Frivolous Prosecution Witnesses

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 12:46:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 29, 2022, 12:46:51 AM
My issue with James Richards is that he was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution, and maybe I am being old-fashioned, but I think at least in public he should be careful to ensure he is presented in that way, not as a 'friend of Julie Mugford'.  I appreciate he shared digs with her, or something like that, but if he is a friend of Julie Mugford, then that makes him look partisan, and implies he is her spokesman and that his involvement in the documentary is to stick up for her.  To me, there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 29, 2022, 12:54:04 AM
Barbara Wilson's evidence seemed pointless, or was it?

She did report her telephone conversation with Nevill. 
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions