It really doesn't work like that.Clearly the judges have heard enough.
Judges are required and expected to make judgements based on all the available evidence. It is not a pick and mix.
My opinion
It really doesn't work like that.Clearly the judges have heard enough.
Do you not think it's wrong of the judges to claim there's no evidence when all the evidence has not been heard
From the Olive earlier in the week, no mention of "no" evidence.Has the actual e mail been seen? that says no evidence?
I agree with that.That would be rather petty
I believe judges would be above that sort of thing.
Looks like bias is not confined to the judgesDo you really think the prosecution has something that could tip the balance?
The evidence so far amounts to a couple of alcoholic ex cons and some illegally obtained USB drives.
The warrant has been lifted because the prosecution’s case is a shambles.
I admire your resolve but the shipped has sailed.
Do you not think it's wrong of the judges to claim there's no evidence when all the evidence has not been heard
If there was new evidence, should it not have already been declared ?The judges already know what all the evidence is. They appear to be saying CB will be aquitted unless the prosecution has new evidence not within the current process.
What's the point of the hearing in that caseLooks like bias is not confined to the judges
Are the judges biased or the prosecutors sore losers?Looks like bias is not confined to the judges
I haven't heard all the evidence in the five cases so would be unable to voice an opinion one way or t'other.Do you really think the prosecution has something that could tip the balance?
The evidence so far amounts to a couple of alcoholic ex cons and some illegally obtained USB drives.
The warrant has been lifted because the prosecution’s case is a shambles.
I admire your resolve but the shipped has sailed.
With due respect, it is not the place of the judge to make decisions without all the evidence having been heard.The judges already know what all the evidence is. They appear to be saying CB will be aquitted unless the prosecution has new evidence not within the current process.
There would be none.What's the point of the hearing in that case
Nor does it assume guilt, the presumption of innocence stands.Observation: it is said that it is better for ten guilty men to escape than one innocent man suffer... and it's always said in the context of rule of law.
I don't understand how an arrest warrant/probable cause falls apart this far into trial, and I don't think for a second this is the case of an innocent man improperly charged; this is a criminal reoffender who may walk, over technicalities.
If the greatest evidence against him was ill-got, he may walk. One of the ten guilty men who escape the justice they deserve, namely accountability for the crimes committed.
I weep for the victims.
Regardless of how this plays out, it doesn't anywhere mean he's innocent.
JMO