[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Out of interest have you ever felt guilty about something when you’re not - I know I have. You feel some people think you are and almost believe it yourself except you know you’re not. Coincidence often gets misconstrued by those with an agenda.

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always be some people who have the IQ of a peanut that do not keep abreast of current affairs who will know that she has been accused of this but not that she has been cleared.

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always also be some people who KNOW that she has been cleared but do not accept it because 'There Is No Smoke Without Fire' in their minds.

Anonymity, until proved guilty in a Court of Law, is THE only way to protect an innocent person from both categories of the above.

And innocent people who have been WRONGLY accused of such heinous crimes NEED protecting.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always be some people who have the IQ of a peanut that do not keep abreast of current affairs who will know that she has been accused of this but not that she has been cleared.

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always also be some people who KNOW that she has been cleared but do not accept it because 'There Is No Smoke Without Fire' in their minds.

Anonymity, until proved guilty in a Court of Law, is THE only way to protect an innocent person from both categories of the above.

And innocent people who have been WRONGLY accused of such heinous crimes NEED protecting.

I agree Kirk. I just ask myself - WHY - it makes no sense. All that training for what! I just can’t get my head round what she has been accused of. If she had any kind of ‘history’ it is unlikely she would have been accepted into a training programme.

Why would an intelligent capable woman with a promising future start killing babies! Surely someone that disturbed wouldn’t have slipped between the cracks! I would really like to know what ‘evidence’ they have!

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always be some people who have the IQ of a peanut that do not keep abreast of current affairs who will know that she has been accused of this but not that she has been cleared.

If she is eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, there will always also be some people who KNOW that she has been cleared but do not accept it because 'There Is No Smoke Without Fire' in their minds.

Anonymity, until proved guilty in a Court of Law, is THE only way to protect an innocent person from both categories of the above.

And innocent people who have been WRONGLY accused of such heinous crimes NEED protecting.

I agree they shouldn't name names. Remember the poor guy who was named and photo'd all over the press for the murder of Rachel Nickell in front of her toddler? He was tried by press, hounded, the police tried to get him with a honey trap and it turned out that it had nothing to do with him. Poor man. Being a bit weird isn't a crime.