Mr Helmut Fromage Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Fat liar fires fat liar in fat liar trial referral to AG Office full of fat liars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 19 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said: Fat liar fires fat liar in fat liar trial referral to AG Office full of fat liars. Sounds reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maverick Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 8 hours ago, finlo said: Most likely shone a light where non should be shone. The claims that this is all a government conspiracy seem to be the typical default online claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 minute ago, The Maverick said: The claims that this is all a government conspiracy seem to be the typical default online claims. Quite. If there was a conspiracy, it would never have gone to trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 People would like some clarity over the unusual halting. In the absence of such... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: People would like some clarity over the unusual halting. In the absence of such... Like I said earlier in the thread... put the names Lewin, Greenhow, Skelly and Attorney Generals in the mix and I wouldn't trust anything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 hour ago, NoTailT said: Sounds reliable. and accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 31 minutes ago, Gladys said: Quite. If there was a conspiracy, it would never have gone to trial. Well you can have a conspiracy to send someone to trial I suppose as well as one to protect someone who should be. Only last night I was reading about a government attempt to convict the Chief Constable of fraud. Mind you it was in 1911. (Other 1911 stories include anti-vaccinators being sent to prison and attempts to solve the Laxey sewage problem). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gossip1 Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 Jeez - you guys talk some crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 42 minutes ago, gossip1 said: Jeez - you guys talk some crap. Your sole existence on ManxForums has been this thread and bashing the defendant, so I get why you don't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper99 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Was asking someone who works in the legal field what happened/why. Wasn’t there, but spoke with someone who was. Says there are 3 or 4 reasons to change advocate mid trial, and that any one will end up with an aborted trial, discharged jury, and start again with new lawyer some long time down the road. If privately funded, the defendant runs out of cash because the trial over runs. Scales has legal aid. The trial was within its estimated time frame. Defendant tells advocate something that “professionally embarrasses” the advocate, like admitting he’s guilty but insisting on giving evidence that it wasn’t him. The advocate has put into court a Defence Statement but either didn’t cross examine the prosecution witnesses about the content that contradicts their evidence and then Defendant tries to give that evidence, or the Defence Statement is defective and Defendant tries to give evidence of facts not contained in it, trying to take the prosecution by surprise. That’s not allowed. Deemster has to exclude. It looks like the Defence Statement and evidence given by Scales didn’t tie in. Deemster Cook intervened several times to stop evidence. There were hearings for legal argument without the jury being present. It got to the stage that Deemster Cook appointed another advocate as “amicus” or friend of the court to assist independently with arguments about what to do. The press generally don’t report those type of things because it might prejudice a jury. Result, decided that a fair trial could no longer be had, defendant sacked his advocate. Defendant and new advocate to be back in front of Deemster Cook on 24 May for a review, new timetabling and maybe setting a new date. My source tells me the issue was about IT forensics and possible loss of data by police examiners who interrogated seized computers and phones. If so that could prejudice a fair trial because it might deprive Scales of showing that there was no evidence at all that he’d forged anything, or passed the documents on to anyone. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 12 minutes ago, Kipper99 said: My source tells me the issue was about IT forensics and possible loss of data by police examiners who interrogated seized computers and phones. If so that could prejudice a fair trial because it might deprive Scales of showing that there was no evidence at all that he’d forged anything, or passed the documents on to anyone. There's a theme running here with our constabulary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 9 minutes ago, finlo said: There's a theme running here with our constabulary. Sounds like a shitshow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maverick Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Get your lawyer to declare that the documents are fake when you know there is an issue with forensics. Sack lawyer. Claim you now can’t get a fair trail as forensics questionable. Get off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 After reading Kipper99's insightful post, I experienced the onset of a conspiracy theory. Then I recalled the quote: "Don’t ascribe to malice what can be plainly explained by incompetence". 1 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.