Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 6628714)

Insufficient evidence means there is not proof of guilt, if it was really felt the evidence could be substantiated in time then further investigation would continue.
In Jim's case this case file is closed, there is to be 'no' action taken.

That means in law, he has not done anything where guilt can be proved or the allegations even to be substantiated in any way.
To say otherwise,if she dared, could find her sued by Jim,unlikely but it would be an option were she or anyone else to insinuate anything as to that publicly.

Originally Posted by Vanessa (Post 6628710)

I think it's only a matter of time until she brings it up. Hope i'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Benjamin (Post 6628724)

I don't think she would bring it up. Why would she? People speculating that she may and secretly hoping that she will so they have another reason to defend Jim.

Originally Posted by Vanessa (Post 6628727)

I think she would try anything to bring him down. She hates him that much.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 6628719)

Probably because that was nothing to do with her husband stealing money and had no relation to the argument?

Also I doubt BB would have shown it since Jim was found not guilty on all charges...

Originally Posted by Catweazel (Post 6628728)

She cant bring it up. and she wont. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit (Post 6628700)

Because she's better than low blows like that.

Also for the record, insufficient evidence does not imply innocence, which some people seem to believe.

Originally Posted by GiRTh (Post 6628721)

Tactically it was a stroke of genius to not bring up operation Yewtree. Linda had been poking Jim for weeks and finally got him to say something inappropriate, she'd have lost her edge if she'd have resorted to such underhand tactics. Well played Linda, some of us see right thru your plan. :idc:

Originally Posted by letmein (Post 6628709)

He wasn't found not guilty.

Originally Posted by letmein (Post 6628723)

The case can be reopened at any time, and no, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Mark my words, he'll be on trial in less then two years. He's a vile pos.

Originally Posted by GiRTh (Post 6628721)

Tactically it was a stroke of genius to not bring up operation Yewtree. Linda had been poking Jim for weeks and finally got him to say something inappropriate, she'd have lost her edge if she'd have resorted to such underhand tactics. Well played Linda, some of us see right thru your plan. :idc:

Originally Posted by Videostar (Post 6628740)

No evidence = not guilty.

And it hasn't stopped the police charging others with these crimes when it ended up being thrown out of court.

Originally Posted by Catweazel (Post 6628741)

Yes some 58 year old woman will say that in 1979 he fell over in Poole in Dorset and touched her ankle. Since that vile incident she has become deformed and grown 2 additional labias that she calls Dave and Barney.

The cops wont buy it. :nono:

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 6628714)

Insufficient evidence means there is not proof of guilt, if it was really felt the evidence could be substantiated in time then further investigation would continue.
In Jim's case this case file is closed, there is to be 'no' action taken.

That means in law, he has not done anything where guilt can be proved or the allegations even to be substantiated in any way.
To say otherwise,if she dared, could find her sued by Jim,unlikely but it would be an option were she or anyone else to insinuate anything as to that publicly.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 6628719)

Probably because that was nothing to do with her husband stealing money and had no relation to the argument?

Also I doubt BB would have shown it since Jim was found not guilty on all charges...

Originally Posted by jet (Post 6628754)

Someone can't be found 'not guilty' unless they have been on trial.
You are also incorrect to say there was 'NO' evidence' - he was released without charge because there was INSUFFICIENT evidence which implies there was some evidence but not firm enough to charge him.

Originally Posted by RobInnes (Post 6628765)

Wouldn't put it past her - but having said that, even if she did, they'd have to be very careful about the editing of it as it's an ongoing investigation, even if it doesn't involve Jim any more.

Originally Posted by Benjamin (Post 6628729)

Well she hasn't mentioned anything of his past yet, but he has on hers. :pipe:

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton (Post 6628785)

You are innocent until found guilty, so Jim is innocent.

Originally Posted by Petemitch123 (Post 6628770)

Originally Posted by RobInnes (Post 6628787)

Best GIF in the world - thanks BBspy :love: