Quote Originally Posted by Wales-Bales View Post
Some people have been a bit shaky on facts in this thread (no names mentioned!). The judge changed the definition of a unanimous verdict during the trial LOL.

Talk about an open goal ... "For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which one it was."

50p says the verdict gets overturned on appeal.
Correct. When I watch the news or read papers I will cross read the angles and try to find as many facts both sides then form the picture.

I get the impression that lardarse and Bob Wilson just read the BBC and Guardian, as opposed to reading the entire spectrum. The fact that two leading Professor Emeritus in Law, known Democrats, from Democrat-leaning Yale and Harvard, are both making the points I echoed above isn’t considered at all. It just isn’t convenient for them to hear it. So it is selectively ignored.

But the most funny and curious thing is that a few here routinely criticise the US, but yet because in their mind they hate Trump, suddenly the court system is clean, true, perfect and unimpeded. That logic is as straight as a bowl of spaghetti, and in a court of law that would be Exhibit A for jumbled up thinking. Yet even most Americans know the legal system there is highly political.

That is the bubble some live in. In one single tunnel, taking Bubblevision narratives that suit their pre-established views, and not giving 1% consideration to any counterfactuals. Politics first. Practical evidence is secondary.

Same pattern, every time. As predictable as a grandfather clock - without the big dong!