 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
how can you say this conviction is correct they have not even spelt the appellants name right not bothered to check his details seems there not interested in the facts just creating there own facts some just cause to what is stated below as how can you prove your own case when the state holds the resources to investigate it picks and chooses what to say is the Truth when has any court voluntarily given notice that its been incompetent in what it does never it has to be shamed into action as they have very little conscience for telling the Truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.68.31.231 (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2008 ([1]UTC)
I AM THE APPELLANT NAMED IN THIS CASE
i was in court on the 6 MARCH 1997 HOW MORE CAN YOU GET I WAS THERE
- Your presence there does not fit the encyclopedia's guideline of reliable source, which was the point I was hoping you would take when I referred you to the link. I could say I was there too, but how could you prove otherwise? If you can find an external reliable source, such as a newspaper report, that backs up the points you want to make, then add the information along with the citation. If you can't provide a source, any editor can remove any information from the encyclopedia. Again, please read the links I provide to give you the information you need to properly edit the encyclopedia. Doonhamer (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
←The appellant was refused a independent assessment of the so called victim when requested to do so they stated the appellant had no rights to one in a country of fair assumed justice had no independent psychiatrist of his own as again stated as having no right to one a very unjust unfair court case. evidence for the appellant was refused to be investigated by the police or even put to the court as it was censored before entering the court files were opened to the press by a police officer in court sitting in the press box then opening the file and then sliding it in front of them. This was a case of more of a show trial to invent legal precedent not justice an appalling case in law unjust and immoral.
Case of the farcical proportions legal fantasies are us just make it up as you go along
How can you refuse appeal when no thought is put into the appalling quality of evidence put to the original court the appellant’s evidence not being put or evidence requested by appellant not being put to the jury?
If the fear is irrelevant how it got there then what is this case about fear of a bad or combinations of events in a day anything you can make it be you can then say is a cause of fear this was not proven in court as the appellant had no independent expert whiteness of there own that brought to the court a proper investigation into this. With what they have at present done you can just about lock up any one for what ever you want because you wish to. Justice and abuse of power because you can create any fantasy law you whish by a group of unelected unaccountable judiciary.
Ware is the psychiatric argument when the appellant was refused his own in court saying he had no right to one.
Ask why we now have the worst and appalling crime in western world when the courts are immoral now longer now what the laws is about any more.
well the problem is that the information required is not being investigated properly by the police who seem to have convenient periods of amnesia when it suits them you have no access to getting the facts that are required.
Response to the above edit
If you are curious why I was insistent about removing the above from the article, it is because Wikipedia has policies that you must follow with regard to:
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the merits of the case, but Wikipedia is not the place to voice them. You are also entirely welcome to edit the encyclopedia, but please read the links in the list above to understand the proper way to do so. Thank you. Doonhamer (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
WELL I WAS THERE IN COURT ON THE 6 MARCH AND AT THE APPEAL
they can not even get the name spelt right!
IF YOU AFTER VERIFIABLE FACTS THEN WHY ARE YOU NOT ALSO ASKING THE OPINION OF THE APPELLANT TO HAVE BOTH POINTS VIEW WHAT YOU PRINT IS THEN ONE SIDED NOT NECESSARILY THE TRUTH OR FACT ARE COURTS ARE NOT THE BEHOLDERS OF RIGHT OR TRUTH JUST A OPINION NOT ALWAYS WHAT IS RIGHT OR MORAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.130.232 (talk • contribs)
- Because he or she is not here to discuss the matter. I have added a flag at the top of the article that notifies the reader that the article is missing reliable sources. Doonhamer (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
YOU POSTED THE COURTS POINT OF VIEW NOT BOTH SIDES OR ALL THE FACTS ONLY THOSE CENSORED BY THE COURT OR NOT INVESTIGATED BY THE POLICE PERIODS OF AMNESIA
IT SEEMS EVEN THIS SITE STOPS WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN COURT FROM BEING MADE PUBLIC
WITH EVIDENCE THAT I ASKED THE THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE OF HER PARKING OUTSIDE MY HOME THEY SEEM TO HAVE HAD CONVENIENT AMNESIA I GAVE THEM THE CAR NUMBER PLATE HER AND ANOTHER PASSENGER IN THE CAR CONVENIENT POLICE AMNESIA YES AS WAS THE HONESTY OF THE PASSENGER SO NOT THE WHOLE FACTS JUST CONVENIENT POLICE AMNESIA. HAS JUSTICE JUST BECOME A FANTASY CRIME ITSELF.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.27.98 (talk • contribs)
- (uninvolved editor) @94.194.27.98: Per WP:CARCASS, there really was no reason for you to revive this case, especially in ALL CAPS SHOUTING. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
AS FARE AS I AM AWARE WE ARE A DEMOCRACY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH COMMENT OPINION IN A DEMOCRACY TO REVIVE CASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.27.98 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- (uninvolved editor) WP:FREESPEECH. Also, please sign your posts on a talk page (like this one) by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Also, please stop posting in all caps. It's extremely disruptive and negates civil collaboration. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Insert footnote text here