Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Good Morning Britain" channel.

  1. Because she personally is upset that he's raising this. It goes against the narrative she wants to believe. This is why every time he tried to make a point she'd cut him off and change the subject. None of her points made any sense. Courts get things wrong too. So do juries. Innocent point get found guilty every day. Given Davis just wants a review of the trial, nothing he's saying seems unreasonable.
    20
  2. 4:22 The quick move of the hand, the look on her face. She knows her dog bites. She knows. Then 3 minutes later she claims you couldn't get her dog to do something aggressive. She's a joke.
    5
  3. No. She can't. Because he's making too fine a point and she doesn't like it. She also has to say something to hustify her salary for being there.
    4
  4. ​ @nighttrain1236 You're right, that is possible. It's also possible that she wasn't and is completely innocent. What Davies is asking for is a judicial review, to include additional expert testimony not considered in the trial. Such a review allows for an accurate determination as to your supposition. To stand in the way of that when there is such a noted question mark over the case is a miscarriage of justice in and of itself. It is for the public good that such a review take place, such that faith in the system can be restored.
    3
  5. ​@Justice4allthewronged Take a peeks in a dictionary under the word manuscript which the OP erroneously stated, as opposed to a transcript. Transcripts are provided digitally, there are no photocopiers involved.
    1
  6.  @dynamicdylan8926  Almost, yes. 4:22
    1
  7.  @dynamicdylan8926  I'm not sure you watched the video...
    1
  8.  @dynamicdylan8926  Lame troll
    1
  9. Check out the quick hand movement away from the dog, the look on her face and the double take at 4:22 She knows very well her dog can be aggressive. Know one gets a dog like that because they want a golden retriever. They get a dog like that, at least partially because it will defend it's home. For her to claim her dog could never be aggressive is a purposeful lie. Trying to combat hard statistical data with empty anecdotal claims is absurd. Why was she even invited on?
    1