Well done Holland

[Meekychuppet]

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.as ... =149652492

Man cleared of mutilating daughter

A court has cleared a man on a charge of mutilating his young daughter's genitals in Holland's first trial linked to an alleged female circumcision ceremony. Haarlem District Court judges say there is no doubt the girl underwent female circumcision but there is insufficient evidence to convict her father. Prosecutors say the girl told a carer that her father had cut her with a pair of scissors, but judges say the statement was not strong enough evidence to convict the man.The father was convicted of beating and biting his daughter and was sentenced to three months imprisonment. Neither the girl nor her father were identified in the written ruling.

Well, they didn't get him but at least the Dutch have got the balls to go after these evil fucking bastards.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

[Meekychuppet]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

You might want to look that word up.

[AshtonBlack]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

Lulz!!!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

Lulz!!!

She was just playing the injured cunt.

[AshtonBlack]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

Lulz!!!

She was just playing the injured cunt.

You twat. Pussybly the most tasteless derail ever. :twisted:

[Meekychuppet]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

You might want to look that word up.

You might want to look up the word 'jurisprudence'. As much as I wanted this guy to go down, if there is not enough evidence then he should not be convicted. As an enlightenment thinker I have to accept that. You cannot convict people you do not like purely on that basis, for the law must operate without passion or prejudice. If the evidence is not enough, he goes free. The end.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

You might want to look that word up.

You might want to look up the word 'jurisprudence'. As much as I wanted this guy to go down, if there is not enough evidence then he should not be convicted. As an enlightenment thinker I have to accept that. You cannot convict people you do not like purely on that basis, for the law must operate without passion or prejudice. If the evidence is not enough, he goes free. The end.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires or allows a trier of fact to make an inference which supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of absence of guilt). That is, the evidence only supports indirectly the truth of the assertion. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.

Testimony that the witness saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

Similarly, a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

[Meekychuppet]

So, her statement and physical evidence to corroborate that statement aren't enough to convict?

No, it was the correct verdict. The evidence is purely circumstantial.

You might want to look that word up.

You might want to look up the word 'jurisprudence'. As much as I wanted this guy to go down, if there is not enough evidence then he should not be convicted. As an enlightenment thinker I have to accept that. You cannot convict people you do not like purely on that basis, for the law must operate without passion or prejudice. If the evidence is not enough, he goes free. The end.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires or allows a trier of fact to make an inference which supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of absence of guilt). That is, the evidence only supports indirectly the truth of the assertion. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.

Testimony that the witness saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

Similarly, a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

Of course, her testimony is direct - I never said it wasn't and it goes without saying that it is. The problem is that the key evidence is that which is required to corroborate that evidence, and that evidence is not enough. The connection between him and the act is nothing more than circumstantial. What you have just posted in support of your statement is tautological, so thanks for proving my point. The evidence to support her statement, which is merely an unsubstantiated accusation, is not enough to convict.

Here's your ass, I am handing it to you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You win.

[charlou]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

[Meekychuppet]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

Um, you lost me here.