The information's out there, and you know it, you were trying to be smart, but you're nowhere near clever enough love.
It's just a shame all the judges, jury, barristers and sundry experts didn't have access to all this information of yours. Maybe they wouldn't have found him to be a rapist.
You tried that line yesterday and it was ****ing boring then, have you got anything other than smart arse sarcasm to contribute........ever?
It doesn't need any more when you're just offering sod all by way of argument against it. I'd say the experts have more weight than some scouse numpty.
Is it? A guy tweeted that he had knocked a cyclist off his bike and fled the scene on twitter. He'd just made it up and posted it as a joke. It wasn't real in other words. Was that factual information? It was a lie. It never happened. The only thing he could be accused of was wasting police time.
Ahhh back to the predictable insults from this forums worst mod by a street. You've got **** all to contribute then, ok mate, that's fine.
It's a statement of fact, not an insult. It's interesting that you consider the contribution that millions of pounds buys by way of experts in all the legal and associated feeds as 'nothing' in comparison to your internet scrabblings. What a clown.
He needs to pass on such vital information to the defence team. Until he does, he's backing a rapist.
It was an insult, but then aside from ****ing boring sarcasm and cyclical arguments it's all you've got.
Your insinuating a poster has broken the law and helps run Ched Evans' website for merely pointing out that certain information is readily available online. The tweets exist, they are not hearsay, they can be and probably were used as evidence in court, however they were not sufficient to prevent conviction, end of story.
You're offering nothing but wishy washy bullshit to bother offering anymore than pure and simple fact that experts reviewing the evidence decided he was a rapist. Some teedious internet noddy like you won't change that.
You do know what a fact is don't you? By you saying something is factual and that you have evidence to prove it then failing to provide evidence to back it up isn't really leading me to believe what you're saying. As no one knows her name or who she is then how can you say it's her tweet? Unless you do know her name and are one of the trolls spouting crap on the internet about her...oh wait... I am hoping the defence had the tweet in question and it was used to help prove that Ched is innocent?
And in that situation the tweet would be used as evidence in a court of law, what someone publishes on twitter doesn't have to be true but once in the public domain it can be used to convict someone. If I made a racist generalisation about a group of people on twitter it wouldn't be true but the tweet would be used as evidence to convict me.
