Reply to That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm convinced it's the same poster coming up with all these crazy posts now. Poster, you should find a way to contribute to Brock's defense team. I am sure they'll be appreciatative of all the fine points you've come up with to poke holes in the original conviction. 
[/quote]

Agree.  Harebrained-theory-rape-detective does have a distinct style. [/quote]

i hope there's only one brock obsessed poster here! but maybe there's two: dad AND mom![/quote]

No, there is more than one person posting. 
Not sure how mathematically modeling the prosecution's assertions based on prosecution witnesses' statements and comparing  that to the location the witnesses had Brock Turner pinned to determine if Brock Turner ran rapidly away is hare brained. It isn't. 
It's called due diligence and should have been performed by the Police and DA's office to assess the veracity of the witnesses' statements   before  bringing charges against Brock Turner. 
The simple fact is Brock Turner could not have been pinned 75 feet North of where so called victim was lying if he ran rapidly away; he would have been pinned hundreds of feet North of where she was lying, if he had ever been caught. 
The  location Turner was pinned,  a mere 75 feet North,   is possible according to Turner's version of events, in which case he was not attempting to run away, which according to the lone juror who has spoken of the case  was seen as a sign of guilt and as  most compelling evidence. 
One has to conclude that either the witnesses lied or Deputy Braden Shaw misrepresented what he was told by the witnesses when he wrote their statements in the Police Report, to make it appear Turner was attempting to flee by running away. 
If the Prosecution introduced false  testimony which they knew was false or  which they only did not know was false because they performed no or inadequate  due diligence and that testimony was material in the jury reaching a guilty verdict, that is a violation of Due Process, and the conviction should be set aside on appeal. And without the false testimony, there is insufficient evidence for a conviction. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics