Answer the question Does the judge SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT HE SAYS NOT GUILTY WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG AGAIN.
No one is talking about implicit meaning, the question is does the judge say NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT. And hahaha you have no idea what the judges closing statement says,they are all different, you're just making **** up now.
I did answer the question. Very, very clearly in the last 2 posts. Presumably you still have a problem with the term 'implicit'. Just look it up, read what I wrote & then STFU. You don't even have to apologise for wasting so much of my time. I just want to be free from this nonsense you voluminously perpetrate.
FFS! Having to reply to 2 nonsense posts at a time. Check my last post. You've had more of my time than you deserve. And don't tell me about the Judge's closing statement - you're simply repeating what I told you a few posts back. Does your memory not extend further back than 30 seconds? You're taking embarrassing yourself to an unheard of new level, even for you.
A famous comedian and his bum chums. All were found not guilty of Murder (raping and drowning) a straight guy, in their swimming pool. They were found not guilty, but the judge made clear they were certainly not all innocent, 1-2 or even all had killed this man, they just were unable to prove it
No you didn't answer the question. THE ANSWERS ARE 1NOT GUILTY 2 YOU'RE INNOCENT No other waffling required
No-one was specifically named by the Judge. It was simply remarks, not a report of a judgement. Wasn't something similar said about Yaxley? As an aside, a pal of mine was actually at that party!
Answer the question or get someone not as thick to answer on your behalf. DOES THE JUDGE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU ARE INNOCENT
He didn't need to name anyone specifically, some or all were guilty of Murder. AND CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENT. Which is why they say NOT GUILTY instead of YOU'RE INNOCENT because a lot aren't innocent.
You're missing the point - he didn't specifically state who was innocent or who was guilty. He speculated, probably bolstered by the evidence that had been provided in the trial, but could not name an individual, as he couldn't, by law. So at the end of the day, they remained innocent, exactly the same state as when they started the trial.
They are presumed innocent, doesn't mean they are innocent. Which is why a judge doesn't say you're innocent.
I have answered this in posts 11531, 11538, & 11539. I am really tiring with this. I think I might go back to trying to convince an onion that it's not a carrot, and you can return to mastering your 2x table. You just cannot understand the concept of implicit, & I have tried so, so hard to help you. I have shown remarkable patience & tried to educate you in easy stages, but no, you ignore everything, keep the blinkers firmly fixed, and refuse to acknowledge anything, no matter how well evidenced or corroborated, that may clearly show everyone how wrong you are. I'm giving this up. Perhaps if you are so insistent that I am wrong, you could tell Eric he is too, especially with your last few repeating nonsense posts which Eric covered comprehensively. You are to English Grammar what Dianne Abbot is to mathematics. I'm now going off to Scotland to enjoy myself.
No you didn't, so do it again, the only words you need is 1 NOT GUILTY 2 YOU'RE INNOCENT ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST WJ bull ****.
Can you stay off my teach a Jock how to say not guilty page. 500 attempts but it keeps coming out innocent Jimmy. I've tought my cat to say it, but he's obviously got more brain capacity than a Jock.
