Guilty, or not?

[Slack lines]

A man has been found guilty of murder, though there is NO hard evidence. No body has been found, the car the victim was driving, on the morning of her disappearance, has never been found, and the man accused of her murder has maintained his innocence.

 

READ FULL REPORT

 

I just wondered how he could be found guilty without any evidence at all????

Edited November 16, 2006 by Slack lines

[Brian Carragher]

Not the first time someone has been found guilty of murder without the body as evidence

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

My gut instinct says he did it, but it makes a mockery out of 'proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt' doesnt it.

 

Its a scary prospect that these days the onus is on us to prove our innocence........and before anyone jumps up and down, anyone of us could find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I guess it all boils down to which you consider to be the worst travesty, a guilty man going free or an innocent man getting locked up. Most would say the former probably, unless it just happened to be them that was on the recieving end of rough justice.

[Slack lines]

Not the first time someone has been found guilty of murder without the body as evidence

 

 

I agree Brian, but in such cases there has been other evidence to prove their guilt. In this case there is NO evidence at all.

[s_mac]

Im just wondering, about the DNA thing. lets say the pigs did eat her, they are his pigs at his farm.. now the bit i dont know is, if your are eaten, and after a day, the pigs the do the natural thing of going to the toilet..would her DNA be about still....

 

Just a thought as i dont know much about the subject....maybe longtrotter would know abit more about this.

 

sean

[chesters1]

with the raft of draconian laws that went through parliament in the last bill (300+ ammendments wern't even seen by parliament never mind voted on)

were all guilty of everything

now plenty more in the queens speech so no doupt in the near future when this power and control obsessed gov gets its way were all guilty of crimes that havent happened as well

too much power is in the hands of the law now and people are easily found guilty purely on someones oppinion (as weve seen in the past) and DNA isnt much more hard evidence and if used as all the evidence needed is open to abuse and certainly not 100% proof ,so far more proof should be required to procecute anyone in serious cases.

Edited November 16, 2006 by chesters1

[ayjay]

"You killed her and promptly disposed of her body and car. Neither have been found.

 

Are the pigs supposed to have eaten the car as well?

[chesters1]

Are the pigs supposed to have eaten the car as well?

 

no just given it 4 speeding tickets ,3 parking fines and towed it away to a compound ,£5.700 for the fine and storage charges and they find it quick enough

Edited November 16, 2006 by chesters1