The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Apologies if I've splet the name wrong, I've only heard it on the news, so I'll spell it as George should be spelt.
Anywho, I'd just like to say that I'm rather shocked that a jury could find him guilty based upon the evidence supplied. The majority of it was circumstantional evidence! I reckon that whoever had of been on trial for the murder of Jill Dando would have been found guilty!
I'm not saying that Barry George is an innocent man, he may well have committed the crime, but considering that many of the witnesses gave very different discriptions of the man they saw, and a number of them didn't finger Barry in an identity parade?
Considering that OJ got off because he made his hand not fit a glove...mind you, that was America.
Is this justice? What if a celebrity had of been the one on trial here, and the victim had of been someone not famous. Would we have seen the same verdict?
Anywho, I'd just like to say that I'm rather shocked that a jury could find him guilty based upon the evidence supplied. The majority of it was circumstantional evidence! I reckon that whoever had of been on trial for the murder of Jill Dando would have been found guilty!
I'm not saying that Barry George is an innocent man, he may well have committed the crime, but considering that many of the witnesses gave very different discriptions of the man they saw, and a number of them didn't finger Barry in an identity parade?
Considering that OJ got off because he made his hand not fit a glove...mind you, that was America.
Is this justice? What if a celebrity had of been the one on trial here, and the victim had of been someone not famous. Would we have seen the same verdict?
Page:
Apologies if I've splet the name wrong, I've only heard it on the news, so I'll spell it as George should be spelt.
Anywho, I'd just like to say that I'm rather shocked that a jury could find him guilty based upon the evidence supplied. The majority of it was circumstantional evidence! I reckon that whoever had of been on trial for the murder of Jill Dando would have been found guilty!
I'm not saying that Barry George is an innocent man, he may well have committed the crime, but considering that many of the witnesses gave very different discriptions of the man they saw, and a number of them didn't finger Barry in an identity parade?
Considering that OJ got off because he made his hand not fit a glove...mind you, that was America.
Is this justice? What if a celebrity had of been the one on trial here, and the victim had of been someone not famous. Would we have seen the same verdict?
Anywho, I'd just like to say that I'm rather shocked that a jury could find him guilty based upon the evidence supplied. The majority of it was circumstantional evidence! I reckon that whoever had of been on trial for the murder of Jill Dando would have been found guilty!
I'm not saying that Barry George is an innocent man, he may well have committed the crime, but considering that many of the witnesses gave very different discriptions of the man they saw, and a number of them didn't finger Barry in an identity parade?
Considering that OJ got off because he made his hand not fit a glove...mind you, that was America.
Is this justice? What if a celebrity had of been the one on trial here, and the victim had of been someone not famous. Would we have seen the same verdict?
Had this argument this morning. (always nice to start the day off with a differing of views).
Yes, he is odd.
Yes he photographed women in his area
Yes he had unusual habits
That isn't illegal though.
No real evidence points to him.
I don't know...I'm not him or Dando, so I can never know.
But I do think the verdict is less than 100% certain
Yes, he is odd.
Yes he photographed women in his area
Yes he had unusual habits
That isn't illegal though.
No real evidence points to him.
I don't know...I'm not him or Dando, so I can never know.
But I do think the verdict is less than 100% certain
The trouble was of couse that the Jury wre instructed to return a verdict based on majority rather than 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'. So not everyone had to say guilty for the poor schmuck to be convicted.
Media and Mob pressure?? They were out for a lynchin', there was no way that guy was going to walk out. Oh the public moral outrage at justice being served, whipped into a frenzy by dumb @ss comments in the Sun.
Baaaaaa......
Media and Mob pressure?? They were out for a lynchin', there was no way that guy was going to walk out. Oh the public moral outrage at justice being served, whipped into a frenzy by dumb @ss comments in the Sun.
Baaaaaa......
Bang on there.
I think Barry George will be appealing for a lot of years to come.
I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm not saying he's guilty.
I'm saying I dont believe the case was 100% proof either way.
Dodgy.
I think Barry George will be appealing for a lot of years to come.
I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm not saying he's guilty.
I'm saying I dont believe the case was 100% proof either way.
Dodgy.
If and indeed If the television and Newspaper reports relating to this case are accurate then surly a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. There should be a full appeal by the Barry George and his legal representation and as for us as a nation we should question the legality of the conviction
I'll close my argument with this question. If the victim in this case had not been the TV presenter Jill Dando, if there had not been public outcry and extensive media coverage would we have convicted Barry George of Murder or would indeed the case even had got to court?
I'll close my argument with this question. If the victim in this case had not been the TV presenter Jill Dando, if there had not been public outcry and extensive media coverage would we have convicted Barry George of Murder or would indeed the case even had got to court?
It's quite obvious, in my opinion, what has and will happen. As usual a high profile crime is commited, the police spend a fortune finding a suspect, he is sent to court and due to media presure is convicted.
Next it will go to the appeals court who will through the case out because there is no propper evidence and he will go free only to be persecuted by society fr the rest of his life. in my opinion the media is too powerful and I recommend that every one reads the news from 'free' sources. If you read the volentier news sevices they are less biased as they are not desperate to improve ratings.
Next it will go to the appeals court who will through the case out because there is no propper evidence and he will go free only to be persecuted by society fr the rest of his life. in my opinion the media is too powerful and I recommend that every one reads the news from 'free' sources. If you read the volentier news sevices they are less biased as they are not desperate to improve ratings.
Ok, i'm not saying whether he's guilty or not, but can you really believe the defence argument of a Middle East hitman killing her?
I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the case, but it seemed that the main part of the defence was the idea that a hitman had killed her. If they couldn't prove that a hitman had done it, then the only option was for the jury to return a guilty verdict.
I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the case, but it seemed that the main part of the defence was the idea that a hitman had killed her. If they couldn't prove that a hitman had done it, then the only option was for the jury to return a guilty verdict.
You, if anyone should know Your Honour (given the name!) that it is not the job of the defence to come up with who actually did commit the crime.
It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove that someone else is guilty.
Besides, the arguement is not whether he's guilty or not, but how a case with such poor evidence ever came to court in the first place! Half of the witnesses didn't even manage to give a positive ID on George.
So, Your Honour (that just becomes so funny when we're discussing anything legal) I fail to believe that a jury could find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove that someone else is guilty.
Besides, the arguement is not whether he's guilty or not, but how a case with such poor evidence ever came to court in the first place! Half of the witnesses didn't even manage to give a positive ID on George.
So, Your Honour (that just becomes so funny when we're discussing anything legal) I fail to believe that a jury could find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
I would imagine they found him guilty as the defence evidence was even worse than the prosecutions!
As i said, i don't know all the ins and outs as i wasn't in the court room, but it would seem to me that the defence's job is to prove the prosecution wrong. Obviously they couldn't do this otherwise he woudln't have been found guilty.
If half the witnesses couldn't positivley ID him, then it is curious how it got to court in the first place.
I agree that the media probably had a sway over the outcome, which is wrong, but if the defence had concentrated on proving the prosecution wrong, rather than come up with stupid Middle East conspiracies he may not have been found guilty.
As i said, i don't know all the ins and outs as i wasn't in the court room, but it would seem to me that the defence's job is to prove the prosecution wrong. Obviously they couldn't do this otherwise he woudln't have been found guilty.
If half the witnesses couldn't positivley ID him, then it is curious how it got to court in the first place.
I agree that the media probably had a sway over the outcome, which is wrong, but if the defence had concentrated on proving the prosecution wrong, rather than come up with stupid Middle East conspiracies he may not have been found guilty.
The media chased him like the villagers going after Karloff with burning torches.
A touchy subject.
But no more touchy than Damilola Taylor or Stephen Lawrence.
But I dont see a massive police effort to catch those people.
Affluent White Celebrity?
"We will work around the clock until the killer is brought to justice"
Working/lower middle class ethnic children?
"Well, it's a bit difficult y'know? We can't just arrest anybody and try to convict them. I mean, we know who they are but it's hard to arrest them"
Saptal Ram?
"Well, I know he's in prison for murder. Yes ok, we agree that it was self-defence but it's just a tricky subject, you must understand"
Leaves a bad taste with me I'm afraid
A touchy subject.
But no more touchy than Damilola Taylor or Stephen Lawrence.
But I dont see a massive police effort to catch those people.
Affluent White Celebrity?
"We will work around the clock until the killer is brought to justice"
Working/lower middle class ethnic children?
"Well, it's a bit difficult y'know? We can't just arrest anybody and try to convict them. I mean, we know who they are but it's hard to arrest them"
Saptal Ram?
"Well, I know he's in prison for murder. Yes ok, we agree that it was self-defence but it's just a tricky subject, you must understand"
Leaves a bad taste with me I'm afraid
Page: