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: Me in my Thirties
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Honey	JK2006 wrote: there are so many further pieces of evidence that the 2001 trial was totally unfair by today's standards. Back then things like failure to disclose vital evidence was just shrugged off. It still amazes me that, having proved TWICE that I was not in the country on two of the dates claimed, the judge simply allowed the prosecution to change the dates to later without allowing me a second to find alternative alibi proof. All of this is currently with the CCRC. But what sort of lunatic could ever think that this is acceptable?
JK2006	there are so many further pieces of evidence that the 2001 trial was totally unfair by today's standards. Back then things like failure to disclose vital evidence was just shrugged off. It still amazes me that, having proved TWICE that I was not in the country on two of the dates claimed, the judge simply allowed the prosecution to change the dates to later without allowing me a second to find alternative alibi proof. All of this is currently with the CCRC.
Honey	JK2006 wrote: He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him. I bet it didn't!
Wyot	JK2006 wrote: He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him. An unfair view of the relationship...what a strange notion. It seems to imply that the jury must ignore the reality of the relationship at the time by only visualising you as an older rather than younger man. That the jury must have the maximum sense of power imbalance and exploitation protected. Concerning. (PS totally get that you may not wish to comment further on this).
JK2006	He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him.