A convicted rapist who's seen his conviction quashed for reasons unknown and is therefore being treated as some sort of martyr despite being a scumbag lowlife. Now that he's facing a second trial for exactly the same offence people are saying he's been vindicated or innocent or both. That's about the size of it.
The first trial is null and void as they quashed the guilty verdict. He is innocent unless he gets found guilty at the retrial.
No idea, but I would have thought so, those fenian bastards the Birmingham six and the Guildford four did. Anyway, it is with a heavy heart that I need to put you on my ignore list, Dev, you are ruining my posts/likes ratio
The Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 were cleared, that's why they sued. Ched, sadly for some, has not been cleared and may well still end up guilty as charged.
If he gets found not guilty at the retrial, surely he can sue for spending two and a half years sucking Bubba's cock in prison though?
Aye, probably he could sue, but unless his original trial was shown to have been corrupt or someone perjured themselves then his chances of getting compensation are extremely slim I would hazard.
Anyway, stop sucking me back into an argument about something I don't really care about, even if I do think it is wrong to call somebody guilty when the verdict has been quashed.
There was sufficient evidence to put it in the not beyond reasonable doubt category. Specifically the rat arsed state of the bird in question.
