![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gary wrote: I am quite bitter about this outcome cause it has taken just shy of 20 years and over $200 million of my tax dollars to finaly bring someone to trial, only to have them be set free!! Unless there's something newfangled (like DNA evidence) in the case, if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost certainly didn't do it. George Patterson I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "George Patterson" wrote: if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost certainly didn't do it. That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200 million on the trial, they must have been guilty." It appears, according to reports this morning, that the investigation may have been bungled by Canadian authorities from the beginning, and the extreme cost and duration of the case may have been due to futile attempts to overcome fatal blunders made early on. Did they do it? We probably will never know, now. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My thoughts exactly!!
I have the same feeling that the Canadian investigators screwed up right from the start! "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "George Patterson" wrote: if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost certainly didn't do it. That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200 million on the trial, they must have been guilty." It appears, according to reports this morning, that the investigation may have been bungled by Canadian authorities from the beginning, and the extreme cost and duration of the case may have been due to futile attempts to overcome fatal blunders made early on. Did they do it? We probably will never know, now. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dan Luke wrote: "George Patterson" wrote: if it took nearly 20 years to bring them to trial, they almost certainly didn't do it. That's no more rational than saying "If the government spent $200 million on the trial, they must have been guilty." That's not a rationalization. It's simply an observation made to me by judge Richard Ray Ford of Tennessee. Basically, the fact is that, if the prosecution has a case, it will be made fairly rapidly. Cases brought long after the incident rarely are based on provable fact. George Patterson I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 4th 03 07:51 PM |
18 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 03:47 AM |