On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:08:10 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
wrote:
>Alang wrote in
>news:o73p145euc26l1abf8b8967402664suq1g@4ax.com:
>
>> 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
>
>Rich? Moi, wife two children and a budding "affair" or two to pay for,
>you're very much mistaken.
You are an employee of the state.
A rich parasite living off the backs of the taxpayer
>
>>>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
>
>Well best you read it then, of course you may be happy to allow the BBC
>to do your thinking for you but I pefer otherwise for myself.
The court obviously believed the original verdict was unsafe. The
points reported on the bbc and in the local press seem reason enough
to declare the verdict unsafe
At least the case came to court unlike the killing of J C DeMenezes
and Harry Stanley
>It's been
>pointed out a few times that the judgement is available on teh Bailii
>website.
So post a URL |