I don't get this:
The story is breaking everywhere, yet not one of them says what the woman herself has said?!?
She saw him. Twice. He ran back across and she tried to accost him. Surely she can identify him? She's not going to blame an innocent man for that, she's going to want justice?!?
Is there no room in our criminal justice system for basic common sense??
If the victim has positively identified him, it's on camera, and yet he's wriggled out of it by creating a doubtlessly expensive alibi, because oh yeah... he just happens to be a millionaire banker... that is beyond appalling. We as a society cannot let that happen. We just can't!
And if he wasn't the perpetrator of that shocking behaviour on Putney Bridge, why the flaming heck was he arrested in the first place?? Again, the small detail of a witness who looked him straight in the face, one might have thought a fairly significant factor in any arrest.
In that instance, someone was physically paid to come up with that intel... intel unbelievably ignoring the most obvious and rudimentary evidence.
What a farce! Hardly inspiring of competence. And it really makes no sense, either way round.
Clarification is needed. Pronto.
No comments:
Post a Comment