Bag's Rants

Insufficient evidence. Is that a real excuse?

I've read lately a couple of times about their being insufficient evidence to prosecute when we know one person did it but not which one. Very rarely is it a member of the public that gets this decision in a similar situation. It's much more often a member of our Police or armed forces who get that pleasure. When this sort of thing is raised as a real excuse for no prosecutions in cases like this I just can't believe they will get away with it.

We, the general public get prosecuted all the time with hardly any evidence. We pass wind somewhere and the residue is detected analysed and a DNA sample leads to us and we are prosecuted with no other evidence. Here we have a prison full of people someone on duty must have done it and yet there is no case to bring.

Must remember to get ten of my mates, who can all lie together, and we can bump off anyone. After all, it must be one of us but insufficient evidence to tie any one to the crime so we get off with it. Somehow I don't think we would get away with it. Why should they? b4$^4&ds.

posted by Bag @ 10:22 pm