Withdean South Stand
Well-known member
- Mar 2, 2014
- 681
This is a fascinating case which I'm sure will rumble on forever. This feels like a modern day Madeleine McCann.
That ancient Sugarbabes thread which was recently bounced is a good example. The state of some of those commentsWhilst of course you’re completely right I note your account is comparatively new, I don’t think you’d have been particularly impressed with NSC pre 2010![]()
I seem to recall many a milf thread descending into chaos and one of my favourites all though (i can’t find it) was post a naked picture of your exThat ancient Sugarbabes thread which was recently bounced is a good example. The state of some of those comments![]()
If you mean a person that knows what a man and women is then yes I am wokey woke woke boyOh no.
You're one of THOSE .
Why not just put the idiots on ignore instead, rather than have trolls kick you off a thread.What's this got to do with anything?
You're clearly in the camp of thinking having sex with a woman found guilty of killing babies is 'funny'.
You and your chums can carry on ... I'm out of here and putting this thread on ignore.
You’re quite right.FFS!
Can't the adults in the ton just so feeding the troll
Why not just put the idiots on ignore instead, rather than have trolls kick you off a thread.
They've already succeeded in de-railing the thread because they've got a response.
Trolling.If you mean a person that knows what a man and women is then yes I am wokey woke woke boy![]()
In actual fact, after posting my last message I decided what you suggested was the way to go. So a few have gone on ignore and I'm still here. And yes, I should have done that a few posts agoFFS!
Can't the adults in the ton just so feeding the troll
Why not just put the idiots on ignore instead, rather than have trolls kick you off a thread.
They've already succeeded in de-railing the thread because they've got a response.
Maybe I was right about the ban on folk using excessive smileys...Why are you now clapping and putting smiling emojis on people’s posts?
You mis-read the room. Get over it.
Not Guilty.
If you get the FULL shift chart, you can manipulate the deaths and pin it on any one of the nurse.
Edit: They even used Dr Shoo Lee paper from 1989 as evidence at the trial of skin discoloration as a sign of injecting air into the stomach. He as since updated the paper from 1989, in December last year. He wasnt even asked to be a witness as the writer of the paper at the trial.
Now Dr Shoo Lee as got an independent team of world leading neonatal experts together and done their own research and concluded the babies were not murdered.
He literally says in the press conference, he concludes they were no murders.They decided it was plausible they died by natural causes or through poor medical care. That isn’t the same as concluding they weren’t murdered.
She’s no Foxy KnoxyWould you drill her? All things considered I probably would.
He literally says in the press conference, he concludes they were no murders.
TBF, Foxy Knoxy IS rather special.She’s no Foxy Knoxy
If there is no medical evidence that the babies were murdered, then is it really possible to convict anyone of their murder? You would need some very robust statisitical evidence, for example, and that certainly wasn't there.He states ‘we did not find any murders’ that is not the same as concluding they weren’t murdered. He specifically stated ‘the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies’ - again this isn’t a conclusion they weren’t murdered, this is a conclusion the medical evidence in their opinion doesn’t support the case for murder.
Doesn't this happen with asphixiation cases such as murders in care homes? There may not be any definitive medical evidence a victim was murdered, but convictions are made based on all the evidence.If there is no medical evidence that the babies were murdered, then is it really possible to convict anyone of their murder? You would need some very robust statisitical evidence, for example, and that certainly wasn't there.
They actually did have an expert witness but didn’t call him. I don’t get it either.I'm still struggling to understand why her original defence team didn't find, and call upon, it's own medical and statistics experts to call upon, rather than just rely on questioning the prosecutions experts.
I know there was discussion on here about how the prosecution can often withhold valuable evidence, but it does seem that her original defence team wasn't quite doing it's job properly.
Or am I missing something?