Jill Dando
Ron Hicks
So WHO the hell did?
DerekF
"Ron Hicks" <of95...@wfm.org> wrote in message
news:f4g69414pn2e3u8g6...@4ax.com...
> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
the Jug. He is an obvious nutter who will forever be a public danger. So
many people now get off due to persistent lawyers out to make their name and
money without a care about Justice.
Their are two people no longer in this world whose names I would prefer
never to hear again.... Diana and Dando.
Derek.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ron Hicks
<lordp...@NOXukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Ron Hicks" <of95...@wfm.org> wrote in message
>news:f4g69414pn2e3u8g6...@4ax.com...
>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>
>> So WHO the hell did?
>>
>Blooming heck, I just hope that he does not now get damages for his time in
>the Jug. He is an obvious nutter who will forever be a public danger. So
>many people now get off due to persistent lawyers out to make their name and
>money without a care about Justice.
>Their are two people no longer in this world whose names I would prefer
>never to hear again.... Diana and Dando.
>Derek.
Barry George will now get ŁMILLIONS in compensation from this.
Grant
"DerekF" <lordp...@NOXukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12176196...@news.usenet.com...
>
> "Ron Hicks" <of95...@wfm.org> wrote in message
> news:f4g69414pn2e3u8g6...@4ax.com...
>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>
>> So WHO the hell did?
>>
> Blooming heck, I just hope that he does not now get damages for his time
> in the Jug. He is an obvious nutter who will forever be a public danger.
> So many people now get off due to persistent lawyers out to make their
> name and money without a care about Justice.
> Their are two people no longer in this world whose names I would prefer
> never to hear again.... Diana and Dando.
> Derek.
>
conviction came about because of one yes just one spec of gun shot residue
found inside a pocket of one of his jackets. Experts around the world state
that one spec on its own is not sufficient to be even relevant let alone
used as evidence in a murder case as it could have and most likely did come
from the hand or clothing of a member of the search team or forensics team.
Also this man had an IQ of just 75, which while obviously superior to yours,
is not high enough to commit a murder and not leave a single shred of
physical evidence. Also there was evidence presented at the first trial that
turned out to be gross exaggeration and lies.
Remember he was found not guilty on the best evidence the crown had. Which
was in the words of the judge purely circumstantial.
Grant
The Natural Philosopher
> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
No: there was insufficeint sound evdence to maintain a conviction on
Barry george, that's all.
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
Barry George.
Ron Hicks
wrote:
So can/will he be rearrested for it?
=- \/\/ayne =-
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
I don't know Ron, but it's got nothing to do with UK Mobiles, try UK.LEGAL.*
Regards,
Wayne
=- \/\/ayne =-
news:PMednRAfM5egwQ7V...@posted.plusnet...
Or even Broadband... Sorry!
regards
Wayne
Ivor Jones
Ron Hicks <of95...@wfm.org> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
:
: So WHO the hell did?
I have no idea, but what has it got to do with any of the many groups
you've spammed with this..?
Ivor
Fred X
> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>
> So WHO the hell did?
Was it Cyril Freezer?
Fred X
The Natural Philosopher
Klunk
empty day by writing:
Usual old thing, police playing 'pin the tail on the vulnerable donkey'.
This poor man has lost 8 years of his life for being a bit weird. You
could lock most usenet posters up for that.
High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab someone
so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do they look
stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
--
I collect spam + please send it to: givem...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk
The Natural Philosopher
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:27:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
> empty day by writing:
>
>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:20:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>>>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>>> No: there was insufficeint sound evdence to maintain a conviction on
>>>> Barry george, that's all.
>>>>
>>>>> So WHO the hell did?
>>>>>
>>>> Barry George.
>>> So can/will he be rearrested for it?
>>>
>> Not enough evidence is there?
>
> Usual old thing, police playing 'pin the tail on the vulnerable donkey'.
> This poor man has lost 8 years of his life for being a bit weird. You
> could lock most usenet posters up for that.
>
Or equally, here's a mentally disturbed nutter, with a history of
stalking women, who was in the area, and seems to have been using a gun..
> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab someone
> so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do they look
> stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>
Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
Not a lot at all.
The dog from that film you saw
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
> Not a lot at all.
>
since when did court cases work that way!? - prove your innocence or that
means you're guilty.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
Klunk
empty day by writing:
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
AFAIR it is down to the crown to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
When you took away the tainted spec of gunpowder there was nothing but a
circumstantial case. That is simply not a sound basis to lock a man up.
The plod responsible for this want to be f**king horsewhipped in public,
IMHO.
Gandalph
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
> Not a lot at all.
So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is enough
evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
didn't do it?
marc_CH
>> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab
>> someone so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do
>> they look stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
> Not a lot at all.
What evidence is there that you haven't murdered a few childeen in the past?
Not a lot at all.
--
marc
marc_CH
> AFAIR it is down to the crown to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
> When you took away the tainted spec of gunpowder there was nothing but a
> circumstantial case. That is simply not a sound basis to lock a man up.
>
> The plod responsible for this want to be f**king horsewhipped in public,
> IMHO.
You've got that the wrong way around. You certainly can lock a man up
for that, but it's not down to the police to lock him away for life (or
eight years). That's down to a court and a jury.
Barry George may well have shot her and simply got lucky. The fact is,
however, that there is not enough evidence to convict him.
--
marc
"I will eat RTD's cock, assuming it is on offer." -- Aggy
The Natural Philosopher
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
>
>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>
>> Not a lot at all.
>>
>
>
>
> since when did court cases work that way!? - prove your innocence or
> that means you're guilty.
>
>
>
guilt.
That is the LEGAL position.
The REAL position is that lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt does NOT constitute evidence of innocence.
The Natural Philosopher
somewhere else at the time. Probably here in fact.
The Natural Philosopher
Ive murdered millions of childeen*
*a sort of small bacterium, that dies on contact with man flesh. ;-)
R. Mark Clayton
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
She was the presenter of Crimewatch.
I think someone did it to prove to themselves they could commit the perfect
murder.
The Met' of course had to fit someone in the frame or lose face, so they
picked up local dork Barry George. A slight cock up with the forensic
(microscopic cross contamination at the police lab) and a load of "would you
want this creep living next door to you" from the CPS and 'case solved'.
Gandalph
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
That doesn't prove a thing. Ever hear of a bit of technology called a lap
top computer? I think you should be sent down for seven years as your proof
you didn't so it is so weak. ;-)
Steve Terry
>
> So WHO the hell did?
>
as the treasury keeps cutting their funding. Almost no
constabularies now have a fraud dept.
Thick CID officers rely on their bevy of cultivated
paid informants to get them info, DNA labs to get evidence,
and the Public to inform
If any case goes beyond those limited capabilities
you can whistle the case goodbye.
The only place real deductive skills now exist is in drama and movies
Steve Terry
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And a sleepy country village in Great Western territory called St.
Mary Mead, is the murder capital of the world.
>Steve Terry
>
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ca...@optonline.net> said in
<9pk9945ju53u8o8ln...@4ax.com>:
>And a sleepy country village in Great Western territory called St.
>Mary Mead, is the murder capital of the world.
Not these days, you want Midsomer for that.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:12176996...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>> Gandalph wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>>>
>>>> Not a lot at all.
>>> So working on the same system that someone is guilty until there is
> enough
>>> evidence to prove innocence, what evidence do we have to prove that you
>>> didn't do it?
>>>
>>>
>> Probably the fact that I could provide demonstrable evidence I was
>> somewhere else at the time. Probably here in fact.
>
> That doesn't prove a thing. Ever hear of a bit of technology called a lap
> top computer? I think you should be sent down for seven years as your proof
> you didn't so it is so weak. ;-)
>
>
JF
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>
>>> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>>>
>>> Not a lot at all.
>>>
>> since when did court cases work that way!? - prove your innocence
>>or that means you're guilty.
>>
>Exactly. We PRESUME innocence UNLESS there is overwhelming evidence of
>guilt.
The new traffic management act has changed that concept because it's an
administrative inconvenience. The idea is that expensive traffic warden
with their expensive uniforms, two-way radios, and holiday entitlements
can be sacked and replaced with GBP5 per hour east Europeans who can sit
in an office, wade through CCTV pics, and key-in automatic fixed penalty
notices. A supposedly illegal parker using a blue badge can claim back
the fine. Blue badges don't show up too well on CCTV pics.
Silly cross-posts reset.
--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/jamesfollett
marc_CH
> And how would a lap top in london, send from this fixed IP address?..
I can think of about five ways right off the top of my head, the easiest
of which is that someone else was posting for you and providing you with
an alibi.
Klunk
empty day by writing:
> Gandalph wrote:
1: Via a proxy
2: Scripted remote post set to run at a given time
3: IP spoofing
4: Logging in via a remote desktop/vnc and doing it
5: Getting someone else to do it for you
I think the only reason you are blaming Barry George is because you are
the real culprit.
R. Mark Clayton
If he subsequently boasts about it he might be brought in again on the new
double jeopardy rule.
Jeff
">>>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>>
>>>No: there was insufficeint sound evdence to maintain a conviction on
>>>Barry george, that's all.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So WHO the hell did?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Barry George.
>>
>> So can/will he be rearrested for it?
>>
>
> If he subsequently boasts about it he might be brought in again on the new
> double jeopardy rule.
From the published evidence I was amazed that he was convicted at the first
trial, and even more amazed that it has taken this long for him to be freed.
There was no real evidence against him other than the fact that he is a sad
weirdo and an obvious target for the police. I seemed that once they locked
on to him any further investigation into other leads ceased.
Jeff
Klunk
Thank God it's not the 60's. Am I surprised the Police & CPS did what
they could to get this retard jailed for the killing of high-profile
crime t.v. program presenter? Not in the slightest.
Looking back, we've seen them shoot dead innocent men, harass people like
Colin Stag and even send Derick Bentley to the gallows for 'murder' when
he never pulled the trigger and was sat with a Policeman under arrest
when the shot was fired.
Did that arsehole Paul Britton, who seems to label himself as the real
life 'cracker' have anything to do with the Barry George case? Rather
than the nickname he prefers 'The Jigsaw Man', I've heard him described
as 'tainted Paul'.
Steve Terry
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Klunk wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:27:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
>> empty day by writing:
>>
>>> Ron Hicks wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:20:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ron Hicks wrote:
> Or equally, here's a mentally disturbed nutter, with a history of stalking
> women, who was in the area, and seems to have been using a gun..
>
>> High profile case, bunch of idiots not knowing what to do, grab someone
>> so they don't look stupid. 8 years down the line not only do they look
>> stupid, but bent too. Some things never change.
>
> Right: what evidence is there that he DID NOT do it?
>
>
the act of a professional hit man
Steve Terry
Soruk
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:43:49 +0100, "DerekF"
><lordp...@NOXukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ron Hicks" <of95...@wfm.org> wrote in message
>>> Apparently Barry George didn't do it.
>>>
>>>
>>the Jug. He is an obvious nutter who will forever be a public danger. So
>>many people now get off due to persistent lawyers out to make their name and
>>money without a care about Justice.
>>Their are two people no longer in this world whose names I would prefer
>>never to hear again.... Diana and Dando.
>>Derek.
>
> Barry George will now get £MILLIONS in compensation from this.
Minus the board and lodging charge, set at such rates that the Ritz
would call expensive.
--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/
Grant
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121768565...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>and seems to have been using a gun..
>
>
Grant
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message