Alang wrote in
news:b5so149hst9adm50je861qbe9l8n6atj7r@4ax.com:
> 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?
Nope, simply another example of money buying a verdict. I'd have thought
that you’d have been against that sort of thing. She'll be found guilty
again on the re-trial and meanwhile us poor taxpayers will be several
hundreds of thousands of pounds worse off.
If you'd actually read the judgement you'd probably (assuming old age
hasn't yet fully calcified your thinking muscle) come to the same
conclusion.
--
Regards,
Periander |