Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,639
Another cracking show tonight but my god the charges at the end were pathetic!
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Another cracking show tonight but my god the charges at the end were pathetic!
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
What channel is this on?
Solicitors are *****
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
We were watching last night and asking ourselves how solicitors can act like that one did last night. Nothing to do with getting to the truth or justice, seemed to be about being as awkward as possible. If his client was innocent, let him prove his innocence instead of the 'no comment' cobblers.
We were watching last night and asking ourselves how solicitors can act like that one did last night. Nothing to do with getting to the truth or justice, seemed to be about being as awkward as possible. If his client was innocent, let him prove his innocence instead of the 'no comment' cobblers.
The ****ing body was in his ****ing garden! How much more evidence do you want ffs!But without evidence (and the officers claimed they had some but nothing came of it) the only evidence they may produce would result from the interviews. Therefore it's obvious the lawyer was doing the right thing (as far as his client is concerned) to tell his client to decline to do so.
The guy he represented was awkward but also a physical wreck, with perhaps a very short life-expectancy. He was only suspected of aiding a crime, not being the perp himself but even if he was, it's unclear there would be much purpose served but him being cared for at the expense of the taxpayer at HM's pleasure.
You cannot prove a negative (eg innocence), and it is for a jury prove guilt. The judge threw out the case against his so he, as it stands, is by definition innocent, although I imagine he has the worst life imaginable, which might be the best justice achievable in the circumstances.
The ****ing body was in his ****ing garden! How much more evidence do you want ffs!
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
The ****ing body was in his ****ing garden! How much more evidence do you want ffs!
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
His answer to that was to say that his alcoholism, and associated health problems, meant that, for a lot of the time, he didn’t know who was in his garden or what they were doing there.The ****ing body was in his ****ing garden! How much more evidence do you want ffs!
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
I wondered when a member of the moron gang would turn up talking bollocksYou do realise the evidence and facts presently will be stongly biased towards what the documentary makers want, which is to get a reaction out of you so you'll come on the internet and talk about it and then tune in next week?
I haven't seen this week's but caught up last night to this one. I said straight away that there is no public interest in sending her down unless it was to get her of drugs. Then she got two years but attended drug rehabilitation but they didn't say if she is still off it.Simlly brilliant telly. Last week's episode about the moved body, and the acccused's account of events was really moving.