Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 15  Next

First, yes there is evidence agianst him...lots and lots of evidence. Second, what does DNA evidence tell you? It speaks nothing about whether he strangled her or not. If I stangled you, would my DNA end up in your vagina?

   

What evidence?

DNA evidence tells you that someone was there, at the scene. There's none of that to indicate he was there or raped anyone.

A court and subsequent inquiry says so.

   

Now here's something that's interesting. The Sunday Province had an article about Lance Armstrong loosing his Tour De France titles and quess what. The people who would inherit his first place finishes were almost exclusively all banned for doping at one time or another.

So don't hold your breath about the Amaury Sport Organization stripping him of his Tour titles despite what the USADA does.

   

And here are the lucky recipients of Lances "alleged" transgressions:

   

And they got it wrong. The Crown screwed up because they chose not introduce evidence that Jessop was sexually active, having consentual sex with a handful of neighborhood boys, including her stepbrother (The DNA found on her body was his, btw). The Crown felt it was better strategy to portray her as the "innocent young girl", but that backfired. Guy Paul Morin murdered her, but he didn't rape her, so of course, the DNA was not his. That doesn't mean he didn't kill her, which he absolutley did. Why didn't the York Region Police arrest someone else in the case? They had a DNA match. Because they know Morin did it.

The whole point here is that we've all become slaves to CSI. We think that scientific evidence trumps all others, which is a dangerous fallacy. Guy Paul Morin is guilty and so is Lance Armstrong. Well, actully I'll take that back on Armstrong because he's not charged with anything. He's a sports-cheat and we don't need CSI to make that determination.

   

And that's all your opinion.

You think he killed her and yet there's no evidence or witnesses. So now, based on theories or hunch of an economist, we'll start putting people in jail for life.

Brilliant.

I hope for your sake you're never accused of anything....although it would be fun to watch you squirm under your own rules of how justice should be doled out.

   

Oh really? I'm no fan of using performance enhancing drugs, but they still have to do the work to get the benefit. If you take roids and sit on your ass, they don't do all that much. So yeah it's cheating, but it still takes obscene amount of work to get to that level.

   

Do 'your roids' give your athlete ANY EDGE, regardless of how minor it may be, that they did not attain thru exercise and diet alone?

   

I'm not sure what your asking. If you asking whether or not it would give them an edge over not drug using athletes, yes of course it does. If you're asking does it mean they can train less, no it doesn't. They train the same and just as hard, but use the drugs to reap more benefit from it. I'm not stating it isn't cheating by any stretch, but to say they aren't athletes or it's the same as cheating on a test is a bit far. They still have to work harder that 99.9% of the world in their chosen field.

   

I'm not sure what your asking. If you asking whether or not it would give them an edge over not drug using athletes, yes of course it does. If you're asking does it mean they can train less, no it doesn't. They train the same and just as hard, but use the drugs to reap more benefit from it. I'm not stating it isn't cheating by any stretch, but to say they aren't athletes or it's the same as cheating on a test is a bit far. They still have to work harder that 99.9% of the world in their chosen field.[/quote]


FAIL!

   

Yes and no. Yes, that's my opinion, but it's my opinion based on what's been shared with me by people on the York Region Police.


I don't think he killed her. I know it. There are reams of evidence and you know it.


You whack away the evenings imagining me in a prison setting, with my shirt-sleeves rolled up to reveal my biceps.

   

You know everything. We know that.

The Professor is never wrong and his opinion is that of God.



Odd that you'd take that comment and run in that direction. Says a lot.

   

A quarter-filled glass appears to contain a lot of liquid, from the perspective of the empty cup.

   

That's right, keep talking down to people.

That's what you do best, Professor.

   

I was just joking with you and now you've gone and hurt my feelings, meanie. I guess I'll just sit here and cry a bit.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 15  Next