A criminal case where you think the guilty person is innocent.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
A lot of people think that James Earl Ray; the man convicted of assassinating Martin Luther King was stitched up.

Even MLK’s family think he was innocent. Well, innocent of the killing anyway.
 


TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Let's just imagine that it's completely true, that he had no idea of the answers and they arranged for a stranger (to them) to cough on the right answers during an 8 minute phone call. Would you risk £418K on a cough that might have come from somewhere else anyway? And how could they know Whittock was 100% reliable? Plenty of people think they know the right answers then find their memory's not what they thought. Do you really think that when he could walk away with £500K to pay off all their debts he's going to gamble almost the lot?

When you look at it objectively it's bonkers.
Click to expand...
I totally agree it's a stupid thing especially if it had been a case of him going in there knowing nothing and relying on Whittock to cough him all the way to £1m but I wouldn't have thought it was that cut and dried. Apparently he was heard having a big row with his missus in the dressing room immediately after coming off set which people thought (admittedly didn't know) was because he gambled when he was already on £500k so maybe he went off-plan there. If it wasn't about that then why argue at a time like that? Bearing in mind the bloke is a chancer who a couple of years later was convicted of insurance fraud (based partly on claims from before the show).

Also he will have had some idea himself of some of the answers and he will have been prepared for the cougher not knowing all the answers but hoefully able to fill the gaps as people know about different areas of knowledge. You could see him changing his mind and going through the options with pauses, as if setting it up for the coughs. And he knew where the bloke was sitting. Yes you're right it's still a gamble but if I understand it right if there had been no cough (because Whittock wasn't sure of the answer) or if Ingram hadn't been sure it was the right person coughing, then he could have just taken the money he'd already got.

The other question that came up is why would they ask Whittock to help when he only won £1000 when he was up there himself but it doesn't work like that, I would have known the last two answers but would have been long gone by then as there were some I didn't know before that.
 
Manny F said:
Apparently he was heard having a big row with his missus in the dressing room immediately after coming off set which people thought (admittedly didn't know) was because he gambled when he was already on £500k so maybe he went off-plan there.
Click to expand...
We only have vague third hand accounts of the so-called argument, which could have been because of his mucking about. Tarrant has been on the radio this week saying he was in the dressing room celebrating with them with champagne and noticed nothing. He noticed nothing untoward all night.
 
niceonemarra said:
Tommy Mair - I believe he is innocent and didn't murder Jo Cox.

That conspiracy theorist Richard D Hall convinced me after he did an independent investigation.
Click to expand...
I've just googled that and read some of the reasons that he believes Mair is innocent.
The police knew and used his name when he was arrested minutes after the killing. Nobody at the murder scene recognised and gave a name so the police couldn't have known it.
The timings of the murder and all events after are all wrong according to Hall. The killer in the cctv pictures walking away has completely different movements and body language to Mair including a limp.
His mixed race half brother and other people who knew him said they knew nothing of his far right leanings.
But why would the police frame an innocent man knowing that a real killer is going to go free? That's the question I ask when the police are accused of a stitch up. It doesn't make sense and why did they pick on Mair? Why did the judge and jury dismiss all the evidence that Hall says means Mair is innocent?
 
Last edited:
zinedine said:
I've just googled that and read some of the reasons that he believes Mair is innocent.
The police knew and used his name when he was arrested minutes after the killing. Nobody at the murder scene recognised and gave a name so the police couldn't have known it.
The timings of the murder and all events after are all wrong according to Hall. The killer in the cctv pictures walking away has completely different movements and body language to Mair including a limp.
His mixed race half brother and other people who knew him said they knew nothing of his far right leanings.
But why would the police frame an innocent man knowing that a real killer is going to go free? That's the question I ask when the police are accused of a stitch up. It doesn't make sense and why did they pick on Mair? Why did the judge and jury dismiss all the evidence that Hall says means Mair is innocent?
Click to expand...
For "the result" they are under a huge amount of pressure when incidents like this occur.
 
zinedine said:
The police knew and used his name when he was arrested minutes after the killing.
Click to expand...
Exactly, there's no way they could have known his name. One of them shouted "are you Tommy Mair" just before rugby tackling him to the ground. They were not armed response either so had no business confronting him. If Tommy had a gun in his bag he could have just shot them.
 
zinedine said:
I've just googled that and read some of the reasons that he believes Mair is innocent.
The police knew and used his name when he was arrested minutes after the killing. Nobody at the murder scene recognised and gave a name so the police couldn't have known it.
The timings of the murder and all events after are all wrong according to Hall. The killer in the cctv pictures walking away has completely different movements and body language to Mair including a limp.
His mixed race half brother and other people who knew him said they knew nothing of his far right leanings.
But why would the police frame an innocent man knowing that a real killer is going to go free? That's the question I ask when the police are accused of a stitch up. It doesn't make sense and why did they pick on Mair? Why did the judge and jury dismiss all the evidence that Hall says means Mair is innocent?
Click to expand...

Kiza Sosay? (Sorry).
 
I know the Sparrow confessed to killing Cock Robin with his bow and arrow but if you look carefully at the evidence the Sparrow isn't capable of holding a bow and arrow. I think it was a thieving magpie.
 
niceonemarra said:
Tommy and his holdall was filmed by a bystander when he was arrested, the bag that was shown in the media a few days later with the weapons inside was a very similar looking bag but a close up of both bags shows the stitching is completely different on the handles.

The person who attacked Cox turns up at the arrest site in plain clothes with the police.

The 2 policemen who orchestrated the event are named and their pictures are given.

A serving armed police officer who watched the independent documentary gives evidence that the arrest of Tommy was a sham.

The person who was captured on CCTV walking away from the murder was not Mair and this has been confirmed by a body language expert.

Tommy's next door neighbor and his Brother also give evidence of his character and it is a million miles away from what was portrayed in the media.
-
I am a man of evidence and having watched the investigation I am completely convinced that Mair is innocent. I am that convinced that he is innocent that I welcome him round my mams house for a nice cuppa tea and a natter about what went on.
Click to expand...
is you tin-foil had home-made or is there places you can go for proper fittings?
 

Back
Top