reasonable doubt", is it? Apart from that, I happened to be working for the BBC at the time and had a very interesting chat with the ammo expert who was interviewed for the case. In the light of what he told me, I don't believe that George had either the tools, the knowledge or the skill to download a 9 mm case like that.
Tonights PANORAMA show will be of interest.
Bugsy - WTF does thzat mean?????
"'Twas t'in, 'twas ferocious t'in!"
Sorry, CDT_Dodger! An' dere wozz me t'inkin' y'understood an Oirish accent.
"It was thin (the evidence), ferocious thin!"
Mind you, "thzat" had me scratching me dumpling as well.
Mmmm, because the police never lie, dissemble or just get it wrong, do they? I somehow doubt Colin Stagg or the family of Jean Charles Menendez would have the same confidence as you appear to have.
Several cases left me feeling uneasy when I studied the information available in the public domain, namely;
a) Colin Stagg/Rachel Nickel
c) Russell Murders (Stone?)
d) Jeremy Bamber
I don't want to start a 'slag off the ol' bill' debate but it seems to me that their formula goes something like.....
High profile case+no result=bad publicity=fit up a nutcase!
(I have no idea whether i'm right or wrong in any of the above but i'm glad I wasn't in the jury!)
I'm not bothered if they re-open the case - I've got an alibi, I was on a rugby tour in Belgium with forty other blokes!
Did anyone watch the docu. The Gunshot residue is very a sticky point, and the a prosecution witness having an a affair with one of the investigating officers, I still have an open mind on this conviction.
I never thought he was guilty in the first place, there was no real evidence only circumstantial, and that was beyond credibility.
I know he looks a wierdo and does Walt things, but it wasn't a walt that killed her, he (The killer) new his stuff. IMHO.
free him now, with a million in his arrse pocket.
I mean come one, The neighbour of Dando who looked out his window and saw the person who shot her, could not even pick out Barry George in a line up!!!.
Separate names with a comma.