The joys of being a hate-siter.

The crazier you are the more at home you are in the hate-site mentality....

win8 wrote:

Yes true.... bbuuutt
The second trial proved he would have been found not guilty in the first trial, if he was given a fair trial with all the facts presented to the court.

Seems odd then that hearsays were allowed for the second trial by the defense . Yet screamed predujice of the prosecution did the same . So the defense got to have 3 scenerio hearsays . Presecution zero . and teh prosecution was denied the right to put even defense evidense before the court

Quote
steve1958 (395 ) 6:56 pm, Wed 25 May #43

The poster win8 points out the obvious, but nutbar Steve writes about 'hearsays' and that the defence got have '3 scenario hearsays.' He talks about 'hearsays' as though they are some strategic advantage and not simply a word he doesn't understand and misuses - then comes the humdinger 'teh prosecution was denied the right to even put defense evidense before the court.' This spinner believes the prosecution put their own 'evidense' before the court and are therefore entitled to put 'defense evidense' before the court. He got the dense part right. He thought getting the dunce's cap at school was a major achievement and that he held the world record for having it 'bestowed' upon him no less than 772 times. But he sums up well what it is to be a hate-siter, that you're accepted no matter how thick or 'dense' you are - just as long as you 'believe' and spread the hate.

And so they waffle on about all the 'withheld' evidence but remain silent on that which indicated that dear daddy was a fiddler. They also ignore the amount of 'hearsays' (that word again that sounds like a previously unknown breed of fish) that the Crown presented in their failed case.