Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: And if you watch Real Crime tonight...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
The Cat |
No decent person could object to the restoration of the burden of proof. I don't mean the modern police interpretation of the word, but genuine proof as in evidence that is indisputable. This would also involve restoring the presumption of innocence. |
|
Anthony |
What an astonishing story. It was quite clear that the police knew Kiszko could not have committed the crime because of the indisputable forensic evidence. They simply did not care. They had nailed someone, got a result, and that is all that mattered. Forget the fact that an innocent man, particularly ill equipped to cope with imprisonment, was left to rot for 16 years. There cannot be much doubt that the police were directly responsible for his untimely death.
The most sickening aspect of the whole affair? The guilty police officers were not charged with perverting the course of justice as it all happened so long ago, and they could not be guaranteed a fair trial. Pity the same logic was not applied to your case, JK, (and countless others, I'm sure) where there was not even any evidence to back up the argument for a fair trial. This is totally disgraceful, and as BR would no doubt say, this really is an example of one law for the police and one for everyone else. |
|
JK2006 |
remember they would have made it about Kisko before he was cleared - so take the latest "real killer" with a pinch of salt.
Really, what kind of society are we living in? |
|
|
|
