stupot07
Well-Known Member
How so?
It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty. you can still be guilty of a crime even if found innocent, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if there's a lack of tangible evidence or a fuck up on procedure defendants will get off, doesn't mean they never committed the crime - plenty of offenders get off or don't get prosecuted due to lack of evidence despite them committing the actual crime - Al Capone for eg was responsible for numerous murders, but the police couldn't get the evidence so is only guilty of tax evasion - he's still a murderous b*#^?~d.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal. no one has said this
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be. see above.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters) no one has said this, however this is the point - there's a fine line between questioning the safety of the verdict and calling in to question the victims integrity - she wasn't drunk, she was bragging about them being footballers/she's lied,/her skirt was too short/she knew what she was doing/she was asking for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors