Chris Huhne... going soon?

[don4l]

I'd like to say a big "Thank You" to everybody who has posted today.

I've learned an awful lot about our legal system, and how it works.

Don
--

[don4l]

singlecoil said:

How on earth did they make him look guilty? All they did was make his son look like a childish, spoiled mummy's boy.

Really?

Perhaps we should actually look at the texts!

text messages said:

21 June 2010

Peter Huhne: Just tried you, ring back within five

PH: Then pick up, pick up your ******* phone.

PH: I don't want to speak to you, you disgust me.

Chris Huhne: Hope you are okay I'm visiting Gran on Saturday, would you like to come?

PH: Non I will see her without you.

28 June 2010

CH: Peter, just to say, I'm thinking of you and I love you very much. It would be great to talk to you, Dad.

PH: **** off

22 July 2010

PH: So nice to see our entire relationship reduced to lies and pleasantries in that letter. Do you take me for an idiot? The fact you said your parents were happier as a result of their divorce was disgusting... when you were having affairs makes me sick. You are the most ghastly man I have ever known. Does it give you pleasure that you have lost most of your friends?

30 July 2010

CH: I understand that I have really offended you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective... I love you and I will be there to support you if you ever need it.

PH: You are right - the perspective involves me getting angrier with every day that goes by. You just don't get it.

25 December 2010

CH: Happy Christmas. Love you, Dad.

PH: Well I hate you, so **** off.

28 December 2010

CH: Tiger, Have you had any news from St Peter’s yet? Love Dad

No answer

CH: Congratulations, I'm really proud of you, Dad.

No answer

CH: Well I'm proud and I love you, Dad.

PH: Leave me alone, you have no place in my life and no right to be proud. It’s irritating that you don’t seem to take the point. You are such an autistic piece of ****. Don't contact me again you make me feel sick.

16 January 2011

CH: I hope you are okay, just to let you know I'm thinking of you lots and love you.

PH: You couldn't think about anyone but yourself. You are a pathetic loser and a joke. Have fun with your [a derogatory reference to Carina Trimingham that was not read out in court.]

27 February 2011

CH: Hope you are okay. Saw a Beckett reference and thought of you in Godot, MI6 used to be full of people who did languages at Oxford. Love you.

21 May 2011

CH: I do hope your exams are going okay, despite everything over the last couple of weeks. Thinking of you, love you, Dad. PS It’s Grandad's birthday today.

PH: Don't text me you fat piece of ****.

22 June 2011

CH: “Actually Peter, I’ve got no intention of sending mum to Holloway for three months.”

PH: “Are you going to accept you’re responsible, or do I have to contact the police myself and tell them what you told me?”

He doesn't look like a spoiled boy.

He looke like an extremely hurt teenager.

Don
--

[don4l]

Gene Vincent said:

The angst goes back to before 2010, the nasty texts in the public domain are from then, so she likely told him when she found out about the affair (2007?) when he was a 15/16yo.

What makes you think that she knew in 2007?

I thought that she found out about the affair in June 2010.

I cannot see why she would have allowed him to use photographs of her and her children in his election leaflet if she knew that he was having an affair.

Don
--

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

It's a ploy. The jury would not have questioned the judge not giving evidence. In any trial there are lots of witnesses excluded for various reasons. Rarely in my experience do the prosecution explain why. Seems a bit underhand to me. Water muddying.

I agree. It looks like a ploy to me.

I would not have expected Briscoe to have been called as a prosecution witness. She could easily have been called as a defence witness. We know that the two women talked about the ticket in 2003. It is likely that Briscoe would have testified that Pryce was very distressed at the time.

So, I cannot see why the prosecution feel the need to explain why they are not calling Briscoe.

On a related, but separate note, we should bear in mind that Briscoe has not been found guilty of telling lies.

Don
--

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

Knowing that Briscoe was allegedly briefing the media with pro-Pryce stories, and allegedly denied doing so when asked about it, could perhaps make a jury think badly of her friend. Maybe not super logical, but juries are juries.

We don't know anything.

There are some allegations against Ms Briscoe...

Nothing more.

Don
--

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

Please re-read what I wrote. The jury know of the allegation. I did not suggest that they know the allegation to be true. If you read a few posts back, you will see that I have made the point that Briscoe is, like any person arrested, to be presumed innocent.

I was agreeing with you... as I usually do.

I was trying to emphasise your point because some people on this thread seem to be particularily "clue resistant".

Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The Judge said that we should only consider the evidence that has been placed before us.

We have seen uncontested evidence that Huhne wanted his wife to have her youngest son aborted.

If you were Peter Huhne, how would you feel?

Do you have children?

I do.

I have to say that I could never have asked my wife to abort an innocent foetus.

Clearly, you are different.

We will have to disagree on this point. I will respect the fact that you think that it is acceptable to kill unborn children. In return, I would ask that you respect the fact that I find it unacceptable to terminate pregnancies.

Don
--

[don4l]

Gene Vincent said:

Someone (above) said this thread was more interesting than the trial itself and if you remain reasonable and structured in your assertions the thread will lose it way...

I have been entirely reasonable throughout this thread, and you may rest assured that I will continue to be reasonable.

Just waiting for the sentencing...

Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I would say that I have stuck to the relevant facts.

The most important fact in this case is that Huhne is a liar. It is very likely that he will be sent to prison for lying.

You don't seem to understand this simple fact.

You also seem oblivious to the difference between a speeding offence and PCOJ - despite the best efforts of many people over the last 80 pages of this thread.

Don
--

[don4l]

singlecoil said:

don4l said:

You also seem oblivious to the difference between a speeding offence and PCOJ - despite the best efforts of many people over the last 80 pages of this thread.

You seem to be oblivious of the fact that most of what you accuse Huhne of (abortions especially) are not established facts, but something that has been said by someone with an axe to grind.

Can you, after 80 pages of evidence, really not understand the difference between a speeding offence and PCoJ?

If you can see this, then you will understand that Huhne is going to serve time in prison. If you are still unable to understand that lying to the courts is unacceptable, then you will be a bit shocked when he gets sent down for 6 months.

I'm really surprised that you do not believe that he tried to have his son, Peter, aborted for the sake of his career. This fact was introduced by the defence, and it was not contested by the prosecution.

If you think about it for more than a second, then it will become immediately apparent that medical records must exist. These records would prove, or disprove, the veracity of her allegations. So, you would have to be incredibly stupid to think that he didn't pressure her into aborting Peter.

You may hold such a man in deep respect.

I don't.

Neither does Peter.

Don
--

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

Huhne didn't lie to a court. That is perjury. He conspired with another (or coerced her) in order for him to escape a prosecution. There is a significant difference.

I think that I understand, and agree with this.

Are you under the impression that I am missing something?

Don
--

[don4l]

singlecoil said:

I trust your next go at me won't be so easy to pick apart and dispose of.

Well done.

You are obviously 100% correct, and Huhne will get off with a suspended sentence, and Pryce will get 12 months. [/sarc]

Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You obviously think that lying is both normal, and acceptable.
I disagree.

Don
--

[don4l]

singlecoil said:

I'll add to that, although it's understandable that people would want wrongdoers punished, to actually enjoy the idea of the punishment is the same moral level as the people who use to go to public executions for their entertainment.

To be honest, I was thinking of toning down my celebrations when Huhne finally gets taken to Wandsworth in the Serco van.

My wife doesn't drink a lot, and a whole Magnum of Champagne would be a bit much for me. Fortunately, Sainsbury's currently have 10 year old Glengoyne on the shelf. So I shall take advantage of this rare opportunity and pop in for a bottle.

For those who are not familiar with Glengoyne, it is neither a Highland nor a Lowland whisky. It has a rich flavour, but it doesn't have a very peaty taste. I would prefer to get a bottle of the 15 year old, but I don't know anywhere that stocks it.

Don
--

[don4l]

singlecoil said:

Anyone fancy having a go at predicting the sentence for Huhne, and for Pryce if she is found guilty?

This should be all you need

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...

My gut feeling is that Huhne will get 10 months inside, so he would end up serving 4. I would be happy if he only gets 6 months.

If Pryce is found guilty, then I suspect that she will get a six month suspended sentence.

Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The judge will give the jury advice on how to come to a decision.


Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It may be helpful to people who have listened to the evidence with an open mind.

You haven't listened to all the evidence and, clearly you don't have an open mind on the subject.


Don
--

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Dear God!

Do you realise that we are discussing the trial of Vicky Price?

I have very few feelings about her fate. I have no idea if she is guilty, or not. If she is guilty, then I hope that she only gets a suspended sentence. I bear the woman no ill feeling.

The fact that Huhne tried to get Peter aborted does not reflect well on him. The fact that Ms. Pryce resisted his pressure reflects well upon her.

Don
--

[don4l]

Bedazzled said:

First impressions of a meek dormouse; just don't spill the coffee, she has friends in high places - here

What a strange website. On the surface it looks like a non-profit government website. Most of the content seems to be derived from The Guardian.

However, the registrant for the website is a company called "Identity Protect Limited".

Don
--

[don4l]

Good grief!

Moe, Larry and Curly have got their knickers in a real twist.

Would it help if I revised my contentous statement to read :-

"The fact uncontested evidence that Huhne tried to get Peter aborted does not reflect well on him. The fact uncontested evidence that Ms. Pryce resisted his pressure reflects well upon her."

Can we all agree on this new wording??

Don
--