On Sat, 03 May 2008 15:15:51 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
wrote:
>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.
If there is evidence not put forward at the previous trial that casts
dobt on the verdict then I'm all for a retrial
> 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.
You are not a poor taxpayer.
You are a rich parasite living off the taxpayers
>
>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.
I don't have the judgement only what is reported in the press |