cartoon

















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.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Attitudes & Opinions arrow Police, false accusers and jurors.
Police, false accusers and jurors. PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 09 July 2017
Does somebody who knows about the current legal situation know the answer to this?

These days, all False Accuser statements are, I assume, video taped.

Surely if someone like crooked Danny Day (the guy who falsely accused retired fireman David Bryant of rape) was seen in the original video by the jury, they would have spotted him as a liar?

We know police are told "they must be believed" and come up with rubbish like "you are not at fault" even if the false accuser is clearly after money but the camera must reveal licked lips, constant sips of water, shifty eyes, contrasts when they have to slip into the fantasy compared to the truth.

Police obviously notice this but are instructed only to get convictions and not the truth. But a jury, seeing those taped interviews before the liars have had professional instruction and time to rehearse, would see straight through the lies.

Are they shown these tapes during trials?

The contrast between the original shifty lies and the later groomed slick show would be revealing, to say the least.

 
< Prev   Next >