that would still mean he went out looking for it in the first place
there's no defence to this, trust me. i'm a lawyer. in fact, i think you're making it worse for both of you.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:11, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Trust me, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt
Working for the defence all I have to do is make the jury doubt your version of events by offering up alternatives.

Why would I be making it worse for me?
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:14, Reply)

mention of hot girl
results in "ooh look what i just HAPPENED to have on my computer, what a coincidence" picture. no jury would buy that. case dismissed, go to jail, do not collect £200, you fucking nonce.

you are making it worse for you by defending this course of action. sad times.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:15, Reply)

You can't prove he didn't have knowledge of that pic existing before hand
Therefore you can't find him guilty.

Everyone's entitled to a fair defence, it's part of what makes our justice system.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:18, Reply)

i don't need to prove it
i just need to prove it to the satisfaction of the jury. they'll take one look at him, and he'll be lucky to see daylight again before the age of 92.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:24, Reply)

If he dresses up smart he'll be fine
Old women are the most judgmental of jury members, and if they like the look of him from the start then they've already made up their mind.

It's crazy, like female jurors are more likely to vote against a woman in a contested rape case (she says she said no, she was drunk, he says she consented), because she "dressed up like a slut, got drunk, it's her own fault". It's maddening, but worryingly common in those cases.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 25 Feb 2011, 16:28, Reply)