Newthoughts
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reaction score
- 14,055
I'm so sorry you feel belittled that was not my intention. On an online discussion others will disagree with you - that is not belittling you it is an invitation to say why you disagree. He went back at 2.30 others have said that is high tide if that is inccorrect I will stop. But it still doesn't alter the fact he went back at 2.30.Again, as I’ve said previously in other threads, you seem incapable of someone having a different opinion to yours and it seems to make you angry and try to belittle others opinions of this. I gave my answer to a question asked by a poster.
Previous convictions represent a character picture, not whether he’s guilty of murder. The jury will have that reiterated to them by the judge.
They also won’t be able to speculate on outside influences like we have on here. A perfect example of this is yourself saying “he went back at high tide” on pretty much every post you make.
There is no mention of this in the evidence we have seen, no mention of it in PR search history and various posters have already responded to you and said the part of the river they were at doesn’t suffer with high tide deviations... and yet you still say it in every post as if you have some sort of divine knowledge over the rest of us?
That may come across as a bit of a rant, but the main point I’m trying to make is, if you can not accept others opinion then don’t use an online discussion forum.
And actually having seen the pictures and videos of the river - your informing me that it doesn't change that much at that point has made me think that it is even less likely she could have gotten sufficiently into it to be carried away and increased, IMO, the likelihood she was placed there.
My opinion changes with consideration of all the evidence. But it is based focusing on the whole picture not one fact and then decide on the balance of probabilities not on 99.9%certainty because only PR has that
My opinion is that one piece of uncertainty about cause of death does not alter and outweigh every other fact presented. I would hope any jury would think the same because there are many murder trials where cause of death cannot be ascertained. Where only remains are found.
So not knowing exactly how she died does not change any of the other facts and IMO died not reduce the balance of probability that be killed her below all reasonable doubt. Because nobody is going to get to 99.9% certainty and therefore all you have are probabilities
In consideration of everything - including the lies we know know he's told and his previous offending I think on balance he didn't go back to check she was ok.