NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 (edited) Frankly speaking, I don't trust anything that involves these words and phrases; Greenhow, Lewin, Skelly, Attorney Generals. Was Lewin not the one pretty instrumental to the SLAPP on Moulton as part of that 'senior officers' nonsense? Edited May 11 by NoTailT 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, NoTailT said: I don't get aborting a trial though. Just vacate and continue after a brief break? But it would not be brief. How long do you think it would take for a new advocate to go through the evidence, consult, advise and then prepare a defence? Aborting the case was probably the only option. The report refers to having considered in Chambers which possibly means the deemster took time out to consider and discuss with the representing counsel. It is also fair to the jury to release them and to the defence to allow a different advocate to advise on the defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, Gladys said: But it would not be brief. How long do you think it would take for a new advocate to go through the evidence, consult, advise and then prepare a defence? Aborting the case was probably the only option. The report refers to having considered in Chambers which possibly means the deemster took time out to consider and discuss with the representing counsel. It is also fair to the jury to release them and to the defence to allow a different advocate to advise on the defence. But if the defendant (Scales) had started to give his evidence, surely the trial is basically almost over at that point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, Gladys said: But it would not be brief. How long do you think it would take for a new advocate to go through the evidence, consult, advise and then prepare a defence? Aborting the case was probably the only option. The report refers to having considered in Chambers which possibly means the deemster took time out to consider and discuss with the representing counsel. It is also fair to the jury to release them and to the defence to allow a different advocate to advise on the defence. Nah, squeaky bum time was imminent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 6 minutes ago, Gladys said: Really don't get the conspiracy. I was not criticising the Deemster's decision. Scales was on the stand for some period of time. The questions he was asked and the responses he made are not reported. In a case of this significance I would expect there to be a news report. (And, generally speaking, I have no idea what day of the week it is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, Two-lane said: I was not criticising the Deemster's decision. Scales was on the stand for some period of time. The questions he was asked and the responses he made are not reported. In a case of this significance I would expect there to be a news report. (And, generally speaking, I have no idea what day of the week it is) From what I've seen in the press, the only part of the defence I've seen reported is his advocate saying "it was accepted that the documents were forgeries" or something like that? I've read a few articles and the rest of it has just been 'Prosecutor James Robinson said XYZ'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 8 minutes ago, finlo said: What it says. It doesn’t say anything meaningful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, NoTailT said: But if the defendant (Scales) had started to give his evidence, surely the trial is basically almost over at that point? Why would it be over? There have been several days of prosecution evidence, so you could expect more that a couple of hours from the defence then possibly cross examination and so on. The conspiracy theories are rife, when the truth is that this is probably the result of real justice. Each side should be given adequate opportunity to put their case, under advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said: It doesn’t say anything meaningful It never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: Why would it be over? There have been several days of prosecution evidence, so you could expect more that a couple of hours from the defence then possibly cross examination and so on. The conspiracy theories are rife, when the truth is that this is probably the result of real justice. Each side should be given adequate opportunity to put their case, under advice. Sorry I dont follow court stuff. Why would this all come about only after the subject had started giving evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 4 minutes ago, Two-lane said: I was not criticising the Deemster's decision. Scales was on the stand for some period of time. The questions he was asked and the responses he made are not reported. In a case of this significance I would expect there to be a news report. Not really. Once the trial was aborted it's important for there to be as little public information, especially about what line of defence is being taken, to be available as possible. This is to avoid prejudicing a jury at the new trial. It's very frustrating, but it's really the only way they can do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Just now, Roger Mexico said: Not really. Once the trial was aborted it's important for there to be as little public information, especially about what line of defence is being taken, to be available as possible. This is to avoid prejudicing a jury at the new trial. It's very frustrating, but it's really the only way they can do it. But surely the AGs and other witnesses in the case have already heard everything? Seems like a bit of a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 minutes ago, finlo said: It never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other. Well so you say, but have you any evidence or is it just part of your anti establishment stance? I am not saying you are wrong but your “ it never gained wheels because one party had dirt on the other” needs a bit more substance behind it if you are to be taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 7 minutes ago, Two-lane said: I was not criticising the Deemster's decision. Scales was on the stand for some period of time. The questions he was asked and the responses he made are not reported. In a case of this significance I would expect there to be a news report. (And, generally speaking, I have no idea what day of the week it is) We don't know how long he was on the stand before the court being told he no longer had representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, Gladys said: We don't know how long he was on the stand before the court being told he no longer had representation. Why doesn't everyone just ditch their advocate then during a trial? 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.