On 14/04/17 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that
work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court of lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

Stop being so utterly thick.

Don't be so obtuse.

I stand my ground.

It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice.

If you say so.

It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts
that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court".

It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF.

The technical details would have been established long before the CDF
got involved...

...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be
proven to be false".

Don't be so stupid. The jury found the evidence was lacking, in their
*opinion*. An absence of evidence cannot prove the evidence to be false.

...

Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you?

The jury gave returned an *opinion* that the defendant was not guilty as
charged. That is nothing more to it.