Perjury

[joe-90]

But did they all know that one of them would pull out a knife and kill him? I doubt it - so the intent isn't there.

If someone of that intelect carries a knife, then the 'intent' is always there.

But only one of them had a knife so only one of them can be guilty of murder - and Norris isn't one of them as the Police thought he wasn't the one or they couldn't offer him immunity against prosecution. It'll all unravel.

 

[spacecat]

@ joe90

Wishful thinking won't make your wish come true

Plenty of people are currently serving life for being part of a gang that killed someone that it is not clear who did tHe killer blow.

As soon as they joined in the attack they were partaking in an assault that a strong potential for murder..which it did
Hence they became murderers

Knives were clearly part of their culture and so their intent was clear

The only thing unravelling is your grasp of the facts!

 

[joe-90]

Time will tell.

 

[spacecat]

Time will tell.

Yeah you have said this Number times with no logic to your feeble responses

In time you may grow a brain ...now that IS wishful thinking

 

[joe-90]

I bet you jumped around when the Birmingham 6 went down and the Guildford 4 - now it's the Eltham 2.

BTW, where was your grandfather born?

 

[spacecat]

I bet you jumped around when the Birmingham 6 went down and the Guildford 4 - now it's the Eltham 2.

BTW, where was your grandfather born?

The sound of the plot being lost

 

[joe-90]

But you dare not answer the question.

 

[spacecat]

Any plum who compares an alleged IRA bombing campaign with the racist murder of a black teenager is an IDIOT!

 

[joe-90]

It's about the miscarriage of justice. Where were your grandparents born?

 

[spacecat]

It's about the miscarriage of justice. Where were your grandparents born?

You conveniently ignore all the similar gang related murders succesfully prosecuted on similar evidence and compare it to a bombing campaign that has no comparison in fact

Every feeble point you make has been shredded time and again

You should be sued under the trades description act with your name as the puppet whose name you use was actually supposed to be intelligent

 

[joe-90]

Whenever the British justice system is under pressure to make a conviction - they get it all wrong. Why are only two of them inside? Why was one of them offered immunity? Don't let your bigotry get in the way of common sense.

BTW, where were your grandparents born?

 

[spacecat]

Whenever the British justice system is under pressure to make a conviction - they get it all wrong. Why are only two of them inside? Why was one of them offered immunity? Don't let your bigotry get in the way of common sense.

BTW, where were your grandparents born?

No idea what the grand parent question is about and I dont answer personal questions on websites

2 are inside as evidence puts them at the scene when they claimed.not to be.

The others there is no evidence...........yet

 

[ellal]

Why silly? Perhaps your Myopic viewpoint can transend into one that can see beyond the hype and hysteria. Todays technology has proved that at least two of the gang are murderers. Todays technology has proved that two of them were there at the time of the crime. Therefore, it is concluded that the murderers parents statements on oath were lies - therefore - perjury.

The 'Technology' proved nothing - it was merely another piece of evidence..

And the 'technology' is only as good as the person using/analysing it...

But as you have stated here that (according to you) perjury took place, a simple question again...

Do you think that anyone who is a witness/gives an alibi to a defendant who is subsequently found guilty has automatically committed perjury?

A simple Yes or No will do - surely not too hard even for you...

 

[spacecat]

I think the perjury question is a good one

People give evidence on oath, if that evidence is found to be false

Surely they are lying in court?

 

[ellal]

I think the perjury question is a good one

People give evidence on oath, if that evidence is found to be false

Surely they are lying in court?

A verdict is an overall one - not a line by line decision on each piece of evidence...

Just because the jury doesn't believe a particular piece of evidence doesn't mean that someone has committed perjury..

If there is a subsequent investigation that shows that false evidence may have been given, then that becomes a different case...