Search results

All MP said was that, in his view, a fair trial was impossible. Nothing more, nothing less.

Okay. I tend to go straight to the ground (I've got a fancy seat and I take advantage of the lounge), post match it's The Albert initially. PS I've just skipped back though the previous posts and noticed you mentioned this very point earlier.

You never did invite me for that drink by the way.

Come on Bushy, that post was mildly amusing and I do not think it was intended to be overly personal.

And is not the case that mum's are ALWAYS right? :wink:

I wonder where Bushy stands on black on black crimes?

This.

Anyway, you will be glad to know that I have offered my honest and objective mind to the John Terry 12. They were recruiting for an unbiased jury in the back of the Guardian last week. I thought I'd give it a go and do my bit.

Do you think that when they unveiled this new technology in 2003 the scientists produced a 10 year old magnifying glass? Go and read about it, you might learn something.

Why didnt the defence go down the storage route then? They did try a contamination angle but this was dry blood, being made wet by the chemicals of the new screening process, and then somehow transferring and drying again on a different item. A independent analysis was undertaken to try an...

Jesus Bushy. Are you serious? Just think back 20 years ago, think about communications, think about media, think about music back then. All have taken huge leaps forward. Can you really not believe forensics have advanced? The only thing stuck in a 20 year time warp is you.

Agree. I know I could. I know not everyone can, but screening for people like me and you should not be too difficult.

And it could go the other way as well, if you believe that some people will judge them guilty on the basis of a pre-conceived idea then you should equally believe that some might find them not guilty on a pre-conceived idea such as an unfair trial (or they are bushy of course). This is why the...

You are spot on Bushy. This case does set the ground for cases to be re-examined if fresh and compelling evidence becomes available. The fresh and compelling evidence has to meet quite high and exacting criteria and satisfy the high court for the case to proceed though. Otherwise the court...

Quite. And the ability to re-try with fresh and compelling evidence is a step forward for British justice.

Bushy, why don't you move over onto the pork thread and stand up for it being WHITE meat? You might have more success there :smile:

The new technology which came about in 2003 is in the press today. The contamination defence was discredited by independent analysis and repeated attempts to replicate the manner in which the defence said it happened. The fit-up is in your mind. Not probably, they are guilty.

I do wonder if Bushy is actually thinking about what he is typing on this thread. Part of me thinks it's just racist flippant knee-jerk reaction. But yes, he is in the minority as this thread demonstrates.

The new evidence you refer to became available due to advances in technology. Also, given the intense pressure the Met were under for previously bodging this case and all the history surrounding this case do you really think they would fabricate evidence at this stage? Of course not.

The jury for the Birmingham 6 were not a fault. Evidence was surpressed, there was police fabrication and a heap of other issues. The jury could only, and correctly, work with the information presented and reached their decision based on this. You're barking up the wrong tree here.