andymcnish
Striker
yup
.......and its a dodgy case, I'll await input from the appeals court and subsequent additional evidence being seen. Currently though, the man is a convicted rapist in the eyes of the law
It's not at all 'dodgy'. 12 jury members and 5 judges have looked at it already and not one of them had any issue with him being guilty.
Just because you don't understand the law of rape or of criminal convictions and have got most of your 'evidence' from his girlfriend's website doesn't make it 'dodgy'.
The motto is quite simple - if you are going to have sex with a girl who is very pissed, try to act in a way that doesn't make you look like a lying (to get access to the key) predatory (turning up in response to the text) cowardly (sneaking off via the window and fire escape) scumbag (leaving a girl to wake up and piss herself alone in a hotel room) to a jury or they might actually convict you.
The night porter saw the girl when she arrived to go into the room - he said she was extremely intoxicated. Then McDonald comes out just before they leave to ask the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'.
But the Defence is trying to make out she wasn't very intoxicated and you believe them? Why?
Last edited: