egafd.com

i find his story hard to believe,now ive just read he was done for rape in 98.

He was acquitted. So it's irrelevant and prejudicial.
And I think it was a shabby trick to introduce this information by the strategy of allowing it as part of Carr's 'evidence'. The judge should have refused to allow it.

still...it doesn't exactly bode well does it, sometimes guilty ppl get away with it just as innocent ppl get put away for things. the whole "accident" thing is obviously a bit far fetched but its quite a scary prospect that something SIMILAR and a combination of genuine freak accidents COULD actually take place....think about it for a second its hard to imagine anything but brutal murder because of the news coverage....

As the forensic 'expert' said today, it's a little implausible.......but in the absence of any other rational explanation, a tragic 'accident' seems at least possible.

then if that was the case why didnt he go straight to the police then ?

Because he panicked, I suppose.
And not all of us believe that the police are fair and impartial, understanding human beans.

You got that bit right!

Which bit?

i spose its feasible

Well, they're not (so far) suggesting he's a paedo or kills kids for kicks, so what else remains?