Jill Dando

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:27:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> Ron Hicks wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:20:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>> No: there was insufficeint sound evdence to maintain a conviction on
>>> Barry george, that's all.
>>>
>>>> So WHO the hell did?
>>>>
>>> Barry George.
>>
>> So can/will he be rearrested for it?
>>
> Not enough evidence is there?

Usual old thing, police playing 'pin the tail on the vulnerable donkey'.
This poor man has lost 8 years of his life for being a bit weird. You
could lock most usenet posters up for that.

High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab someone
so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do they look
stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.

--
I collect spam + please send it to: [email protected]

---

› See More: Jill Dando

Klunk wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:27:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
> empty day by writing:
>
>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:20:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>>>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>>> No: there was insufficeint sound evdence to maintain a conviction on
>>>> Barry george, that's all.
>>>>
>>>>> So WHO the hell did?
>>>>>
>>>> Barry George.
>>> So can/will he be rearrested for it?
>>>
>> Not enough evidence is there?
>
> Usual old thing, police playing 'pin the tail on the vulnerable donkey'.
> This poor man has lost 8 years of his life for being a bit weird. You
> could lock most usenet posters up for that.
>

Or equally, here's a mentally disturbed nutter, with a history of
stalking women, who was in the area, and seems to have been using a gun..


> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab someone
> so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do they look
> stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>

Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?

Not a lot at all.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:00:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>

AFAIR it is down to the crown to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
When you took away the tainted spec of gunpowder there was nothing but a
circumstantial case. That is simply not a sound basis to lock a man up.

The plod responsible for this want to be f**king horsewhipped in public,
IMHO.



--
I collect spam + please send it to: [email protected]

"The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
> Not a lot at all.

So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is enough
evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
didn't do it?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab
>> someone so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do
>> they look stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
> Not a lot at all.

What evidence is there that you haven't murdered a few childeen in the past?

Not a lot at all.

--
marc

Klunk wrote:

> AFAIR it is down to the crown to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
> When you took away the tainted spec of gunpowder there was nothing but a
> circumstantial case. That is simply not a sound basis to lock a man up.
>
> The plod responsible for this want to be f**king horsewhipped in public,
> IMHO.

You've got that the wrong way around. You certainly can lock a man up
for that, but it's not down to the police to lock him away for life (or
eight years). That's down to a court and a jury.

Barry George may well have shot her and simply got lucky. The fact is,
however, that there is not enough evidence to convict him.

--
marc

"I will eat RTD's cock, assuming it is on offer." -- Aggy

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>
>> Not a lot at all.
>>
>
>
>
> since when did court cases work that way!? - prove your innocence or
> that means you're guilty.
>
>
>
Exactly. We PRESUME innocence UNLESS there is overwhelming evidence of
guilt.

That is the LEGAL position.

The REAL position is that lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt does NOT constitute evidence of innocence.

Gandalph wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>
>> Not a lot at all.
>
> So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is enough
> evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
> didn't do it?
>
>
Probably the fact that I could provide demonstrable evidence I was
somewhere else at the time. Probably here in fact.

marc_CH wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab
>>> someone so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do
>>> they look stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>>
>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>
>> Not a lot at all.
>
> What evidence is there that you haven't murdered a few childeen in the
> past?
>
> Not a lot at all.
>
I see you are catching on.

Ive murdered millions of childeen*

*a sort of small bacterium, that dies on contact with man flesh. ;-)

"Ron Hicks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>

She was the presenter of Crimewatch.

I think someone did it to prove to themselves they could commit the perfect
murder.

The Met' of course had to fit someone in the frame or lose face, so they
picked up local dork Barry George. A slight cock up with the forensic
(microscopic cross contamination at the police lab) and a load of "would you
want this creep living next door to you" from the CPS and 'case solved'.

"The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gandalph wrote:
> > "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
> >>
> >> Not a lot at all.
> >
> > So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is
enough
> > evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
> > didn't do it?
> >
> >
> Probably the fact that I could provide demonstrable evidence I was
> somewhere else at the time. Probably here in fact.

That doesn't prove a thing. Ever hear of a bit of technology called a lap
top computer? I think you should be sent down for seven years as your proof
you didn't so it is so weak. ;-)

"Ron Hicks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
Another example of the lack of investigative skills in CID
as the treasury keeps cutting their funding. Almost no
constabularies now have a fraud dept.

Thick CID officers rely on their bevy of cultivated
paid informants to get them info, DNA labs to get evidence,
and the Public to inform

If any case goes beyond those limited capabilities
you can whistle the case goodbye.

The only place real deductive skills now exist is in drama and movies

Steve Terry

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:34:08 +0100, "Steve Terry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Ron Hicks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>
>> So WHO the hell did?
>>
>Another example of the lack of investigative skills in CID
>as the treasury keeps cutting their funding. Almost no
>constabularies now have a fraud dept.
>
>Thick CID officers rely on their bevy of cultivated
>paid informants to get them info, DNA labs to get evidence,
>and the Public to inform
>
>If any case goes beyond those limited capabilities
>you can whistle the case goodbye.
>
>The only place real deductive skills now exist is in drama and movies

And a sleepy country village in Great Western territory called St.
Mary Mead, is the murder capital of the world.

>Steve Terry
>

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:36:39 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>And a sleepy country village in Great Western territory called St.
>Mary Mead, is the murder capital of the world.

Not these days, you want Midsomer for that.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Gandalph wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Gandalph wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>>>
>>>> Not a lot at all.
>>> So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is
> enough
>>> evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
>>> didn't do it?
>>>
>>>
>> Probably the fact that I could provide demonstrable evidence I was
>> somewhere else at the time. Probably here in fact.
>
> That doesn't prove a thing. Ever hear of a bit of technology called a lap
> top computer? I think you should be sent down for seven years as your proof
> you didn't so it is so weak. ;-)
>
>
And how would a lap top in london, send from this fixed IP address?..