he's not guilty, but he's definitely not innocent. considering both parties, i still think he should've been accountable for at least one of the crimes.
Printable View
he's not guilty, but he's definitely not innocent. considering both parties, i still think he should've been accountable for at least one of the crimes.
Like Sir LenMiyata said, there was no way he was going to be pronounced (what's that word I'm looking for?) guilty.
The persecutors made some stupid mistakes and when you consider the beyond reasonable doubt rule there was VERY little chance of them succeeding.
However, I did think that he would get charged for some of the minor offences.
I think he's guilty. If he were innocent, why would he try to offer money to the kid and his mother? No reason why someone who is innocent would pay them money to shut up. Not that money is a problem to him.
Some people do this because the matter is settled that way and there won't be a case in the court of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrystal_19
You probably know that even if you are declared not guilty of anything, getting sued still defiles your name, simply because of the fact that you were sued.
Oh yes it is, he's way down in the red numbers on his bank accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrystal_19
But if you're really innocent in the first place, you shouldn't be declared guilty. (although you might be)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassun
I thought he was filthy rich? I think Ã* just haven't been following whta's been happening to him. :)
Me neither really, I heard it on the news a couple of days ago...
I think a point to raise is that it is expected that he will still be sued by the family for a tort. for those of you who don't know, you CAN be prosecuted for the same crime twice. One for criminal, or for personal. So it is obvious if we hear they they will sue him, he is at least partly guilty.
I think he's innocent. I mean he is really rich. Didn't u ever wonder if they were only after his money? But then again that's my opinion.