| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! 11:12 - Jan 8 with 26928 views | ApeShit |
According to SSN. |  | | |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:05 - Jan 8 with 2065 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 17:59 - Jan 8 by monmouth |
The guy 'picking up' the drunken girl was not convicted of rape. |
Only because the Court "assumed" that she was capable of saying yes and therefore did so to the man picking her up. What if they had decided that she wasn't? |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:07 - Jan 8 with 2054 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:05 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Only because the Court "assumed" that she was capable of saying yes and therefore did so to the man picking her up. What if they had decided that she wasn't? |
Then he would have been found guilty.
You can't say because Evans was guilty Donaldson had to be because there were vast differences in the cirucmstances around the incidents. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:12 - Jan 8 with 2036 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 17:56 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
I await your evidence from the defence case showing there was no clear evidence.
Since you've read the full court transcripts I await your detailed reply.
Where were you the day Jacko died? |
How do you have evidence that there is no evidence?
You are getting more and more ridiculous by the post.
The way to prove innocence in a court of law, in a case such as this, is simply by there being no clear proof you raped someone. Which part was the proof he clearly raped her?
Answer that and you will also find the answer to your question. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:20 - Jan 8 with 2019 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:12 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
How do you have evidence that there is no evidence?
You are getting more and more ridiculous by the post.
The way to prove innocence in a court of law, in a case such as this, is simply by there being no clear proof you raped someone. Which part was the proof he clearly raped her?
Answer that and you will also find the answer to your question. |
How do you have no evidence that there is evidence there is no evidence?
You started being ridiculous with your first post.
The clear evidence is in the court transcripts which you have not read.
You prove innocence in a court of law in England and Wales by refuting the prosecution evidence, introducing an element of doubt. Scotland has a far more sensible solution of "Not proven" for grey areas. The proof he clearly raped her was in the evidence heard in court, which you'd know if you read the transcripts. Which you still haven't.
The defence failed to introduce an element of doubt, clear innocence or even highlight technical deficiencies in the prosecution in a case which you claim would be "easy" for the defence. Why were the defence not able to do so?
Answer that and you will also find the answer to your question. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:21 - Jan 8 with 2016 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:12 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
How do you have evidence that there is no evidence?
You are getting more and more ridiculous by the post.
The way to prove innocence in a court of law, in a case such as this, is simply by there being no clear proof you raped someone. Which part was the proof he clearly raped her?
Answer that and you will also find the answer to your question. |
The "Evidence" was decided by the Judge and passed to the Jury, in other words the evidence is legal opinion and is now written in to Law. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:26 - Jan 8 with 1999 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:20 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
How do you have no evidence that there is evidence there is no evidence?
You started being ridiculous with your first post.
The clear evidence is in the court transcripts which you have not read.
You prove innocence in a court of law in England and Wales by refuting the prosecution evidence, introducing an element of doubt. Scotland has a far more sensible solution of "Not proven" for grey areas. The proof he clearly raped her was in the evidence heard in court, which you'd know if you read the transcripts. Which you still haven't.
The defence failed to introduce an element of doubt, clear innocence or even highlight technical deficiencies in the prosecution in a case which you claim would be "easy" for the defence. Why were the defence not able to do so?
Answer that and you will also find the answer to your question. |
Why do you keep trolling by mimicking my post and changing words to loosely represent your view. It doesn't work.
You are now resorting to lying.
Why do you keep talking about Scotland?
There was no proof he clearly raped her, none at all. If you would have read the transcripts rather than base your opinion on the jury's decision then this would be a very short discussion indeed. You cannot point to one bit of evidence which clearly shows he raped her which is why you have now resorted to trolling.
The defence doesn't have to introduce an element of doubt at all, the defence doesnt actually have to do anything if there is no proof he did it - which there isnt. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:29 - Jan 8 with 1992 views | A_Fans_Dad |
It used to be the case that a person was "Innocent until proven guilty", but with the trial by Mass Media of today that is no longer quite true. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:42 - Jan 8 with 1975 views | ItchySphincter |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 16:37 - Jan 8 by sixpenses |
Funny I could say the same thing about you when you stalk posters, tell them what they may and may not say and insult them. Recently called GowerJack and anyone that agreed with him idiots I believe. Now whilst I did not necessarily agree with GJ he had a perfectly viable POV and every right to give it without being insulted by you. What do your family think of your controlling behaviour or do you use this website as catharsis?
As far as Ched I would say if he is so innocent why does the website twist a vital piece of evidence to the defence's advantage, in an area of the website that was entitled (from memory) undisputed facts.
His friend texting him and saying I've got a girl (in response to which Ched changes his plans and goes to the hotel and lies his way to getting a key and lets himself uninvited into the room, whilst the 2 that were with him wait outside the precise room window ready to take a video)
Yet on the website under this area that is supposedly reporting absolute agreed facts it says his friend texted to the effect that he was with a girl.
It does not take Columbo to see why they twisted that even though they knew precisely what the text said. |
Still nursing that Boner for Laudrup then. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:45 - Jan 8 with 1960 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:29 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
It used to be the case that a person was "Innocent until proven guilty", but with the trial by Mass Media of today that is no longer quite true. |
Terrifying. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:48 - Jan 8 with 1951 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:26 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Why do you keep trolling by mimicking my post and changing words to loosely represent your view. It doesn't work.
You are now resorting to lying.
Why do you keep talking about Scotland?
There was no proof he clearly raped her, none at all. If you would have read the transcripts rather than base your opinion on the jury's decision then this would be a very short discussion indeed. You cannot point to one bit of evidence which clearly shows he raped her which is why you have now resorted to trolling.
The defence doesn't have to introduce an element of doubt at all, the defence doesnt actually have to do anything if there is no proof he did it - which there isnt. |
Why do you keep accusing people of trolling you when you are the troll extraordinaire?
Please provide clear evidence of lying.
Scotland was mentioned two in passing as asides because they have a far more reasonable solution to grey area cases, the "Not proven" verdict.
You haven't read the transcripts. Please don't lie - you yourself posted you'd read *notes*. No way on earth you read the full transcripts in the short time available. Lying to bolster your trolling is incredibly sad. You cannot accept the clear evidence within the case because then your sad trolling attempts make you look pathetic.
The defence have to introduce an element of doubt because, funnily enough, the prosecution will not do that for them. That means exposing flawed evidence, highlighting inconsistencies and pushing the case their client was innocent. Guess what? The jury didn't buy it. Nor did the appeal case.
I realise you assume the defence lawyers would just have had to say "No proof, he's innocent" since it was such an easy case but sadly you were wrong. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:57 - Jan 8 with 1936 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:48 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
Why do you keep accusing people of trolling you when you are the troll extraordinaire?
Please provide clear evidence of lying.
Scotland was mentioned two in passing as asides because they have a far more reasonable solution to grey area cases, the "Not proven" verdict.
You haven't read the transcripts. Please don't lie - you yourself posted you'd read *notes*. No way on earth you read the full transcripts in the short time available. Lying to bolster your trolling is incredibly sad. You cannot accept the clear evidence within the case because then your sad trolling attempts make you look pathetic.
The defence have to introduce an element of doubt because, funnily enough, the prosecution will not do that for them. That means exposing flawed evidence, highlighting inconsistencies and pushing the case their client was innocent. Guess what? The jury didn't buy it. Nor did the appeal case.
I realise you assume the defence lawyers would just have had to say "No proof, he's innocent" since it was such an easy case but sadly you were wrong. |
I am not assuming anything, im stating facts. You are trolling by evading questions and mimicking my posts, i am trying to have a debate with you here and you are acting like a child... Or a troll as it were. I have never trolled ever, let alone been an "extraordinaire".
You said i have not read the transcripts. It is a fact i have because i know i have and you have never met me - that is proof you are lying.... Guilty.
Well this isn't in Scotland and the trail wasn't in Scotland so its irrelevant to this case.
Stop ranting about trolling and not reading transcripts. Ive told you i have now accept it or leave the debate as you clearly have no intentions to it honourably. I have asked you repeatedly for evidence that he clearly raped the woman and you have failed each and every time.
No i am not wrong. If i said you murdered my dog, you would not even have to have a defence if you didnt want to. Why? Because id have no evidence.
Same here. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:05 - Jan 8 with 1932 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 18:57 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
I am not assuming anything, im stating facts. You are trolling by evading questions and mimicking my posts, i am trying to have a debate with you here and you are acting like a child... Or a troll as it were. I have never trolled ever, let alone been an "extraordinaire".
You said i have not read the transcripts. It is a fact i have because i know i have and you have never met me - that is proof you are lying.... Guilty.
Well this isn't in Scotland and the trail wasn't in Scotland so its irrelevant to this case.
Stop ranting about trolling and not reading transcripts. Ive told you i have now accept it or leave the debate as you clearly have no intentions to it honourably. I have asked you repeatedly for evidence that he clearly raped the woman and you have failed each and every time.
No i am not wrong. If i said you murdered my dog, you would not even have to have a defence if you didnt want to. Why? Because id have no evidence.
Same here. |
You're not stating facts, you're assuming. You cannot be being trolled as you are unable to provide clear evidence of trolling; indeed I suspect people would have to get up early in the morning to outtroll you.
You have not read the transcripts. You yourself claming you knew little about the case, stated numerous times you don't do "reading". If you are now claiming you have in fact read the transcripts, then your previous statements were in fact lies - hence your post as a whole have to be questioned rather than accepted blindly.
Trail? I presume you meant trial.
If you had read the transcripts then you would not have to repeatedly ask for "clear evidence" because you'd a) know the clear evidence and b) point the fact you'd read the transcripts out earlier rather than playing dumb about knowledge of the case.
Yes, you are wrong. If you said I murdered your dog AND THE CASE WENT TO COURT, I would present a defence. A defence showing you to be a complete fantasist, liar and indeed a troll. I would not just sit there and have my defence lawyer offer no defence, no cross-examination. That would be incredibly stupid, a position only someone with no knowledge of the legal process would make. Yes, a judge can throw a case out if there is deemed to be no case to answer; relying, hoping for that to happen when you know you are innocent is a risky approach.
Quite frankly, my legal team would raise questions as to whether you even had a dog to be honest. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:10 - Jan 8 with 1912 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:05 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
You're not stating facts, you're assuming. You cannot be being trolled as you are unable to provide clear evidence of trolling; indeed I suspect people would have to get up early in the morning to outtroll you.
You have not read the transcripts. You yourself claming you knew little about the case, stated numerous times you don't do "reading". If you are now claiming you have in fact read the transcripts, then your previous statements were in fact lies - hence your post as a whole have to be questioned rather than accepted blindly.
Trail? I presume you meant trial.
If you had read the transcripts then you would not have to repeatedly ask for "clear evidence" because you'd a) know the clear evidence and b) point the fact you'd read the transcripts out earlier rather than playing dumb about knowledge of the case.
Yes, you are wrong. If you said I murdered your dog AND THE CASE WENT TO COURT, I would present a defence. A defence showing you to be a complete fantasist, liar and indeed a troll. I would not just sit there and have my defence lawyer offer no defence, no cross-examination. That would be incredibly stupid, a position only someone with no knowledge of the legal process would make. Yes, a judge can throw a case out if there is deemed to be no case to answer; relying, hoping for that to happen when you know you are innocent is a risky approach.
Quite frankly, my legal team would raise questions as to whether you even had a dog to be honest. |
Outtroll? I assume you mean out-troll?
I have provided clear evidence of trolling. I am trying to have a reasoned debate with you. You ask me questions and i answer them. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer them while mimicking what I've just posted to you. That is trolling.
If you look through my post history you will see I also said i hadn't read James and the Giant peach, i have now. That wasn't to say i was lying when I said i hadn't before. Also me reading them has no effect of what is in them. I have asked you to enlighten us as to what you feel is the key evidence that convicts him and you have refused to answer.
No i am not wrong. You would not have to defend the case at all, you could decide to represent yourself and say "no defence needed" - you would still be found not guilty on the sheer fact I have no evidence to convict you. The law is innocent until proven guilty, PROVEN guilty not assumed. If there is no proof then there is no case to defend.
You are failing repeatedly to make any reference to which points you believe clearly show he raped the woman. And this is telling.
Very telling. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:19 - Jan 8 with 1909 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:10 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Outtroll? I assume you mean out-troll?
I have provided clear evidence of trolling. I am trying to have a reasoned debate with you. You ask me questions and i answer them. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer them while mimicking what I've just posted to you. That is trolling.
If you look through my post history you will see I also said i hadn't read James and the Giant peach, i have now. That wasn't to say i was lying when I said i hadn't before. Also me reading them has no effect of what is in them. I have asked you to enlighten us as to what you feel is the key evidence that convicts him and you have refused to answer.
No i am not wrong. You would not have to defend the case at all, you could decide to represent yourself and say "no defence needed" - you would still be found not guilty on the sheer fact I have no evidence to convict you. The law is innocent until proven guilty, PROVEN guilty not assumed. If there is no proof then there is no case to defend.
You are failing repeatedly to make any reference to which points you believe clearly show he raped the woman. And this is telling.
Very telling. |
You've provided clear evidence of absolutely nothing. Zero, nil, nadda. You have not tried to have a reasoned debate whatsoever.
When you claimed you'd not read the court transcripts, that wasn't that long ago. To have read ALL the court transcripts - not portions used in media reports, blogs, websites but the original reports would take a hell of a long time, especially understanding everything. You later claimed you'd read "notes".
So which was it? Full transcripts or notes? Can you provide the source for whatever you looked at - would have to be online given the short space of time you claimed to have read them in.
Yes, I would need to defend a case. You're acting plain dumb here. No justice system is entirely infallible; it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility you cynically fabricated evidence I offed your mangy mutt Shaky. Or whatever you call him/her/it. Indeed, it would be incredibly unlikely a case would end up in court without a semblance of a case - given I doubt you'd admit to your lying liar ways in the court causing the case to be thrown out.
So, your tactic would seem to involve me sitting there smirking at your lying lies, giving you a winker sign and periodically yelling out "You've no evidence, clear or otherwise". Framed in legalese, of course.
I've pointed out the clear evidence is in the transcripts which you need to read. You have failed to do so. I;m trying to get you to achieve a Zen like enlightenment which you are stubbornly refuse to do. True understanding will come from you reading the full case; nothing more, nothing less. You are repeatedly failing to do so and making false representation to the message board court re the transcripts. And this is telling.
Very telling. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:45 - Jan 8 with 1891 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:19 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
You've provided clear evidence of absolutely nothing. Zero, nil, nadda. You have not tried to have a reasoned debate whatsoever.
When you claimed you'd not read the court transcripts, that wasn't that long ago. To have read ALL the court transcripts - not portions used in media reports, blogs, websites but the original reports would take a hell of a long time, especially understanding everything. You later claimed you'd read "notes".
So which was it? Full transcripts or notes? Can you provide the source for whatever you looked at - would have to be online given the short space of time you claimed to have read them in.
Yes, I would need to defend a case. You're acting plain dumb here. No justice system is entirely infallible; it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility you cynically fabricated evidence I offed your mangy mutt Shaky. Or whatever you call him/her/it. Indeed, it would be incredibly unlikely a case would end up in court without a semblance of a case - given I doubt you'd admit to your lying liar ways in the court causing the case to be thrown out.
So, your tactic would seem to involve me sitting there smirking at your lying lies, giving you a winker sign and periodically yelling out "You've no evidence, clear or otherwise". Framed in legalese, of course.
I've pointed out the clear evidence is in the transcripts which you need to read. You have failed to do so. I;m trying to get you to achieve a Zen like enlightenment which you are stubbornly refuse to do. True understanding will come from you reading the full case; nothing more, nothing less. You are repeatedly failing to do so and making false representation to the message board court re the transcripts. And this is telling.
Very telling. |
Ah so back to mimicking trolling, panicky replies. Ok well then I shall take it apart piece by pice again.
You've provided clear evidence of absolutely nothing. Zero, nil, nadda. You have not tried to have a reasoned debate whatsoever.
Every man and his dog can see i have been compliant in this debate, have answered all your questions and explained my thoughts. You have, again, avoided any questioning, changed the law in order to change your line of questioning and been insulting while mimicking my posts to you. That is one person having a reasoned debate and that is another intent on trolling.
Again, your lack of understanding of the justice system is clear. I dont have to prove anything other than there is no proof, which I have. I have invited you to prove that wrong by showing some clear evidence - you have been unable to do so. Repeatedly.
When you claimed you'd not read the court transcripts, that wasn't that long ago. To have read ALL the court transcripts - not portions used in media reports, blogs, websites but the original reports would take a hell of a long time, especially understanding everything. You later claimed you'd read "notes".
I used the word notes instead of transcripts?! Oh my word! Call the police. Reading anything makes no difference to the content. I have not read the bible yet the content is the same. Whether you do or do not believe me is irrelevant.
The point is, you cannot even muster one single point that clearly shows ched raped anyone. Not one.
So which was it? Full transcripts or notes? Can you provide the source for whatever you looked at - would have to be online given the short space of time you claimed to have read them in.
Both actually. Of course i will provide you with my sources, but first an answer to my question you have refused to answer tens of times should be answered. Or indeed an explanation as to why you are unable to answer it.
Yes, I would need to defend a case. You're acting plain dumb here. No justice system is entirely infallible; it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility you cynically fabricated evidence I offed your mangy mutt Shaky. Or whatever you call him/her/it. Indeed, it would be incredibly unlikely a case would end up in court without a semblance of a case - given I doubt you'd admit to your lying liar ways in the court causing the case to be thrown out.
No, you wouldn't have to defend it. Id like to say you are acting plain dumb but i don't think its the case, its a desire to troll. If i have no proof you did something, then you didnt, in the eyes of the law. To disagree with that is to disagree with fact.
I've pointed out the clear evidence is in the transcripts which you need to read. You have failed to do so. I;m trying to get you to achieve a Zen like enlightenment which you are stubbornly refuse to do. True understanding will come from you reading the full case; nothing more, nothing less. You are repeatedly failing to do so and making false representation to the message board court re the transcripts. And this is telling.
Dont resort to lying again now reddy. Ive told you i have read them, now accept it.
Im glad you think there is clear evidence there, can you tell us what it is then? Otherwise it is becoming telling.
Very telling | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:00 - Jan 8 with 1882 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 19:45 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Ah so back to mimicking trolling, panicky replies. Ok well then I shall take it apart piece by pice again.
You've provided clear evidence of absolutely nothing. Zero, nil, nadda. You have not tried to have a reasoned debate whatsoever.
Every man and his dog can see i have been compliant in this debate, have answered all your questions and explained my thoughts. You have, again, avoided any questioning, changed the law in order to change your line of questioning and been insulting while mimicking my posts to you. That is one person having a reasoned debate and that is another intent on trolling.
Again, your lack of understanding of the justice system is clear. I dont have to prove anything other than there is no proof, which I have. I have invited you to prove that wrong by showing some clear evidence - you have been unable to do so. Repeatedly.
When you claimed you'd not read the court transcripts, that wasn't that long ago. To have read ALL the court transcripts - not portions used in media reports, blogs, websites but the original reports would take a hell of a long time, especially understanding everything. You later claimed you'd read "notes".
I used the word notes instead of transcripts?! Oh my word! Call the police. Reading anything makes no difference to the content. I have not read the bible yet the content is the same. Whether you do or do not believe me is irrelevant.
The point is, you cannot even muster one single point that clearly shows ched raped anyone. Not one.
So which was it? Full transcripts or notes? Can you provide the source for whatever you looked at - would have to be online given the short space of time you claimed to have read them in.
Both actually. Of course i will provide you with my sources, but first an answer to my question you have refused to answer tens of times should be answered. Or indeed an explanation as to why you are unable to answer it.
Yes, I would need to defend a case. You're acting plain dumb here. No justice system is entirely infallible; it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility you cynically fabricated evidence I offed your mangy mutt Shaky. Or whatever you call him/her/it. Indeed, it would be incredibly unlikely a case would end up in court without a semblance of a case - given I doubt you'd admit to your lying liar ways in the court causing the case to be thrown out.
No, you wouldn't have to defend it. Id like to say you are acting plain dumb but i don't think its the case, its a desire to troll. If i have no proof you did something, then you didnt, in the eyes of the law. To disagree with that is to disagree with fact.
I've pointed out the clear evidence is in the transcripts which you need to read. You have failed to do so. I;m trying to get you to achieve a Zen like enlightenment which you are stubbornly refuse to do. True understanding will come from you reading the full case; nothing more, nothing less. You are repeatedly failing to do so and making false representation to the message board court re the transcripts. And this is telling.
Dont resort to lying again now reddy. Ive told you i have read them, now accept it.
Im glad you think there is clear evidence there, can you tell us what it is then? Otherwise it is becoming telling.
Very telling |
You haven't proven there is no proff.
You've claimed there is no proof based upon ignorance of the case.
You've not read the court transcripts. Don't lie. You do know how many pages are involved, hmmm? Yet you've gone from not reading them as you don't do reading to having read them in an incredibly short space of time.
Of course you'll provide your sources? If they actually existed I'm sure you would.
As has been pointed out numerous times, my answer is consistent. They are in the court transcripts. Try obtaining them and reading them. After all posting the evidence here no doubt you'd claim spin had been applied.
If you had no evidence I killed your mutt, you'd provide no evidence to the police. Indeed, you'd have no reason to complain to the police. So there would be no mythical court case.
So in your hypothetical case, I'd have to provide a defence. A plea of not guilty would have been entered. Prosecution enter no evidence, guess what? Judge stops trial, there is no trial.
So, trial continues, with the bogus evidence provided by you, you little liar I'm supposed to stay schtum and not expose your lying non evidence, hoping in the jury not believing your lying lies. of course I'd rip your lying lies to pieces; it's what innocent people do. An innocent person wouldn't sit there thinking, "Eh, whatevs. I didn't do it, no need to have a defence".
Read the transcripts. Go on, you know you can do it. The fact you haven't is trolling.
Very trolling. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:15 - Jan 8 with 1865 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:00 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
You haven't proven there is no proff.
You've claimed there is no proof based upon ignorance of the case.
You've not read the court transcripts. Don't lie. You do know how many pages are involved, hmmm? Yet you've gone from not reading them as you don't do reading to having read them in an incredibly short space of time.
Of course you'll provide your sources? If they actually existed I'm sure you would.
As has been pointed out numerous times, my answer is consistent. They are in the court transcripts. Try obtaining them and reading them. After all posting the evidence here no doubt you'd claim spin had been applied.
If you had no evidence I killed your mutt, you'd provide no evidence to the police. Indeed, you'd have no reason to complain to the police. So there would be no mythical court case.
So in your hypothetical case, I'd have to provide a defence. A plea of not guilty would have been entered. Prosecution enter no evidence, guess what? Judge stops trial, there is no trial.
So, trial continues, with the bogus evidence provided by you, you little liar I'm supposed to stay schtum and not expose your lying non evidence, hoping in the jury not believing your lying lies. of course I'd rip your lying lies to pieces; it's what innocent people do. An innocent person wouldn't sit there thinking, "Eh, whatevs. I didn't do it, no need to have a defence".
Read the transcripts. Go on, you know you can do it. The fact you haven't is trolling.
Very trolling. |
You haven't proven there is no proff. You've claimed there is no proof based upon ignorance of the case.
Nope, there is no ignorance, on,y your ignorance of the requirements of law. There is no proff (sic) magnified by the fact you still are unable to provide any.
You've not read the court transcripts. Don't lie. You do know how many pages are involved, hmmm? Yet you've gone from not reading them as you don't do reading to having read them in an incredibly short space of time.
That is just a guess though, a guess that is perpetuating into a lie. If i dont do reading, then why ask me to? You asked me to so I did.
How does this impact on the case? This seems like a cheap bet out of jail card where you dont have to give any back up to your weak view based on a lie. Its ridiculous and proves you are a troll.
Of course you'll provide your sources? If they actually existed I'm sure you would.
I most certainly will. Again, why ask for something you refuse to take when offered? Because you are a troll thats why.
Answer my question on what proof there is and I will then answer yours and provide the links? Fair? Of course it is, but you wont because you will expose your complete hash job of an opinion.
As has been pointed out numerous times, my answer is consistent. They are in the court transcripts. Try obtaining them and reading them. After all posting the evidence here no doubt you'd claim spin had been applied.
Your answer is consistent yes, consistently irrelevant. You havent been asked where have you formed your opinion from. You have been asked WHAT is the proof that in your opinion certainly makes him a rapist.
Its like asking me what my views on Swansea are and me directing you to the matchday programme. Pointless.
If you had no evidence I killed your mutt, you'd provide no evidence to the police. Indeed, you'd have no reason to complain to the police. So there would be no mythical court case.
its hypothetical troll boy. It doesnt have to be about a dog. It can be about anything. If there is no proof then you are not guilty and do not have to supply a defence. This is basic.
So in your hypothetical case, I'd have to provide a defence. A plea of not guilty would have been entered. Prosecution enter no evidence, guess what? Judge stops trial, there is no trial. [u/]
Prosecution would enter evidence, it would be such like as "he was in the vicinity at the time", "he doesnt have a dog himself so he must not like them" etc etc this evidence does not prove you did it so you would not have to enter a defence. Easy.
So, trial continues, with the bogus evidence provided by you, you little liar I'm supposed to stay schtum and not expose your lying non evidence, hoping in the jury not believing your lying lies. of course I'd rip your lying lies to pieces; it's what innocent people do. An innocent person wouldn't sit there thinking, "Eh, whatevs. I didn't do it, no need to have a defence".
And het how do you prove im lying with no alibi? Nobody knows i am lying apart from me, and you.
This is what you fail to understand.
Read the transcripts. Go on, you know you can do it. The fact you haven't is trolling.
Done. Now answer the question that has clearly irritated you to the point of explosion. I dare you.
Very trolling.
Absolutely | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:20 - Jan 8 with 1856 views | reddythered |
Nowhere near exploding. Sorry about that, I suspect it's your end goal.
You have not read the full transcripts. If you had, the clear evidence would be obvious, even to you.
As for your hypopathetical example, if you had zero evidence, there would be no court case at all. Wouldn't get there. You than asked how I'd disprove your lies - but according to you, there was no evidence, hence no defence needed. Goalposts moving just a little bit there on your side.
You have a good night. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:24 - Jan 8 with 1844 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:20 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
Nowhere near exploding. Sorry about that, I suspect it's your end goal.
You have not read the full transcripts. If you had, the clear evidence would be obvious, even to you.
As for your hypopathetical example, if you had zero evidence, there would be no court case at all. Wouldn't get there. You than asked how I'd disprove your lies - but according to you, there was no evidence, hence no defence needed. Goalposts moving just a little bit there on your side.
You have a good night. |
You are exploding all right.
If you weren't you would be able to hold a rational debate and not avoid a very simple question which should be the cornerstone of your beliefs. The fact is you either don't have any or realise how weak they are but want to join in the witch hunt.
No goalposts moved at all young Malaysian sell out. It could be anything, i could take you to court over stealing my TV, if i couldn't prove you did then there is no defence necessary. Maybe read up on it, like you should read the transcripts of the case and actually have an opinion not based on others.
Try again in the morning troll, or maybe try a new approach and do the outlandish thing of substantiating your opinion.
Ta | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 23:03 - Jan 8 with 1767 views | Drizzy |
The silence from certain posters on the Barrow case is deafening.
As you were, sheeple. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 23:06 - Jan 8 with 1756 views | ItchySphincter |
Alright Newp? Where's that? | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 23:10 - Jan 8 with 1742 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 20:24 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
You are exploding all right.
If you weren't you would be able to hold a rational debate and not avoid a very simple question which should be the cornerstone of your beliefs. The fact is you either don't have any or realise how weak they are but want to join in the witch hunt.
No goalposts moved at all young Malaysian sell out. It could be anything, i could take you to court over stealing my TV, if i couldn't prove you did then there is no defence necessary. Maybe read up on it, like you should read the transcripts of the case and actually have an opinion not based on others.
Try again in the morning troll, or maybe try a new approach and do the outlandish thing of substantiating your opinion.
Ta |
Nah.
After all, you were asked first of all to provide evidence behind your initial claims of the evidence being flimsy.
You claimed you had a sperficial knowledge of it so weren't able to back your dogmatic viewpoint. Challenged on your reading of the transcripts you've reverse ferretted rather impressively.
You could take me to court over stealing a TV eh? Ok, that would be an interesting case to judge. As I've posted numerous times, if there was no evidence supplied the case would be immediately thrown out. That's obvious. You however have now raised the issue of you not being able to prove in. In that scenario, you would have provided *some* semblance of evidence, almost certainly circumstantial at best which would be easily refuted. Refuted by a defence.
Read up on law to go with your amateur psychology. I really think your level was AAMB; granted you did well enough there against a lower level of competition.
See you in the morning, if you're still around.
Ta | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 04:09 - Jan 9 with 1688 views | SkewenJack |
That's not true reddy. He can serve you with a court case over anything he wishes to accuse you of. As an ex bailiff I have seen it happen loads of times. Although if you cannot prove that the accused did or owes you anything then you do not need a defence at all. He will then be liable for your court fees. He is right. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 08:43 - Jan 9 with 1659 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 04:09 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
That's not true reddy. He can serve you with a court case over anything he wishes to accuse you of. As an ex bailiff I have seen it happen loads of times. Although if you cannot prove that the accused did or owes you anything then you do not need a defence at all. He will then be liable for your court fees. He is right. |
My point being if you know you're innocent, you put up a defence even if the evidence against you is utter garbage - you get your lawyer to smash the lies.
Why?
Becase sitting there smirking, refusing to address any ridiculous claims gives entirely the wrong impression to the people you are trying to convince. Only an idiot would not defend their position. Rebutting claims is always better than not.
It's interesting Dimi has tried to use the example of civil cases to make his point. Given the burden of proof is lesser in civil cases, then there would be even more reason to defend your position at all times.
He's also not using the cases you'd typically experience, namely relating to cntract law / debts.
So as usual, he's wrong and throwing out an apples/oranges example. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:59 - Jan 9 with 1604 views | SkewenJack |
No, he really is right. I have been a stand by witness for the defence in both civil and criminal lawsuits. Many times the judge hasn't allowed it to get to the defence if the prosecution is weak enough that I cannot prove anything. ive sat in court and just listened to the complainant and judge, not a word from the accused. you are talking about what you personally would like to do, not what you are required to do. the judge dictates court proceedings. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
