Birmingham Six?

( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:26, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

From what I remember there was forensic evidence against them,
the evidence was shit but it was still there.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:27, Reply)

Aye but the source of TRUTH that is wikipedia tells me...
The Court of Appeal stated about the forensic evidence that: Dr. Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:31, Reply)

Still they weren't picked at random,
this argument is stupid though, wormulus is right.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:37, Reply)

much as it pains me
I agree with you and wormulus
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:44, Reply)

That's not pain you feel,
it's the knowledge that you are correct. You're just not used to it.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:47, Reply)

the strange thing is, I am used to knowing I'm correct
I think it must be the feeling of agreeing with other people.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:50, Reply)

same *dammit!*
Even Colin Stagg & Barry Bulsara (one of my favourite nutters ever) could have done what they were accused of, they were fitted up by the fackin' rozzers, innit?
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 16:47, Reply)

Didn't say he was wrong :P
Was playing a wee bit of Devil's Advocate.. I mean as far as his question goes of someone getting picked at random and accused then the Bormingham Six weren't far off save for a tenous IRA link..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Thu 10 Dec 2009, 17:12, Reply)