The not guilty verdict of Barry George
I for one am pleased to see that Barry George has been found not guilty of the murder of tv presenter Jill Dando. A few years ago i saw a programme,(cannot remember the name)which outlined the case and gave the evidence which led to his conviction.Have to admit an absolute travesty of justice. It was plain to see from the evidence presented that apart from being a weirdo and loner Barry George could not have killed Jill Dando. How was he ever convicted. If ever there was a case of (this is a high profile case we need a result so lets pick up any weirdo,s in the area at the time and charge them) then this must be it. Let us hope that this case is looked at very closely.There was almost no direct evidence against Barry George. Greetings Ademort
ademort
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura
0
Posts
This was always a travesty, nice to see the correct outcome at last!
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)
Jim
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
Your point being, exactly???????????????????????
Seems to me like he needed a secure mental fascility more than just locking up. :? He will now probably be watched for the rest of his life.
What did she know?
Who ordered the police to go after this Barry knobfluff?
hmmm
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
It's been a while since I studied criminal law, but I'm pretty sure that if you're accused of a crime the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did it - you don't have to offer any proof that you didn't. And in the absence of sufficient evidence, how would we know this Barry George character is the 'right one'? Because he's a bit odd? Because of his previous convictions? Seems to me that many involved in his conviction took the approach that 'common sense' said that he was guilty, and so didn't bother with actually considering the strength or otherwise of the evidence before them.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
My point was in reply to Ademort who is assuming that the wrong guy was banged up - I'm just asking the question do we know the wrong guy was banged up - ie is there evidence that proves he is innocent - or is there just insufficient evidence admissable in a court of law to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I'd have thought that was a fairly uncontroversial thing to point out but you live and learn.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.