Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Flutterby, post: 2255722, member: 1853"] I disagree - there is nothing to say that he "bought their bullshit", but that there is no actual evidence to PROVE he glassed her. No-one was there but the 2 of them and they have presented a potential plausible alternative scenario, which then brings into play reasonable doubt based on actual evidence. Fact is - there is no proof one way or the other as to which of the 2 scenarios actually happened, so the judge had no option but to uphold the appeal. He probably feels just as bad about having to make that decision but that's the way it is. TBH - the original judge had no actual proof either and probably should have found him not guilty. The basic problem in cases like this lies in the way our judicial system works - PROOF beyond reasonable doubt, not "most likely scenario" or circumstantial evidence. I don't like it in cases like this, but then again there are probably a lot of innocent people who would have served time if not for this system. But Bird knows what really happened and has to live with that and I believe that he will get what he deserves one day. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)