NoTailT Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 11 minutes ago, Two-lane said: "Cross-examining, defence advocate Laurence Vaughan-Williams said there was no dispute that the ‘Greenhow guarantee’ document was not genuine. But he added: ‘What the defence is unable to establish is the provenance of that particular document.’" Can someone simplify that for the less-educated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 12 minutes ago, NoTailT said: Can someone simplify that for the less-educated? Not genuine but doesn't know where it came from, perhaps? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 54 minutes ago, Gladys said: Not genuine but doesn't know where it came from, perhaps? Mr Scales' photo-shopping equipment in the Hubb? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, NoTailT said: Can someone simplify that for the less-educated? It’s not clear exactly who faked it yet. But it’s a fake. Have heard a story about this one so will be interesting what the court determines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 36 minutes ago, FANDL said: It’s not clear exactly who faked it yet. But it’s a fake. Have heard a story about this one so will be interesting what the court determines. Ooo you are saucy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reptar Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 2 hours ago, FANDL said: It’s not clear exactly who faked it yet. But it’s a fake. Have heard a story about this one so will be interesting what the court determines. Is this story likely to be aired in court, do you reckon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 32 minutes ago, reptar said: Is this story likely to be aired in court, do you reckon? It's probably as fake as the documents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, reptar said: Is this story likely to be aired in court, do you reckon? Well as the quote attributed to Hawkins says. It would have been an awful lot easier for anyone to raise funding if a government guarantee was in place. Suppose like Dr Ranson it will be down to analyzing meta data in documents. How easy is it to create a perfect fake of a document that doesn’t link back to who created it? How easy is it to cut and paste a digital signature left on one document into another document without leaving a trail? Presumably all relevant documents are discoverable. Edited May 9 by FANDL Dr added Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 IOM Today reports trial aborted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 28 minutes ago, NoTailT said: IOM Today reports trial aborted. A fraud trial has been sensationally aborted for legal reasons. The move came after defendant Jason Scales took the stand Friday morning to give his evidence on the eighth day of his trial at the Court of General Gaol Delivery. [...] Deemster Cook apologised to the seven members of the jury and thanked them for their patience while the court had met in chambers. He told them that Mr Scales had dispensed with the services of his advocate Laurence Vaughan-Williams. The Deemster described the case as a ‘complex’ one. ‘Frankly my role is to see fairness is done and it’s transparent,’ he said. Jurors were told they would be excused from further jury service for a period of three years. Mr Scales’ bail was continued. Obviously we need to be even more careful on commenting on this from now on as a new jury will have to be chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 24 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Jurors were told they would be excused from further jury service for a period of three years See, if they'd done the full 13 days they'd have got excused for life answering a previous question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 How long has this been going on for now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 12 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: See, if they'd done the full 13 days they'd have got excused for life answering a previous question. Yes, given they'll have done nine days, only three years when you're extremely unlikely to be called again in that period, it does seem a bit mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 This hasn't been declared a mistrial though right? It's just been halted for 'legal reasons'? So how can they discharge the jury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: This hasn't been declared a mistrial though right? It's just been halted for 'legal reasons'? So how can they discharge the jury? What's the difference between a mistrial and an aborted trial due to fairness of trial issues? I assume the word mistrial is when a verdict is reached? No real clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.