On Sat, 03 May 2008 09:25:58 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
wrote:
>Alang wrote in
>news:uh6o14tfvbfg62aurlho726joepobv4vq6@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 18:07:20 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Alang wrote in
>>>news:dflm14p72mt75a6b17kv6814qutohr1e4q@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 15:11:01 +0100, Cynic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:05:10 +0100, "The Todal"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lucky, lucky Suzanne Holdsworth. She might manage to escape the
>>>>>>clutches of the law, and then maybe go on TV to complain that she
>>>>>>has been pilloried by a heartless medical establishment. But given
>>>>>>the choice, I'd far rather let Chris Langham babysit my toddler.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, on seconds thoughts after reading the evidence I do believe you
>>>>>and Periander are correct. The original conviction was sound.
>>>>
>>>> I think there is a great deal to doubt about the original verdict
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7129962.stm
>>>>
>>>
>>>But no where near as much as there is on the Baili website which
>>>reproduces the actual judgement without spinning.
>>
>> I haven't read that but I'm glad to see you agree there is doubt about
>> the original verdict.
>
>It must be your age Alan or my very badly phrased reply to you -
>whatever but I have no doubt at all about the original verdict.
You don't mean to say she's escaped and the court judgement didn't
order her release pending a retrial? |