Lady_H said:Ummm why has this been brought up??? Rather random?
Hope her sister isn't looking on this site!...
While we're on the subject what happened to that Lord bloke, who supposedly fell out of a plane, but didn't really?
Was it Lord Litchfield or summink??? he must be knocking on a bit now!
ugly said:Say what you want there are a lot of people who are very uncomfortable about this whole case.
police released info to the beeb
Again a total lack of info, no one even prosecution were convinced of a guilty verdict and the police release "dramatic facts" about his life and clothes that looked similar to those believed to be worn by the killer (no credible witness either).
Now if the rozzers ever searched my photo albums they could get a shrink to say I have an unhealthy lust for guns and killing. In fact they could say that about most persons posting on this website based on that alone!
ugly said:For all we know he could be innocent. I personally prefer the scottish system where a not proven verdict can be given. How many times have we seen someone acquitted such as Colin Stagg in the Rachel Nickel case and the police claim they are not looking for anyone else yet later on some one in the nick already admits to having done the crime?
I am not comfortable with his verdict.
Rapier said:12 members of the public listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. As opposed to people who have read the odd newspaper report and then decide.
Rapier said:A lot of Jury verdicts are by Majority, as it gives a chance for all of them to say "It wasn't me". However, the point is that he WAS found guilty by people that had heard all the evidence and not by those that based their opinions on what they read in a paper. So all the "I think they got the wrong man" posts are pretty pointless.