Excuse me missy you are over the age of consent, i wouldn,t want to rape no "underage" I,m not a "bleedin" paedo. errrr "hebe". errrr "ebe" .... (you couldn't make it up!!!)
You state you couldn't make it up, yet often you do, you assume in advance before knowing facts and dealing with what is known at the time and twist peoples posts to your own ends.
It comes across to me you are more interested in your opinions being right and sneering at others and calling them wrong because they waited for facts , rather than the actual case itself.
Wrong was I , I think you will find this is one of the posts I made, and thats not wrong that was stating fact, unlike you who prefers to jump the gun and convict in advance
Tell us Hydon, what Holmesian methods did you use to deduce Savile was indeed a paedophile? There was no evidence whatsoever until recently, unlike his fondness for teenage girls, so how did you crack the case?
COMMON SENSE WATSON,NOT SO COMMON I FEAR,ESPECIALLY ON HERE!
You state you couldn't make it up, yet often you do, you assume in advance before knowing facts and dealing with what is known at the time and twist peoples posts to your own ends.
It comes across to me you are more interested in your opinions being right and sneering at others and calling them wrong because they waited for facts , rather than the actual case itself.
That could be the very same words the police used, to excuse their failing, to nail the perv when he was still extant.
The justice system works on facts and evidence not on your assumptions and version of common sense .
I beg to differ, the justice system "works" on someones "version" of the facts. and then "assumptions" are made by the jurors,based on "common sense", (usually when the judge allows a majority verdict). You or I, may or may not agree with the verdict, but it has been reached by the majority based on their "interpretation" of the facts,and has to be respected. Absolute facts are seldom used in court, take d.n.a. evidence for example, an expert will say something like "the chance of it being from another person is one in ten million", (or a hundred million ect.) using the principle enshrined in our system of justice, the assumption (there's that word again) of innocence, all d.n.a. evidence would be thrown out, based on the "fact" it could be from someone else. I rest my case." milud".
I beg to differ, the justice system "works" on someones "version" of the facts. and then "assumptions" are made by the jurors,based on "common sense", (usually when the judge allows a majority verdict). You or I, may or may not agree with the verdict, but it has been reached by the majority based on their "interpretation" of the facts,and has to be respected. Absolute facts are seldom used in court, take d.n.a. evidence for example, an expert will say something like "the chance of it being from another person is one in ten million", (or a hundred million ect.) using the principle enshrined in our system of justice, the assumption (there's that word again) of innocence, all d.n.a. evidence would be thrown out, based on the "fact" it could be from someone else. I rest my case." milud".
But a jury makes their assumptions based on the facts and evidence presented to them, they are not supposed to assume in advance on what they think is a possibility which is what you ddi with Savile and then called people wrong for not agreeing with you before the facts were known.
I beg to differ, the justice system "works" on someones "version" of the facts. and then "assumptions" are made by the jurors,based on "common sense", (usually when the judge allows a majority verdict). You or I, may or may not agree with the verdict, but it has been reached by the majority based on their "interpretation" of the facts,and has to be respected. Absolute facts are seldom used in court, take d.n.a. evidence for example, an expert will say something like "the chance of it being from another person is one in ten million", (or a hundred million ect.) using the principle enshrined in our system of justice, the assumption (there's that word again) of innocence, all d.n.a. evidence would be thrown out, based on the "fact" it could be from someone else. I rest my case." milud".
But they dont convict on DNA without other evidence do they?
But a jury makes their assumptions based on the facts and evidence presented to them, they are not supposed to assume in advance on what they think is a possibility which is what you ddi with Savile and then called people wrong for not agreeing with you before the facts were known.
DNA can place someone at the scene of a crime it does not mean they definitely committed it, now if a person was atatcked and a suspects DNA was on that person and they had no previous contact with the victim then that is pretty damning and could be seen as conclusive . However if a person was attacked and there was basic DNA on them from a suspect and it turns out that suspect had spent the evening with them and driven them home then their DNA may well innocently be on them.
One of the reasons they take fingerprints etc in burglaries etc is nopt just to try and find the culprit but also to eliminate those prints that should be there .
So without further evidence a person could be guilty but get off as their DNA is at a scene but could have been there legitimately.
Comments
You state you couldn't make it up, yet often you do, you assume in advance before knowing facts and dealing with what is known at the time and twist peoples posts to your own ends.
It comes across to me you are more interested in your opinions being right and sneering at others and calling them wrong because they waited for facts , rather than the actual case itself.
Wrong was I , I think you will find this is one of the posts I made, and thats not wrong that was stating fact, unlike you who prefers to jump the gun and convict in advance
Amusing but very very clever, I mean it takes some front to hide as publicly as he did and he went for it all the way and got away with it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-boasted-friends-in-police-1530688#ixzz2T69rruXy
COMMON SENSE WATSON,NOT SO COMMON I FEAR,ESPECIALLY ON HERE!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-duncroft-school-victims-1884599
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas 8m
At the @BAFTA 's with my producer Lesley - #Savile . In the reception before the awards.
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/333634014688706562/photo/1
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas 3m
Just taking seat at the @BAFTA 's - stage looks amazing pic.
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/333636218480889859/photo/1
The justice system works on facts and evidence not on your assumptions and version of common sense .
I beg to differ, the justice system "works" on someones "version" of the facts. and then "assumptions" are made by the jurors,based on "common sense", (usually when the judge allows a majority verdict). You or I, may or may not agree with the verdict, but it has been reached by the majority based on their "interpretation" of the facts,and has to be respected. Absolute facts are seldom used in court, take d.n.a. evidence for example, an expert will say something like "the chance of it being from another person is one in ten million", (or a hundred million ect.) using the principle enshrined in our system of justice, the assumption (there's that word again) of innocence, all d.n.a. evidence would be thrown out, based on the "fact" it could be from someone else. I rest my case." milud".
But a jury makes their assumptions based on the facts and evidence presented to them, they are not supposed to assume in advance on what they think is a possibility which is what you ddi with Savile and then called people wrong for not agreeing with you before the facts were known.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/bbc-nis-catholic-church-expos-beats-jimmy-savile-documentary-to-bafta-29260912.html
But they dont convict on DNA without other evidence do they?
now you're just rambling.
Then why use it, if it's not conclusive?
No I am not rambling, I am just not cowtowing to your opinion
DNA can place someone at the scene of a crime it does not mean they definitely committed it, now if a person was atatcked and a suspects DNA was on that person and they had no previous contact with the victim then that is pretty damning and could be seen as conclusive . However if a person was attacked and there was basic DNA on them from a suspect and it turns out that suspect had spent the evening with them and driven them home then their DNA may well innocently be on them.
One of the reasons they take fingerprints etc in burglaries etc is nopt just to try and find the culprit but also to eliminate those prints that should be there .
So without further evidence a person could be guilty but get off as their DNA is at a scene but could have been there legitimately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/business/media/balancing-privacy-with-open-justice-in-britain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
And it's not about the money?
Not for most, no
Why on earth would anyone take money from these charities, and prevent them helping others in need? I find it indecent.
You misunderstood me! I meant money is NOT and never has been the motivation for many of the victims under the Yewtree umbrella.