Perjury

[libby lou lou]

And the 'technology' is only as good as the person using/analysing it...
True, but in this case it eventually turned out right





How the hell do you know it turned out right?

A few yrs down the line it may be proved it turned out wrong.

 

[joe-90]

The Eltham 2 will be released and compensated.

 

[noseall]

Don't forget, an appeal could lead to a sentence increase.

 

[alumni]

And ellal is the one who claims you can only be guilty of an offence if found so by a court of law.

And you of course can just say someone is guilty because you think so?

I believe that's called 'Numpty's law'...

Err no.
As shown previously. You are the one who cannot understand the the difference between guilty of commiting an offence and being 'found' guilty in a court of law.

 

[ellal]

You clearly do not understand. If I were in the witness box and clearly lied, I would be commiting a crime - perjury.
I understand your reasoning. Let's put it another way. Your child has commited a crime. You, naturally want to defend them, as would we all.You state that x child was indoors at the time of said crime, knowing that was a lie. If you later got caught telling porkies, you have no case to answer. This I think, was the original OP's case in mind.

I 'clearly do not understand', and yet you 'understand my reasoning'...

And you still will not answer a simple yes or no question!

I asked quite simply, in reply to your assertion that his mother had committed perjury, should that apply to everyone on the losing side of a court case.

So what is your 'reasoning'? yes or no?

One moment you claim that as the verdict was guilty, perjury must have taken place...the next you talk about ' If you later got caught telling porkies, you have no case to answer'...

Firstly I think you mean you have a case to answer, but as I said that is a different court action and different charge - and not automatic guilt as you have claimed!

As ever, consistency isn't your strong point is it...

 

[ellal]

And ellal is the one who claims you can only be guilty of an offence if found so by a court of law.

And you of course can just say someone is guilty because you think so?

I believe that's called 'Numpty's law'...

Err no.
As shown previously. You are the one who cannot understand the the difference between guilty of commiting an offence and being 'found' guilty in a court of law.

So if a court isn't the only arbiter of guilt, who/what else is?

 

[alumni]

So if a court isn't the only arbiter of guilt, who/what else is?

Look it up. It's not difficult.

We've been down this road before.

 

[spacecat]

Time to lock this thread me thinks