Let me get this straight....The government of NSW in Australia conducted a search of registered shooters and confiscated/destroyed over 43,000 weapons on specious "storage safety violations".

Now we have a story about a man who ADMITS to two murders; DNA evidence found at the scene of one of the murders ties him to the murder. Prosecutors have testimony that the defendant admited commiting the murders.

He has been in jail for 16 months awaiting trial for the murders, and today, he's a free man. Why? Because the judge in the case ruled that the DNA evidence was "damning to the defendant", and might cause a jury to "unfairly" convict him?!?! A court source said: "The evidence would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear, they would naturaly assume from some of the evidence, that he was guilty. Um....isn't that the reason for evidence? Any evidence that shows guilt will naturaly bias the jury into believeing the defendant is guilty, if it didn't, it wouldn't be evidence, would it?

Just WHAT are they drinking/smoking/ingesting in Oz that leads to such Idiotarian behaviour?!?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.