|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 11:51:57 GMT
I have enjoyed this thread, it has highlighted a great deal of things wrong in the legal system, which has obviously been abused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 11:56:26 GMT
I’m saying exactly what is in the post that you relied to. You seemed to think that it is significant that Grey did not attend a school for special needs and I pointed out that children with special needs can attend a Comprehensive secondary school. Okay, she attended an ordinary school and she knew what she was did was wrong. We know she knew what she was doing was wrong because she lied in her police interview. People don't try to hide things they believe are acceptable. Not necessarily. She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions . Your second sentence is risible . Sometimes people deny things out of fear. Some people aren’t as mentally strong as you pretend to be . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 12:02:31 GMT
Okay, she attended an ordinary school and she knew what she was did was wrong. We know she knew what she was doing was wrong because she lied in her police interview. People don't try to hide things they believe are acceptable. Not necessarily. She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions . Your second sentence is risible . Sometimes people deny things out of fear. Some people aren’t as mentally strong as you pretend to be . She left the scene without acknowledging her part in what happened. The police only became aware of her involvement when they examined the CCTV footage. When interviewed, she lied. There are various readings that could be put on her actions. An impartial jury unanimously found culpability. You're not the first to disagree with a jury's finding. And stop brooding about my bringing up your illness in a previous thread. It was relevant to that discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 12:08:01 GMT
Not necessarily. She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions . Your second sentence is risible . Sometimes people deny things out of fear. Some people aren’t as mentally strong as you pretend to be . She left the scene without acknowledging her part in what happened. The police only became aware of her involvement when they examined the CCTV footage. When interviewed, she lied. There are various readings that could be put on her actions. An impartial jury unanimously found culpability. You're not the first to disagree with a jury's finding. And stop brooding about my bringing up your illness in a previous thread. It was relevant to that discussion. I repeat “She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions .“. I note that once again when you lose an argument , you resort to insults and distractions . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 12:21:53 GMT
Are you saying that Grey didn't understand the difference between right and wrong? I'd say that she didn't do anything wrong and was wrongfully convicted as a result of her vulnerabilities. Anyone capable of mounting an actual defence would have walked away from that. As even an academic lawyer should recognise. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 12:22:47 GMT
I repeat “She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions .“. Yes, Benny, she could have panicked or acted irrationally. The law recognises this possibility. The law has come to up with a means of determining whether this was the case. It's called trial by jury. Under this system, the onus of proving this didn't happen falls on the prosecution. The prosecution demonstrated that this didn't happen to the unanimous satisfaction of an impartial jury. So, the question 'did she panic or act irrationally due to mental or physical disability' was given due consideration. The finding was that she acted unlawfully and this caused the death of an elderly lady who had the misfortune of crossing paths with her on that fateful day. Everything was fair and above board. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 12:24:47 GMT
Are you saying that Grey didn't understand the difference between right and wrong? I'd say that she didn't do anything wrong and was wrongfully convicted as a result of her vulnerabilities. Anyone capable of mounting an actual defence would have walked away from that. As even an academic lawyer should recognise. You weren't on the jury. You don't have access to the all the facts. She's in prison now, and every day she stays there is a win for society. Get over it, Squeaky. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 12:26:26 GMT
I'd say that she didn't do anything wrong and was wrongfully convicted as a result of her vulnerabilities. Anyone capable of mounting an actual defence would have walked away from that. As even an academic lawyer should recognise. You weren't on the jury. You don't have access to the all the facts. She's in prison now, and every day she stays there is a win for society. Get over it, Squeaky. Another dangerous criminal off the streets, oh but wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 12:28:21 GMT
I repeat “She could of panicked or acted irrationally at the time , due to her mental and physical conditions .“. Yes, Benny, she could have panicked or acted irrationally. The law recognises this possibility. The law has come to up with a means of determining whether this sort of thing has happened. It's called trial by jury. Under this system, the onus of proving this didn't happen falls on the prosecution. The prosecution demonstrated that this didn't happen to the unanimous satisfaction of an impartial jury. So, the question 'did she panic or act irrationally due to mental or physical disability' was given due consideration. The finding was that she acted unlawfully and this caused the death of an elderly lady who had the misfortune of crossing paths with her on that fateful day. Everything was fair and above board. Now it’s circular argument time darling . The jury found her guilty therefore she must be guilty. So all decisions from juries cannot be questioned or criticised because they must be the correct decision . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 12:30:25 GMT
Yes, Benny, she could have panicked or acted irrationally. The law recognises this possibility. The law has come to up with a means of determining whether this sort of thing has happened. It's called trial by jury. Under this system, the onus of proving this didn't happen falls on the prosecution. The prosecution demonstrated that this didn't happen to the unanimous satisfaction of an impartial jury. So, the question 'did she panic or act irrationally due to mental or physical disability' was given due consideration. The finding was that she acted unlawfully and this caused the death of an elderly lady who had the misfortune of crossing paths with her on that fateful day. Everything was fair and above board. Now it’s circular argument time darling . The jury found her guilty therefore she must be guilty. So all decisions from juries cannot be questioned or criticised because they must be the correct decision . A conclusion reached by a jury with access to all the facts is likely to be far more reliable than anything you have to offer, Benny. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 12:39:10 GMT
Now it’s circular argument time darling . The jury found her guilty therefore she must be guilty. So all decisions from juries cannot be questioned or criticised because they must be the correct decision . A conclusion reached by a jury with access to all the facts is likely to be far more reliable than anything you have to offer, Benny. Juries do make wrong decisions and Judges give inappropriate sentences . Your sycophancy to the establishment when it suits your purpose is noted. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 12:41:20 GMT
A conclusion reached by a jury with access to all the facts is likely to be far more reliable than anything you have to offer, Benny. Juries do make wrong decisions and Judges give inappropriate sentences . Your sycophancy to the establishment when it suits your purpose is noted. Noted. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 12:52:44 GMT
I'd say that she didn't do anything wrong and was wrongfully convicted as a result of her vulnerabilities. Anyone capable of mounting an actual defence would have walked away from that. As even an academic lawyer should recognise. You weren't on the jury. You don't have access to the all the facts. She's in prison now, and every day she stays there is a win for society. Get over it, Squeaky. Did you think the same about the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four, Whoiney? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 13:15:02 GMT
You weren't on the jury. You don't have access to the all the facts. She's in prison now, and every day she stays there is a win for society. Get over it, Squeaky. Did you think the same about the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four, Whoiney? Were those cases caught on camera? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 13, 2023 13:21:44 GMT
Did you think the same about the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four, Whoiney? Were those cases caught on camera? The camera cannot lie,I'm afraid it can. |
|
