Barry George

[Jonone]

Sam Slater - '....and ordered a retrial'

James W - '...and so they ordered a re-trial'

Where's the discrepancy here James? I don't see that Sam's view is the 'exact opposite' of yours. The gunshot evidence was a hugely significant factor in George's conviction but not the only factor. Once the gunshot evidence was discredited there remained, in the judges' view, a case against George hence the retrial.

It doesn't mean that somewhere in the back of their minds they believe that George is guilty. It doesn't work like that.

[steve56]

Fulham Police;That George blokes a weird cunt lets say he did it we got a result!Jonone wrote:

> Sam Slater - '....and ordered a retrial'
>
> James W - '...and so they ordered a re-trial'
>
> Where's the discrepancy here James? I don't see that Sam's view
> is the 'exact opposite' of yours. The gunshot evidence was a
> hugely significant factor in George's conviction but not the
> only factor. Once the gunshot evidence was discredited there
> remained, in the judges' view, a case against George hence the
> retrial.
>
> It doesn't mean that somewhere in the back of their minds they
> believe that George is guilty. It doesn't work like that.

[JamesW]

To: Jonone

This is why Sam's view is the complete opposite of mine.

Alice In Blunderland said that there was evidence against George.

Sam said there wasn't and that's why the judges ordered a re-trial.

In fact if the judges considered there was no case to answer they could have simply quashed the conviction and that would have been that.

Instead they ordered a re-trial. They said there was a case to answer and he had to be tried again.

So Sam said the judges felt there was no evidence, hence the need for a re-trial.

I'm saying the judges thought there WAS some evidence against George, hence the need for a re-trial.

These views are opposites.

I hope this is clear now.

In fact Jonone, you summarised the position yourself quite perfectly.

In your own words: "Once the gunshot evidence was discredited there remained, in the judges' view, a case against George hence the retrial."

Exactly correct. It's what you and I say, but it's the opposite of what Sam said.

You also said "It doesn't mean that somewhere in the back of their minds they believe that George is guilty".

You're right again. It doesn't mean that. But nobody said it did.

[JamesW]

It may be useful to remind some people that the police merely investigate crimes and gather evidence.

The Crown Prosecution Service decide whether there is enough evidence against someone to prosecute them.

[Jonone]

Since the heyday of fit-ups do you not think that slightly more effective ways of doing it (albeit still flawed) have evolved ?

Alice, all you've read, all the information you've exposed yourself to, and all you've thought about this case has been in the service of reinforcing your own view that George is guilty. 'A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest'. Take a broader view.

[JamesW]

Other people have commented here about the lack of hard evidence in this case, but the thing that strikes me more than anything is that George has never made any mistake in his interrogations or made any damaging admission.

I would tend to think that somone of such a low IQ being under pressure and interrogated by the police would at some point accidentally provide the police with incriminating information, but Barry George despite his very low IQ seems to have been as steady as a rock.

I would have expected that the highly experienced police interrogators would have been able to trick a duffer like George into making a mistake at some point or an incriminating admission, but there was nothing.

[Sam Slater]

True, they thought they had enough to convict him back then, but forensic evidence has advanced and the wheels of justice are turning. We'll soon know.

As for him harassing women: I've seen plenty of harassment in pubs & clubs, by supposed sane, right-minded individuals.

[Sam Slater]

JamesW

My statement: "Not according to the judges who reviewed his case and ordered a retrial." has been twisted magnificently by you. Read in it's original context, you must conclude that I didn't mean there was no evidence at all; I merely replied to Alice who said, 'the evidence found implicates him greatly.' I took this to mean the original evidence that brought the conviction, obviously, unless Alice is talking about some completely new evidence that would convict Barry George.

Now, you yourself have admitted that the old evidence was 'thrown out' by said reviewers, and I've pointed out that this evidence wasn't enough to implicate him. Where, then, am I wrong?