That's a back peddle and a half. You said he was found guilty by Witnesses and Evidence when i showed that was impossible to have happened. In fact Witness statements don't mean a lot unless they go to court and say it in front of a judge. If they don't turn up then the statement doesn't mean anything. You are still not addressing his IQ. Or that how many people lived in Port Arthur then, it's a tiny town in the middle of nowhere everyone would have known him and just his hair would have stood out.
Yes it is, and these fools would be swallowed it 100% because they doesn't know fuck about this case, because they got their information from foil hat sources. So what? What I mainly do is that I show how little they really know and understand by throwing then a mix of facts and complete bullshit, and watch laughing while they try to argue that bullshit.
When, in history, has someone been stuck in jail for 5 months after pleading Not Guilty with no Hearing? Have you seen how many Politicians have lost their jobs in NSW in the past few months due to corruption?
So What? What is the truth? Were he in custody, or did his mental examination take that time? Two different things. And where the claim about those five month is coming? Killings take place at 28th of April, and he was sentenced at 22th at November. Where they should kept him at that time? Maybe in jail, like they do with criminals? Why they would hear him, while they have straight forward case with tons of evidence? Have you never even think about that? His mom tell him to plead guilty because of shame if he doesn't, because there was no way in hell to win in court. Where is the conspiracy?
Read this champ. I'm not saying this guy is innocent by any means as he was there but this is why there is no death penalty in Australia anymore, due to so much outcry over the last man killed by hanging. The Police based this guy's Guilty plea on saying when he was alone with them in the car after the arrest he confessed yet he never confessed any other time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan
What do you need to know about Ryan case? Guilty as hell, defended by the idiot. He shot a running man in the chest, and his lawyer try to make it seem like he has shot standing man, because he want to make it look like the trajectory would be wrong. What is the truth? If you sprint to catch escaping criminal etc., you do not run your torso at upright and straight posture, like you are when you are standing. You run slightly bending over, so bullet to the chest get just the trajectory which has seen here. That is the key point. Ryan is only one with rifle at the position where you can shot Hodson in the chest, so it is clear that he did it. Did I simplify this enough for you?
