![]() |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
She was shot just after she announced that she was going to be married. The Police thought it was going to be an open and closed case, look through her diary, find a disgruntled ex, job done.
Problem was there were a hell of a lot of men friends listed in the diary, all of them well to do and able to afford a good brief, fall back on Plan B, arrest the village idiot, job done, pats on the back and promotion all round, *******s. |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
They find some forensics (no mean feat after 13 months) and evidence of deeply unhealthy obsessions with guns, celebrities and women and put that evidence to court resulting in a conviction. Contrary to what some people think the Police don't just fit up the first person they find so they can get back out and issue speeding tickets. I'm not 100% convinced he didn't do it. |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
Speeding tickets can be a nice little earner, especially dealing with someone where the points will result in a ban. ;) |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
There are also some extremely stupid people who get found out very easily. I'm certain there are some very intelligent people, some extremely stupid people and plenty in-between who have killed people and not seen the inside of a court or prison. From my memory of when this happened it didn't seem particularly organised at the time, someone who had thought about it would have pushed her inside the house to conceal the body for longer etc. etc. As for making good his escape, if you live in an area and know the local rat-runs and lanes it would be easy enough for him to make his way home, from there he had a year to get rid of the gun. ---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ---------- Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
He didnt know the victim personally so there was no link, he didnt have to get rid of a body, there was no dna or fibres to be found, all he had to do was have an alibi and he didnt do that. |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
|
Re: Not Guilty?
I didn't know his IQ level until now, but I still thought they didn't have case, well not on the basis of a speck gunpower that was less than 1000th of inch and was found a year after the shooting. Now to me that can't be classed as evidence, well not enough to convict anyway.
|
Re: Not Guilty?
Link
The poor sods get some crap defence lawyer, the result is a foregone conclusion. In the Barry George case they are now saying that technology has advanced in the intervening years and the thinking now is that he could have acquired the dust from anywhere, it was all BS at the time and they knew it. Experts, I've **** em! |
Re: Not Guilty?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even putting the bottom 2 together it was a nice area of London, you wouldnt pay any attention. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum