King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: So many calls and messages
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Jo	That's a very good article and the comments are interesting too. honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: You can hardly blame people for not knowing that you can be convicted of something without evidence, because it sounds too ludicrous to be true. Hardly anybody believes me when I tell them about it. In some cases, I think there may also be an unwillingness to listen when someone questions convictions of this kind because of the idea that they might be doing so not because they think the defendant didn't do it but because they're an apologist for child abuse and don't consider it a crime - an idea that some seem to be all too happy to encourage in their quest to keep the tumbrils rolling.
JK2006	Thank you.
Prru	A very good piece.
MWTWATCHER	A great very truthful article JK.
JK2006	Agreed Honey; I seriously could not believe I could be convicted until I was. I actually said as much from the witness box "But there is no evidence" to which the horrid hairy backed prosecutor David Jeremy answered "we'll be the judge of that". The only "evidence" was 5 people saying similar things. As he pointed out - they had never met each other (until in the "Victims room" where, we gather, they compared notes and improved their statements). But they were all interviewed by the same police officers who told them the same things (as I say in my film). One officer even denied something she'd said to a "victim" (about compensation) not being aware that the man had told us in detail that she HAD - so one of the two was lying (or "mistaken" as lawyers put it). But the jury either failed to notice or didn't care. And as for media coverage… well that was hardly mentioned. Yet the "similar evidence" was simply gleaned from the pages of Britain's finest newspapers.