Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The laws apply to all, yourself op and me equally if we were in that position so regardless of the vile nature of her crimes it has to also apply to her.. If we let 'popular opinion' be the benchmark it's a slippery slope and there will be some who might want that to be the case but ask Andy Malkinson how such restrictions for certain crimes might have further detrimentally affected his life.. It's not a perfect system and it makes mistakes.." This. Totally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure that the Judge followed legal protocols and only granted leave to appeal because there were grounds to. Just because you've already made your mind up about the appeal, without knowing the grounds for appeal and all the intracies in the case, it doesn't make the Judge a cunt for not pandering to mob rule." The word is intricacies and where did mob rule come from? Guilty and whilst I understand better than you about the appellant process, it has to be justified | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The word is intricacies and where did mob rule come from? Guilty and whilst I understand better than you about the appellant process, it has to be justified " And have you read the appeal? What makes you think that it isn't justified? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure that the Judge followed legal protocols and only granted leave to appeal because there were grounds to. Just because you've already made your mind up about the appeal, without knowing the grounds for appeal and all the intracies in the case, it doesn't make the Judge a cunt for not pandering to mob rule. The word is intricacies and where did mob rule come from? Guilty and whilst I understand better than you about the appellant process, it has to be justified " How do you know you know more than them? Re intricacies, you never had a typo? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are spending the rest of your life in prison, then launching an appeal is a no brainer. Nothing to lose. " the judge did rule that there was a full life term for all of the charges so even if her legal team can cast doubt on some charges she still remains in prison for the other ones | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's hard to stomach. The sentencing judge should've denied leave to appeal " Nah. They have the right to appeal. The judge did this with ched Evans and ruined his life. As his court case took about 2 more years to go to appeal than it should have. There were HUGE errors in the original judgement. I dont like the idea of no right to appeal. Judges can get things very very wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ..." this has happened elsewhere and on appeal found not guilty, what I am hearing about this conviction is that it is based on conjecture, and no credible proof. but I will have to wait and see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If her diary or scribblings is anything to go by, she ain't innocent." yes but we will have to wait and see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The laws apply to all, yourself op and me equally if we were in that position so regardless of the vile nature of her crimes it has to also apply to her.. If we let 'popular opinion' be the benchmark it's a slippery slope and there will be some who might want that to be the case but ask Andy Malkinson how such restrictions for certain crimes might have further detrimentally affected his life.. It's not a perfect system and it makes mistakes.." Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ..." Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal." weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. " The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. " when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ?" the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. " I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure that the Judge followed legal protocols and only granted leave to appeal because there were grounds to. Just because you've already made your mind up about the appeal, without knowing the grounds for appeal and all the intracies in the case, it doesn't make the Judge a cunt for not pandering to mob rule. The word is intricacies and where did mob rule come from? Guilty and whilst I understand better than you about the appellant process, it has to be justified How do you know you know more than them? Re intricacies, you never had a typo?" I doubt the poster has my legal experience and yes I've had typos but you assume a typo where I assume ignorance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She has the right to appeal and has exercised her right to do so. The verdict has been questioned as the evidence was circumstantial according to several solicitors who have in the past been involved in these kind of cases." She has the right to apply for leave to appeal, which has been done. She has no right to actually appeal, that part has to be granted by allowing the leave to appeal application. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? " It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow." That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal." She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? " Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. " Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing " Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal?" In this case YES!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal?" In this case YES!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal? In this case YES!!! " It doesnt work like that I'm afraid. A judge can refuse her the right to appeal but that's not up to us decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow. That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way." It goes into the original judges decision to exclude the evidence being that he applied a law inappropriately to exclude how the girl consented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? " Do you want to come with something more constructive than emotional responses? Thankfully our courts don't work on such things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal? In this case YES!!! It doesnt work like that I'm afraid. A judge can refuse her the right to appeal but that's not up to us decide. " Sadly I am not of that thinking. I think k all rulings need review over the years especially with ew technology and with new precedents by higher courts. As per ched evans That judge got it horrifically wrong and ruined a young man's career. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting if you Google wrongful convictions uk, But presumably new evidence or a challenge to previously heard evidence has came alight? Is our system upto scratch, hmm a lot of false convictions in the press, but how many cases are dealt with by the courts, quite a few ... Doesn't need to be new evidence. Could be that the judge was incompetent. Just like in ched evans. He said " fuck , keep fucking me, fuck me harder" couldn't be considered consent. Hebwas completely incorrect. Infsct indo believed that the appeals just went to absolute town on that judgement and how poor it was. I believe based on the evidence I've read shes guilty as sin. But she deserves a right to appeal. weren't there new witnesses with the chef Evans cases that corroborated his version and so moved it away from a "she said" defence. And juries make decisions. No views on the nurse case. All I know is that the BBC changed the picture they used when she was found guilty. The new evidence was the vidence the first judge refused to allow tonbe submitted as evidence. when you say first, do you mean the trail judge, or judges reviewing retrial requests ? the original trial judge I correctly used a piece of law to dismiss what constitutes consent. There's a good breakdown of this I can't remember the law quotation. But essentially the judge ruled out " fuck me in doggy and fuck me harder" as being consent for sex under a law that say a claims t of r@pe or aexual assaults previous aexual antics and promiscuity can't be used against them This was incorrect use of this legal ruling as it didn't pertain to sexual history. But how she gave consent. I'm reading the court of appeal notes and I can't see that the judges ruled this out or said it couldn't be submitted. Are you taking about CE evidence or the corroborating evidence? It wouldn't be the court of appeal. You need To go to court originally for it to go to court of appeal. She doesn’t “ deserve “ anything apart from being left to rot in her cell… “deserve”? What the fuck is wrong with you ? Deserve is likely the wrong word but she does have a right to apply to appeal the convictions. You can argue she shouldn't have that right, but then you take away that right from the wrongfully convicted, of which there are many. Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing Did you miss the part where I said deserve is likely the wrong word? Are you actually advocating removing the right to appeal? In this case YES!!! It doesnt work like that I'm afraid. A judge can refuse her the right to appeal but that's not up to us decide. Sadly I am not of that thinking. I think k all rulings need review over the years especially with ew technology and with new precedents by higher courts. As per ched evans That judge got it horrifically wrong and ruined a young man's career. " Your thoughts on it are sound, you want a higher barrier set. Nothing wrong with that. Taking away right of appeal is not sound, not in any democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@mr discretion "The presumption built into s 41 of the YJCEA 1999 is that a complainant’s sexual behaviour will not be admitted into evidence. That is only righ" this big blue print is the entire point of this article. The original judge in 2012( iirc) used this law to exclude how the claimant consented. And so evidence of " fuck me, fuck me harder" couldnt be considered consent and other sexual apetners couldn't be used as evidence that this is how she consented with them. The court if appeal originally refused to look at the case because the first court judge hadn't allowed it to go to appeal. It then went to criminal cases review that said he was entitled to appeal. On appeal and now with another judge sitting deciding how she consented was necessary evidence. It was quashed. This is why we must always review criminal cases and allow appeals not allow a judges ego to simply stop appeals " the irrc bit... that's the bit I'd like you to show. I haven't yet seen anything to say the original judge rejected the fuck me harder bit. The closest I can find is the defence was going to use section 42, but as a rebuttal of a claim she didnt have sex with strangers. However as the prosecution never made this claim in trial, section 42 wasn't needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure that the Judge followed legal protocols and only granted leave to appeal because there were grounds to. Just because you've already made your mind up about the appeal, without knowing the grounds for appeal and all the intracies in the case, it doesn't make the Judge a cunt for not pandering to mob rule. The word is intricacies and where did mob rule come from? Guilty and whilst I understand better than you about the appellant process, it has to be justified " I'm fully aware that the word is intricacies, a typo on my part and nothing else. Seeing that you like being pedantic, 'Apellant' is the person, not the process, so you should refer to the appeal process and not the appellant process, which perhaps serves to indicate your claimed level of knowledge on the matter is not as great as you believe it to be. (And at the same time you have absolutely no idea what my level of knowledge, ability and experience is on such matters, even though I have been involved in it throughout my career). Where did 'mob rule' come from? - I used it as a summary term to refer to the rule applied by a mob / mass of people / public rather than the recognised legal authorities. If you mean 'where does it originate from', then Google is your friend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@mr discretion "The presumption built into s 41 of the YJCEA 1999 is that a complainant’s sexual behaviour will not be admitted into evidence. That is only righ" this big blue print is the entire point of this article. The original judge in 2012( iirc) used this law to exclude how the claimant consented. And so evidence of " fuck me, fuck me harder" couldnt be considered consent and other sexual apetners couldn't be used as evidence that this is how she consented with them. The court if appeal originally refused to look at the case because the first court judge hadn't allowed it to go to appeal. It then went to criminal cases review that said he was entitled to appeal. On appeal and now with another judge sitting deciding how she consented was necessary evidence. It was quashed. This is why we must always review criminal cases and allow appeals not allow a judges ego to simply stop appeals the irrc bit... that's the bit I'd like you to show. I haven't yet seen anything to say the original judge rejected the fuck me harder bit. The closest I can find is the defence was going to use section 42, but as a rebuttal of a claim she didnt have sex with strangers. However as the prosecution never made this claim in trial, section 42 wasn't needed. " It's literally in that explainer that they were refused permission to use sexual history "The presumption built into s 41 of the YJCEA 1999 is that a complainant’s sexual behaviour will not be admitted into evidence." Thenexplainer is saying the original judge used the reasoning above to exclude previous sexual history before evidence of how she gave consent and other sexual partners could be used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing" So you were part of the trial were you? You've seen all the evidence first hand? Or are you just coming to a conclusion based on what you've read in the papers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow." "That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way." "It goes into the original judges decision to exclude the evidence being that he applied a law inappropriately to exclude how the girl consented." I'm afraid that's not correct. The article suggests that the evidence was discovered after the first trial. There's nothing that says the evidence was available at the first trial, and that the judge excluded it. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the article that you refer to doesn't cover it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow. That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way. It goes into the original judges decision to exclude the evidence being that he applied a law inappropriately to exclude how the girl consented. I'm afraid that's not correct. The article suggests that the evidence was discovered after the first trial. There's nothing that says the evidence was available at the first trial, and that the judge excluded it. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the article that you refer to doesn't cover it." The point it dealing with is that the original judge didn't allow it. Otherwise that's why they are saying the that law was rightly not applicable in the appeal process because it had been I correctly applied in the first case. Otherwise they'd be saying the jury didn't understand consent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow. That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way. It goes into the original judges decision to exclude the evidence being that he applied a law inappropriately to exclude how the girl consented. I'm afraid that's not correct. The article suggests that the evidence was discovered after the first trial. There's nothing that says the evidence was available at the first trial, and that the judge excluded it. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the article that you refer to doesn't cover it. The point it dealing with is that the original judge didn't allow it. Otherwise that's why they are saying the that law was rightly not applicable in the appeal process because it had been I correctly applied in the first case. Otherwise they'd be saying the jury didn't understand consent " Unfortunetly, I know from personal experience, judges make mistakes. The law see's this as part of law. The judicicial system is a network of laws, which is the framework that a case is judged on, the judge makes his decisions as how that happens within the framework. His decisions are seen as correct unless he goes outside of that framework and two judges could give two different decisions and the law see's both as OKay as long as they are within the law. This is shown in the fact, that you can be aquitted, have a conviction quashed after spending years in jail and if this was because of a judge's decision then you get no compensation from the Home Office, it's just "one of those things". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point it dealing with is that the original judge didn't allow it. Otherwise that's why they are saying the that law was rightly not applicable in the appeal process because it had been I correctly applied in the first case. Otherwise they'd be saying the jury didn't understand consent" The article I'm looking at is: https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/cms/document/anbqc--article-on-ched-evans-trial.pdf There is nothing at all in that article that comments on the original trial. It just discusses whether it was acceptable to bring up sexual history in the appeal (spoiler - it was). If you have evidence that the judge in the first trial refused to allow any evidence, you'll have to tell us where to find it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you Google " holliswhiteman, sexual history a fair game" They give a breakdown of why the original ruling was a complete shitshow. That article says that he was acquitted after new evidence came forward. It doesn't say that the original trial was flawed in any way. It goes into the original judges decision to exclude the evidence being that he applied a law inappropriately to exclude how the girl consented. I'm afraid that's not correct. The article suggests that the evidence was discovered after the first trial. There's nothing that says the evidence was available at the first trial, and that the judge excluded it. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the article that you refer to doesn't cover it. The point it dealing with is that the original judge didn't allow it. Otherwise that's why they are saying the that law was rightly not applicable in the appeal process because it had been I correctly applied in the first case. Otherwise they'd be saying the jury didn't understand consent " from what I've read from others, is the jury may have believed that saying fuck me harder was not sufficient to show consent. "So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?" However the later evidence moved the balance of probability. Again, I findl no reference that the fuck me harder was struck from there record. Indeed it gets quoted in the case review as being part of the trial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point it dealing with is that the original judge didn't allow it. Otherwise that's why they are saying the that law was rightly not applicable in the appeal process because it had been I correctly applied in the first case. Otherwise they'd be saying the jury didn't understand consent The article I'm looking at is: https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/cms/document/anbqc--article-on-ched-evans-trial.pdf There is nothing at all in that article that comments on the original trial. It just discusses whether it was acceptable to bring up sexual history in the appeal (spoiler - it was). If you have evidence that the judge in the first trial refused to allow any evidence, you'll have to tell us where to find it." See point on how this law is applied. In these trials sexual history is always excluded unless the judge overrides. Judge Hughes didn't override. Therefore history and method of consent coudn't be taken into account unless he overrode the applicable law. He didn't do this This is why that entire article exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont know how else to explain it other than. section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be precise isnautomatically applied tk every single sexual assault and r@pe claim.cso unless the judge at their discretion overrides it. It is applied. So going into doggy and saying " fuck me ,fuck me harder" can not be entered as evidence and thus the jury would not have ever been able to take this into account as it could never be submitted as evidence as merfyn hughes never overruled this law. The criminal case review said In these circumsrances it was wrongly applied and hughe should have overridden the law as it was pertinent to the case. This wasnt the only error. It was on the jury to find both defendants guilty or innocent according to many kc and judicial commentators as both either had conceptual sex or r@ped the lady and the judge should jave made that clear to the jury. The judg also shed up somewhere else I beleive know giving his own opinion on what could statutes being g able to consent after intoxication. The entire trial was a shit show." One last try. Let's say that you are entirely correct in what you say above. The article that you told us to go and look at says that it was fresh evidence not available at the original trial, which doesn't match with what you say above. So either the article is wrong in saying that it was fresh evidence, or you are wrong in claiming that the judge didn't allow it at the first trial. Given that both of those opinions comes from you, I don't know which to give more weight to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont know how else to explain it other than. section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be precise isnautomatically applied tk every single sexual assault and r@pe claim.cso unless the judge at their discretion overrides it. It is applied. So going into doggy and saying " fuck me ,fuck me harder" can not be entered as evidence and thus the jury would not have ever been able to take this into account as it could never be submitted as evidence as merfyn hughes never overruled this law. The criminal case review said In these circumsrances it was wrongly applied and hughe should have overridden the law as it was pertinent to the case. This wasnt the only error. It was on the jury to find both defendants guilty or innocent according to many kc and judicial commentators as both either had conceptual sex or r@ped the lady and the judge should jave made that clear to the jury. The judg also shed up somewhere else I beleive know giving his own opinion on what could statutes being g able to consent after intoxication. The entire trial was a shit show. One last try. Let's say that you are entirely correct in what you say above. The article that you told us to go and look at says that it was fresh evidence not available at the original trial, which doesn't match with what you say above. So either the article is wrong in saying that it was fresh evidence, or you are wrong in claiming that the judge didn't allow it at the first trial. Given that both of those opinions comes from you, I don't know which to give more weight to." It couldn't have been available at the original trial because it could never be submitted along with his full interview where he described how she consented because it couldn't be submitted It wasn't fresh in the sense they never had it before. It was fresh in the sense it had never been submitted as evidence because it legally couldn't have been. I dont know how else to describe it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing So you were part of the trial were you? You've seen all the evidence first hand? Or are you just coming to a conclusion based on what you've read in the papers?" Oh come on… you’re not seriously implying that she is innocent… words fail me !! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing So you were part of the trial were you? You've seen all the evidence first hand? Or are you just coming to a conclusion based on what you've read in the papers? Oh come on… you’re not seriously implying that she is innocent… words fail me !! " Obviously not she was found guilty. Now she has a right to ask to appeal, IF something wasn't correct within that trial, if not, she can't appeal. Not that difficult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont know how else to explain it other than. section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be precise isnautomatically applied tk every single sexual assault and r@pe claim.cso unless the judge at their discretion overrides it. It is applied. So going into doggy and saying " fuck me ,fuck me harder" can not be entered as evidence and thus the jury would not have ever been able to take this into account as it could never be submitted as evidence as merfyn hughes never overruled this law. The criminal case review said In these circumsrances it was wrongly applied and hughe should have overridden the law as it was pertinent to the case. This wasnt the only error. It was on the jury to find both defendants guilty or innocent according to many kc and judicial commentators as both either had conceptual sex or r@ped the lady and the judge should jave made that clear to the jury. The judg also shed up somewhere else I beleive know giving his own opinion on what could statutes being g able to consent after intoxication. The entire trial was a shit show. One last try. Let's say that you are entirely correct in what you say above. The article that you told us to go and look at says that it was fresh evidence not available at the original trial, which doesn't match with what you say above. So either the article is wrong in saying that it was fresh evidence, or you are wrong in claiming that the judge didn't allow it at the first trial. Given that both of those opinions comes from you, I don't know which to give more weight to. It couldn't have been available at the original trial because it could never be submitted along with his full interview where he described how she consented because it couldn't be submitted It wasn't fresh in the sense they never had it before. It was fresh in the sense it had never been submitted as evidence because it legally couldn't have been. I dont know how else to describe it." the fresh evidence was from the three other witnesses. The CCRC references the "fuck her harder" as part of the trial. Can you provide anything that says it couldn't be submitted other than the link to an article which imo (and others) doesn't cover what you think it does. It reads like you believe details of the events in question cant be used in court. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh come on… no sane person would have any doubt whatsoever that the monster is guilty… That creature “deserves” nothing" "So you were part of the trial were you? You've seen all the evidence first hand? Or are you just coming to a conclusion based on what you've read in the papers?" "Oh come on… you’re not seriously implying that she is innocent… words fail me !!" You should read up on the cases of Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings, and Sally Clark, all of whom were convicted of murdering their own children, and later released when it was shown that the paediatrician giving evidence at the trial was inventing statistics. But if you're happy with jailing someone for life because you read something in the Daily Mail, then I'm guessing you won't be interested in their cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone has the right to 2 appeals. The first one goes to a panel of 3 judges who decide if the sentence was appropriate. The second if you choose to go ahead is sent to a top chief justice. That's the law, not that it will do her any good" Wrong. There are two parts but the first is being allowed to appeal, decided by a single judge, there is no hearing, the second the appeal itself which is in the form of a hearing. Single judge looks at the application to appeal. If leave to appeal is granted it then goes in front of three judges or higher. They make a decision. That's your lot, you cannot appeal again. You get one shot on what you were granted permission to appeal against. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
