Lindy was either guilty of killing the baby or knows what really happened...And keli should be put down for what she done.
How about science has proven Lindy is innocent, and there is not enough evidence to prove Keli did anything?
I dont think all the questions have been answered in the Lindy case Mak there is way too many gaps is the story. As for Keli...you are kidding right? She is guilty as sin her continually evolving "story" on what she did with the baby cannot be believed by anyone.
I like for there to be concrete evidence against someone, and that includes physical evidence. There was nothing of the sort with Keli, so I can't say for sure whether she did it or not.
So as long as when you kill someone you destroy all evidence of the body you are not guilty?? Come on Mak thats pretty silly dont you think?
I think that when you have no physical evidence to link you to the crime, then you can't be jailed. There is always a chance you are innocent.
The resident Perry Mason is at it again...hes guilty...shes innocent...this verdict was wrong...that verdict was wrong...apppeal appeal appeal....give it a rest for Gods sake Makedde
Makedde is the only person on here to hold our legal system to account, before thinking her opinion on someone's guilt or otherwise, is worth anything. So your criticism, magoo, is completely erroneous. Lindy wasn't guilty. The Australian press and public, facilitated by incompetent police investigation and an ambitious prosecutor, got to have a witch hunt. Shows just what you can achieve in our legal system, if you can manage to get someone you don't like in front of a jury. I don't like anything I know about Kelli Lane. I like even less the so called integrity of our legal system, one which allows a murder conviction to be based on persuading the jury, over the integrity of the evidence. And I have little doubt Murdoch didn't have anything to do with Lees or Falconio, for the same reason. The police had been out to get him for drug running for a long time. He maybe a lying lowlife, but when the policeforce and legal system lowers itself to that level to score brownie points and satifsy the public appetite, you know any guilty pronouncement is the pot calling the kettle black.
"Makedde is the only person on here to hold our legal system to account, ....." And she does it all from behind her computor, without even being in court to hear the evidence...she is so good too.....yawn yawn.....how many posts now must be nearly 60,000....surprised she has the time to post, considering she has to research all these controversial cases....yawn yawn again.... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for that opinion to be expressed without being in court to hear evidence and observe witnesses and the manner in which they react to cross examination etc etc....this whole subject just bores the crap out of me.........................
And Stephen Hawking writes books about the universe, from his wheelchair. What's your point? Beyond offering (what so far appears) a balanced opinion, she makes herself useful in the function of moderator. 60,000 posts reflects quite a committment to the discussion.
Commitment yes for sure and a good mod too..but balanced...mmmmmm nope. I personally have no problem with MAK at all and in fact have called on Mak's help a few times...but with posts like this it shows that Mak is far from balanced. Mak in no way is this an attack on you personally, it was done to point out that ALL posters on here have their own slant on things no matter how balanced they seen to be.
Even if I was in the court room, I wouldn't have heard anything to change my mind. If there was any physical evidence to link her to the crime, it would have been revealed. You cannot send someone to prison without there being concrete proof of their guilt. It is just wrong.
Okay, those posts were about my opposition to duck hunting. I am against it because I believe it to be cruel to shoot a bird that has done nothing wrong. I am unsure what this has to do with your opinion of my being 'unbalanced? Could you explain further?
So I take it you are the kind of person who would accept any verdict by a jury even if you believed differently? The justice system is there to be questioned. It has been wrong before - what makes you so certain it isn't wrong this time?
Sorry Mak, What i mean is that we each have our own set of "ideals" and "beliefs" and not matter what those will always come through in our posts. Yes those comments came from the duck hunting thread but it showed that your own personal belief that duck hunting should be banned stopped you from seeing some of the really good points raised in that thread.
If Im (yawn) not in Court (yawn) hearing all the evidence (yawn) I have no opinion (yawn)...you just luv controversy and you use it to gain attention....eg the duck shooting....no doubt there are many other issues in the 60,000 posts...(yawn)...(Howards worse than Hitler and Mussolini combined)........ yaaaawwwnn....
I didn't see any decent posts in that thread, though (about the duck shooting) If you are opposed to something, you don't see the relevance in opinions in support of it!
Are you practicing law or something? I dont know if she's guilty or not, the fact that the evidence is against her which the jury would have examined very closely before conviting her is enough for me. Sure mistakes happen.
You don't know how dumb a jury can be though. Some juries will accept any bogus evidence that comes their way.
Mak, Let me ask you this..On the Keli case Tell me what in your mind makes her not guilty. You say that the evidence isint enough where as most of us think it is so lets have a chat about what makes her NOT guilty
