i started a thread last month about a stranger being found in a teenagers bedroom at shirecliffe.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=267126

well just to update anyone interested. 6 weeks on the young girl still has'nt slept at home. and the bloke accused of it but could'nt be proved has now done it again and been caught and in court soon.

thanks to all the well wishes and you know what to the "do gooders"

Glad he has been caught! i know what i would do if he was in my kids bedroom!
forget about the "do gooders" m8 they live on a different planet:hihi:

i started a thread last month about a stranger being found in a teenagers bedroom at shirecliffe.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=267126

well just to update anyone interested. 6 weeks on the young girl still has'nt slept at home. and the bloke accused of it but could'nt be proved has now done it again and been caught and in court soon.

thanks to all the well wishes and you know what to the "do gooders"

Well hope the girl involved makes steady, and swift progress in her recovery.

Don't really understand your barbed reference to 'do gooders' though, if it couldn't be proved then it's right that he wasn't convicted of anything isn't it?

If people were convicted on hearsay or on trivial evidence then the prisons would be heaving with innocent people..you may yourself one day be accused of something you didn't do and be grateful for the support of people who can assess evidence objectively.

Well hope the girl involved makes steady, and swift progress in her recovery.

Don't really understand your barbed reference to 'do gooders' though, if it couldn't be proved then it's right that he wasn't convicted of anything isn't it?

If people were convicted on hearsay or on trivial evidence then the prisons would be heaving with innocent people..you may yourself one day be accused of something you didn't do and be grateful for the support of people who can assess evidence objectively.


yes your right its a good job he was'nt convicted like the police wanted him to be.

but then again another set of parents would'nt be going through hell now.

any how just updating will do so again after the court case. then the whole truth will come out in the press. and i can answer you how i want to.

Thanks for the update blade... I was thinking about this case just the other day wondering what had happened. Don't forget to update again later (after court process is done) :thumbsup:

yes your right its a good job he was'nt convicted like the police wanted him to be.

but then again another set of parents would'nt be going through hell now.

any how just updating will do so again after the court case. then the whole truth will come out in the press. and i can answer you how i want to.

Listen, I'm not saying he did or didn't do what you say he did. It's just that you're being witness, judge & jury on a public forum and expect unconditional approval from everyone that responds to your thread.

boyfriday by law he might not have broke anything but by saying that your condoning it are you not?

boyfriday by law he might not have broke anything but by saying that your condoning it are you not?

Pointing out that someone may not get convicted is not the same as saying you agree with what they did.

boyfriday by law he might not have broke anything but by saying that your condoning it are you not?

...amazing how peoples thinking can get extended and how selective they can be when reading what someone has actually said.

boyfriday by law he might not have broke anything but by saying that your condoning it are you not?

no, I think what boyfriday is saying is that law has to follow due process.

As much as some would love vigilante law, full proof has to be offered, and a magistrate or jury has to weight the proof and find, on the basis of that proof whether or not a person ob the basis of probability, did the crime or didn't do the crime. that's how the law works.

Pointing out that someone may not get convicted is not the same as saying you agree with what they did.

:thumbsup:

no, I think what boyfriday is saying is that law has to follow due process.

As much as some would love vigilante law, full proof has to be offered, and a magistrate or jury has to weight the proof and find, on the basis of that proof whether or not a person ob the basis of probability, did the crime or didn't do the crime. that's how the law works.

I think the point is that it never got as far as a court, so a magistrate or jury never had the chance to decide on the evidence.
I wonder what they've charged him with this time that they couldn't have done last time.

no, I think what boyfriday is saying is that law has to follow due process.

As much as some would love vigilante law, full proof has to be offered, and a magistrate or jury has to weight the proof and find, on the basis of that proof whether or not a person ob the basis of probability, did the crime or didn't do the crime. that's how the law works.

:thumbsup:

I think the point is that it never got as far as a court, so a magistrate or jury never had the chance to decide on the evidence.
I wonder what they've charged him with this time that they couldn't have done last time.

Presumably the police and CPS think that the evidence in the latest alleged event, supports the likelihood of conviction.

Listen, I'm not saying he did or didn't do what you say he did. It's just that you're being witness, judge & jury on a public forum and expect unconditional approval from everyone that responds to your thread.


like i said my hands are tied till after the court case when all becomes clear you will see that yes i do expect unconditional approval.

did'nt want to get into a row over this thread just wanted to update the loads of well wishes from the original thread and pm's ive received.

could one of the mods please lock it now thanks.

Closed at the request of the OP.