Thomas Andrews
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2012
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 21
Much obliged, iclaudia!
I don't think there is sufficient evidence to convict SH imo.
I don't think there is sufficient evidence to convict SH imo.
In esherlocks defence I've been a part of many cases on here both from the UK and American and have seen both initials and the terminology esherlock uses to identify individuals. I don't think there's anything wrong in that and I think people are splitting hairs now. In fact I think mods should lock down this thread for a bit as it's really getting much further in the cattiness stakes than the mods normally allowI must confess that I still have an open mind about most of it, largely due to the muddled way the case seems to have been conducted so far. It's been very difficult to follow, particularly as there are two other defendants in court. On which note, has the prosecution offered any evidence against DD at all?
btw there is an illustration of why most of us use names or initials to refer to suspects. There are several people involved in this case. Nothing wrong with naming suspects once they've been charged.
These videos of SH aren't the ones discussed in court today though, these are the voluntary interviews before arrests and before BW's body parts were found
In esherlocks defence I've been a part of many cases on here both from the UK and American and have seen both initials and the terminology esherlock uses to identify individuals. I don't think there's anything wrong in that and I think people are splitting hairs now. In fact I think mods should lock down this thread for a bit as it's really getting much further in the cattiness stakes than the mods normally allow
Eta : doh just seen cold pizzas warning..must catch up fully before I stand on my soapbox
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Not really as there is still key evidence to be presented.Can anybody list/summarise the prosecution's evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that SH helped murder BW?
This would've been a much better explanation than the 'bow down to my superior deductive skills' response that I received. My original post was not intended as an attack, I simply said I found the use of 'the female' consistently quite uncomfortable. Whether knowingly used or not, it is a term that is considered problematic by many. Until recently this thread was so respectful of others opinions - now we have people jumping down eachother's throats and calling them biased and illogical simply for taking a different stance. What happened?!
Not really as there is still key evidence to be presented.
Even then we will probably need to wait for the summing up in a few weeks to see how it all threads together.
The case against SH is made up of lots of tiny little pieces of evidence rather than one clear and unequivocal smoking gun.
I personally think that it comes down to one thing. How credible is it that all this happened without her knowledge.
Can anybody list/summarise the prosecution's evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that SH helped murder BW?
As a retired doctor with a scientific training, I truly don't find the description 'female' in any way offensive or uncomfortable. It is a clear way of differentiating between the two suspects, one male, one female.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't think it's offensive, but I think people were finding the impersonal use of the terms rather grinding. These people are not anonymous numbers in a blind study, so no real need to refer to them using anything other than their names.As a retired doctor with a scientific training, I truly don't find the description 'female' in any way offensive or uncomfortable. It is a clear way of differentiating between the two suspects, one male, one female.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oh dear, I have a feeling this will not go well for him when it comes to cross examination.The Bristol Post is reporting via Whatsapp that NM is "expected to take the stand today". Wow...!
Oh dear, I have a feeling this will not go well for him when it comes to cross examination.