Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[WillHayward]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

Love how people think if they say "make no mistake" then all the bullshit is somehow believable.

The "independent male" part is the funniest.

 

[Dan Moody]

Love how people think if they say "make no mistake" then all the bullshit is somehow believable.

The "independent male" part is the funniest.

he was an independent male though, didn't you read enough of the court transcripts to discover that?

 

[sleep]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

Congratulations, the most ******ed post i have read in all my time on this BF.

 

[tiger_tough]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

 

[Saint]

No skin in the game, and was convinced about his innocence up until I heard yesterday.
Now I have no doubt at all he is innocent of assault against the male witness but not of the original charge

If you have no doubt at all, then why aren't the police pursuing charges still? All they have to do is prove to people like you and I to that level (no doubt at all).

Better still, the victim could sue the perpetrators and have a much lower bar to clear.

Why are you so convinced, but the Police and DPP think it's not convincing?

Wasn't the assault supposedly in a car park that they all willingly went to? How did you leave that part out of your story?

 

[Generalissimo]

If you have no doubt at all, then why aren't the police pursuing charges still? All they have to do is prove to people like you and I to that level (no doubt at all).

Better still, the victim could sue the perpetrators and have a much lower bar to clear.

Why are you so convinced, but the Police and DPP think it's not convincing?

Wasn't the assault supposedly in a car park that they all willingly went to? How did you leave that part out of your story?

You're operating under the assumption that this ding dong believes what he's posting. He doesn't. He's saying things that he knows are false in order to make people upset or angry. This is what's called "trolling".

 

[crowman2]

Technically he was always presumed innocent and remains so, unless a court were to prove he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He wasn't "found" innocent by the case being thrown out - a court case is used to determine guilt, not innocence.

Correct his is innocent like you and me and even your captain Bonts