sssss.

I'm saying this:

Me robbing a bank on Monday cannot ever be evidence (acceptable proof) that I robbed another bank on Friday.

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:


Yeas.....you have caught me there.  So.....to clarify:

Even though I deny I robbed a Bank on Monday, a Jury has concluded I did.....that conclusion by itself does not overcome my denial that I robbed a Bank on Friday, even if there is some suggestion I did.

Probably a very bad analogy to make what I thought was a simple point.  I should have stayed within the boundaries of allegations of sexual misconduct. 

Well done.

....a Jury has concluded I did.....that conclusion by itself does not overcome my denial that I robbed a Bank on Friday, even if there is some suggestion I did.....Aussie

Well  .. that is not  just a 'conclusion' is it ? .. it is a finding of Guilt by the Jury... you are GUILTY.

That FINDING by the JURY ??

Well .. surely it would apply if both robberies were witnessed...  the Monday one...  obviously..

the Friday Robbery was  SUGGESTED... ??  by whom...?  the Police..?? no witnesses..?? 

SEE AUSSIE  ??  Surely you know there is NO simple POINT when it comes to LAW.!!

eyewitness testimony is notoriously innacurate anyway and medical professionals are also notorious for implanting "experiences" in childrens minds. so where does that leave us?

Quote:


It wouldn't conclude that all are liars. There are other possibilities. It may be that one is lying, one misinterpreted, one is over exaggerating, one mistook identity, one remembered incorrectly...a mixture of some, none, all or other.
That's why each should be taken on it's merits. If you live long enough, you'll be exposed to many possibilities.
It seems likely that he has, at the very least, done some wrong things. But to what extent is hard to judge on the evidence I've seen...for me anyway.

Let's face it, with the Media and the Femnazis whipping up hysteria at every turn added to peoples natural repulsion for such crimes, anyone, RH included, when accused is required to PROVE his innocence, there is NO presumption of innocence any more.
How does an accused prove he DIDN'T do something?
Whatever you, I, or anyone else feels about the situation, it's the "twelve good men and true" sequestered in that room who will make the decision, and there's very little doubt which way that will go, is there?
Given the time it's taking I would presume there's at least one juror who feels uncomfortable with the "witch trial" that's taking place, irrespective of RH's guilt or otherwise.
The bottom line is that they're being asked to decide between one persons word and another's, the fact that there's several others shouldn't make any difference but the simple fact is that it will anyway.
RH doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting off, and never did, once the accusation went public he was done for, "and that's all she wrote".
Sad but true, like it or not.
It's all over bar the shouting, and the inevitable small fortunes the accusers will make selling their stories to the media, and I don't doubt for a moment that somewhere there's an agent working on a movie deal.