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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
Manny F said:
The brother had been seen on the first night wandering outside on his mobile three times, then the wife had phone contact during the overnight break with Tecwen Whittock the alleged cougher (who she‘d never met). And then there was the four pagers belonging to her brother that she made a load of calls to, why would anyone do that? And the other contestant sitting next to the cougher who refused to applaud as he knew something was going on. And the fact that the production crew sussed something was going on during the show. Then throw in the main evidence, actual tapes of the coughing both from the wife and the bloke she contacted at the right answers.
Bearing in mind also the fact that she and her brother were previous contestants as was the cougher and she was writing a book on how to beat the system. And the Ingrams owned a ‘practice’ Fast Finger machine. On their own any of those things could be explained but surely no jury could hear all that and return any other verdict.
Click to expand...
I watched a couple of the other Millionaire UK winner shows yesterday. One Irish bloke and one pretty elderly English bloke. Both came across really well. And their games were so smooth. Clearly nothing untoward going on.

And then watch the Major. So different. He’s all over the place. The Craig David question alone is dodgy as fuck. “Oh, I’m sure it’s A1, never even heard of Craig David. Mmmmm, Craig David. [wife coughs] OK, Craig David, final answer.”

Haway man :lol:
 


sidneyeric said:
For "the result" they are under a huge amount of pressure when incidents like this occur.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is they then know they've left a killer on the loose. That wouldn't sit well with me and I'd say the vast majority of cops would feel the same.
Then they have to convince the cps to prosecute an innocent man. Followed by convincing a judge and jury that's he's guilty.
 
niceonemarra said:
Ok seems though its a documentary I'll post it.

The person who made the film Richard D Hall is a conspiracy theorist and believes in Aliens.

Please only ridicule the film/content and not the film maker if you can help it.

Exit From Brexit - The Jo Cox Departure

www.richplanet.net www.richplanet.net
Click to expand...

I watched that documentary and I agree that it made a compelling case.... made the mistake of watching some of his additional output which was much wackier
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
In fairness I was at the very best playing off the thread title of "criminal case". OJ did it and while people point to accusations of racism and stunts the trial was won and lost at what is now in US law recognised as the main factor in justice - the jury selection. Seriously. It took two months to whittle a 250 person pool down. While people were deselected for a lot of reasons when you look at it the defence had only one goal - find 12 people that would never trust dry scientific analysis of this new-fangled DNA evidence stuff. The prosecution had a trail going from the lasses house, through OJs jeep, back to his house back to the glove. All his blood. The defence just had to find 12 people who were "sick of being told what to think by academics" and they did.
Click to expand...

Also some of the jurors have since publically stated it was their chance to get "revenge" on uncle Sam for the injustice of the Rodney King beating verdict.
 
That poster on here who defended Tony Trott and his gang. People should know who I'm talking about.
 
weebil64 said:
In your empty head maybe.
Click to expand...
I wish it was just in my empty head mate, I cant ignore facts and hard evidence though. An innocent man is in jail for life but its not the first time that has happened unfortunately and wont be the last.
 
Osklen said:
Kiza Sosay? (Sorry).
Click to expand...
Had to look that up I've never seen the film.
niceonemarra said:
I wish it was just in my empty head mate, I cant ignore facts and hard evidence though. An innocent man is in jail for life but its not the first time that has happened unfortunately and wont be the last.
Click to expand...
Did the evidence that Hall said proved Mair innocent get brought up in court? If it did why was it dismissed by judge and jury? Genuine questions I didn't follow the court case. It looked cut and dried, just a matter of going through the motions then finding him guilty.
 
Last edited:
zinedine said:
Did the evidence that Hall said proved Mair innocent get brought up in court? If it did why was it dismissed by judge and jury? Genuine questions I didn't follow the court case. It looked cut and dried, just a matter of going through the motions then finding him guilty.
Click to expand...
I cant remember but its covered in this documentary iirc, I'm just rewatching it and only onto part 2 so I'll get back to you on that. Exit From Brexit - The Jo Cox Departure
 
MrOompapa said:
That poster on here who defended Tony Trott and his gang. People should know who I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
No body defended Trott and his gang, they were put away for shooting at a house when it wasn't them, they were found guilty because a grass said he over heard someone in a restaraunt say it was them, he was lying because he'd been caught trying to bring 50 kilo's of import purity Cocaine into the country, this is a fact. In every case cell siting has been used to make the accused look guilty, both Trott and Ratty's phone showed they were no where near that house at the time of the shooting but it was decided that the info this time was faulty.

www.casemine.com

Ratcliff, R. v | [2019] EWCA Crim 2267 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Get free access to the complete judgment in Ratcliff, R. v on CaseMine.
www.casemine.com www.casemine.com
 
Osklen said:
Sorry if I’ve spoilt it for you. A great film.
Click to expand...
Nah it hasn't spoilt anything, it's not my kind of film.
As I get older I find I don't want to watch films with a lot of violence in them. Used to love a good Arnie with bullets flying everywhere and the body count higher than the budget. At least arnies were kind of tongue in cheek. But now I don't watch violent films.
 
sidneyeric said:
No body defended Trott and his gang, they were put away for shooting at a house when it wasn't them, they were found guilty because a grass said he over heard someone in a restaraunt say it was them, he was lying because he'd been caught trying to bring 50 kilo's of import purity Cocaine into the country, this is a fact. In every case cell siting has been used to make the accused look guilty, both Trott and Ratty's phone showed they were no where near that house at the time of the shooting but it was decided that the info this time was faulty.

www.casemine.com

Ratcliff, R. v | [2019] EWCA Crim 2267 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Get free access to the complete judgment in Ratcliff, R. v on CaseMine.
www.casemine.com www.casemine.com
Click to expand...
There was also a statement from the people who's house was shot at that said it wasn't them that was hidden via disclosure
 
zinedine said:
Nah it hasn't spoilt anything, it's not my kind of film.
As I get older I find I don't want to watch films with a lot of violence in them. Used to love a good Arnie with bullets flying everywhere and the body count higher than the budget. At least arnies were kind of tongue in cheek. But now I don't watch violent films.
Click to expand...

been a while since I’ve watched it but i can’t recall it being too violent (could be wrong mind you), just a very clever crime movie. Might have to watch it again.
 

Back
Top