SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum (http://forums.sv650.org/index.php)
-   Idle Banter (http://forums.sv650.org/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   Lawyers... (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=101454)

gettin2dizzy 10-12-07 09:09 AM
Lawyers...
 
...have got to make you laugh. They'll try anything!:rolleyes:

Quote:

Police raided Pickton's farm in 2002 and found the dismembered remains and personal belongings of the women Pickton was accused of picking up from the streets of Vancouver.
The pig farmer denied killing any of the women, but prosecutors presented thousands of pieces of forensic evidence and showed video of him admitting to police that he was hoping to kill 50 women
Parts of two of the women's bodies were found in five-gallon buckets in Pickton's freezer, parts of the others were discovered in a dustbin, a pig pen, and buried in manure on the farm.
The 10-month trial heard from almost 130 witnesses, including Lynn Ellingson, who said she once walked in on the pig farmer, who was covered with blood, as Ms Papin's body hung from a chain in the farm's slaughterhouse. Our correspondent reports that the pig farmer's lawyers argued that none of the evidence proved that he himself had murdered the women.

Welsh_Wizard 10-12-07 09:12 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
maybe it was the pigs ? Cheeky chappies they are if they haven't been fed...

tomjones2 10-12-07 09:13 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
How was this a 10 month trial?

gettin2dizzy 10-12-07 09:18 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
And 130 witnesses?! hehe. Bonkers.

Ed 10-12-07 09:31 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
...and from what you have posted, there is no direct evidence. Strong circumstantial, yes.

Don't forget it's a lawyer's job to review evidence critically, highlight irrelevant, prejudicial and hearsay evidence and get it kicked out, no matter what the lawyer's personal feelings - and to stand up for people where others have already condemned and judged them.

Not that that happens on here of course;)

gettin2dizzy 10-12-07 09:35 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed (Post 1362082)
...and from what you have posted, there is no direct evidence. Strong circumstantial, yes.

Don't forget it's a lawyer's job to review evidence critically, highlight irrelevant, prejudicial and hearsay evidence and get it kicked out, no matter what the lawyer's personal feelings - and to stand up for people where others have already condemned and judged them.

Not that that happens on here of course;)
hehe. A strangely compelling argument there Ed. You should try law ;)

tomjones2 10-12-07 11:04 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
He will proably claim amnesia next, seems to be the going thing at the mo.

This is one of those cases where it easy to pick holes in the justice system that is working as it should, provide a fair hearing etc etc. Although I would say that anyone one who walked in on someone covered in blood with a body hanging from the rafters is a little more than cicumstantial. I mean there is a wrong place and a wrong time but that would really take some explaining.

Ed 10-12-07 11:19 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomjones2 (Post 1362147)
He will proably claim amnesia next, seems to be the going thing at the mo.

This is one of those cases where it easy to pick holes in the justice system that is working as it should, provide a fair hearing etc etc. Although I would say that anyone one who walked in on someone covered in blood with a body hanging from the rafters is a little more than cicumstantial. I mean there is a wrong place and a wrong time but that would really take some explaining.
Oh, agreed, agreed. But there's always something you can say, no matter how minor, and if that introduces a note of doubt into the jury's mind then bingo. Which is why this bloke was convicted of 2nd degree murder, not 1st degree - the prosecution couldn't prove premeditation.

gettin2dizzy 10-12-07 11:56 AM
Re: Lawyers...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed (Post 1362152)
Oh, agreed, agreed. But there's always something you can say, no matter how minor, and if that introduces a note of doubt into the jury's mind then bingo. Which is why this bloke was convicted of 2nd degree murder, not 1st degree - the prosecution couldn't prove premeditation.
It's funny isn't it. I don't understand why he is being prosecuted for 26 murders that weren't premeditated. One maybe, but 26?! What an odd case.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...on_body_ap.jpg
He doesn't even look creepy ;)

tomjones2 10-12-07 12:18 PM
Re: Lawyers...
 
I havent actaully read the case so I shouldnt really be comenting but with 26 murders to he name he is never going to see freedom again I assume?


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.