[video=youtube;15S0g8pG6HU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15S0g8pG6HU[/video] putting the sex back into convicted sex offender
Thought I'd pop back and see what was left of ER. Not much judging by that. He's in the pissed jakey fighting with the ambulance man mode.
I dont complain fannyfart. I merely point out his hypocrisy. Try and understand ****face. Otherwise **** off.
There's really no need is there? Do you beleive he accidentally killed her? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Why is there no need? And does it really matter that two people disagreed? They made a judgement based on their interpretation of the evidence, and I fail to see the problem with that.
Much like the cover up of the shoot to kill policy in NI. People sometimes refuse to see the truth. Not unlike Celtic Football Club and the Catholic Church.
Very good point. I have in the past proposed that "Juror" should be a paid job for which applicants must demonstrate intelligence, logic, reasoning and lack of prejudice. On the downside I can see that this would easily end up corrupted into yes-men or even worse: the PC Brigade.
A couple of the jurors may be total morons, which I think is to be expected, but how does the judge justify preventing the jury from seeing evidence that Tabak had a strangling fetish? Probably a little bit relevant in a death where he's admitted strangling the victim.
Tabac said that he "made a pass" at Ms Yates and she screamed, so he put his hands around her neck to stifle her screams and accidentally killed her. I have made a pass at loads of girls and none of them ever screamed, so Tabac was clearly lying. If he was lying at that point (which is beyond dispute) then he should not be given the benefit of "Reasonable" doubt should he? Anything he said after that point (or even before it) in his defence should have been treated with extreme scepticism by the jurors. Sadly it seems 2 of the jury are morons who would have given the benefit of the doubt to Satan himself.
