Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
Huntsman said:
I'll be gutted if he walks free, I'm planning to stand as Conservative candidate in the election....if they'll have me!
Are you a tincy bit 'dodgy', like money/expenses, don't like riff raff (unless in hoodies?) believe in man made global warming and think it's still got to be OK to do whatever the high priests of the European Empire order us to? If so I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms.miln0039 said:
She's pleaded not-guilty. Devastating.
I think if she'd gone guilty then he'd have been properly f
ked due to the way he's handled himself in public.
He still has one paddle left to get himself out of st creek. Sad times. 
The defence that Pryce is, reportedly, using requires that she admits that she took the points for hubby but only because she felt obliged to by their relationship.I think if she'd gone guilty then he'd have been properly f
ked due to the way he's handled himself in public.He still has one paddle left to get himself out of s
t creek. Sad times. It's not one commonly used as a defence but it is frequently used as mitigation.
This is rather bad news for Huhne homme. It means that she is admitting the conspiracy. For her defence to succeed she must admit to sitting down with hubby and discussing it.
Legally, she can still access the defence without Huhne being found guilty as she cannot be required to give evidence against him.
However, the nature of his defence will be interesting. He's no doubt payng a fortune for his legal team so there will be some trickery if my experience is anything to go by.
I will check but I am pretty sure that he didnt enter a plea.
Someone above is right in that his legal team have thrown their cards behind getting the case against him thrown out on a technicality or legality. Any other 'defence' or strategy for him will no doubt (it seems) result in him ging down
If she is taking that stance, which he will undoubtedly know, leaves him very little wriggle room! Very little indeed.....
He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
Someone above is right in that his legal team have thrown their cards behind getting the case against him thrown out on a technicality or legality. Any other 'defence' or strategy for him will no doubt (it seems) result in him ging down
If she is taking that stance, which he will undoubtedly know, leaves him very little wriggle room! Very little indeed.....
He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
Slaav said:
I will check but I am pretty sure that he didnt enter a plea.
Someone above is right in that his legal team have thrown their cards behind getting the case against him thrown out on a technicality or legality. Any other 'defence' or strategy for him will no doubt (it seems) result in him ging down
If she is taking that stance, which he will undoubtedly know, leaves him very little wriggle room! Very little indeed.....
He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
You can have too much evidence. As a frequent giver of prosecution evidence the ones I always found the hardest were those where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. I used to dread it when an offender 'coughed' with an implicating reply after caution. If I'm ever caught red-handed I'm going to say to the officer "You caught me bang to rights, guv. I did it." I'll be sure to get off.Someone above is right in that his legal team have thrown their cards behind getting the case against him thrown out on a technicality or legality. Any other 'defence' or strategy for him will no doubt (it seems) result in him ging down
If she is taking that stance, which he will undoubtedly know, leaves him very little wriggle room! Very little indeed.....
He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
The Russell Bishop attempt murder was a 'case' in point. Overwhelming evidence, even down to dents in the boot of his car where the victim had hammered on it when kidnapped, him being found washing out the boot to clear the DNA, something he learned about when charged with a double murder, evidence at the scene: it was as clear cut as any case. Yet it went on for days.
What happens is that when it is patently obvious that the person did the evil deed then all attention is focused on technical matters: whether the police officer had his hat on or in one appeal whether, when the offender had eaten the print out from the breath test machine, another should have been offered. When there is a chance of getting the offender off on lack of evidence, the efforts of the defence are diluted. When it's overwhelming then it is details.
Derek Smith said:
You can have too much evidence. As a frequent giver of prosecution evidence the ones I always found the hardest were those where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. I used to dread it when an offender 'coughed' with an implicating reply after caution. If I'm ever caught red-handed I'm going to say to the officer "You caught me bang to rights, guv. I did it." I'll be sure to get off.
The Russell Bishop attempt murder was a 'case' in point. Overwhelming evidence, even down to dents in the boot of his car where the victim had hammered on it when kidnapped, him being found washing out the boot to clear the DNA, something he learned about when charged with a double murder, evidence at the scene: it was as clear cut as any case. Yet it went on for days.
What happens is that when it is patently obvious that the person did the evil deed then all attention is focused on technical matters: whether the police officer had his hat on or in one appeal whether, when the offender had eaten the print out from the breath test machine, another should have been offered. When there is a chance of getting the offender off on lack of evidence, the efforts of the defence are diluted. When it's overwhelming then it is details.
Which yet again goes to show just how screwed up our so-called justice system is, and how weighed in the criminals favour.The Russell Bishop attempt murder was a 'case' in point. Overwhelming evidence, even down to dents in the boot of his car where the victim had hammered on it when kidnapped, him being found washing out the boot to clear the DNA, something he learned about when charged with a double murder, evidence at the scene: it was as clear cut as any case. Yet it went on for days.
What happens is that when it is patently obvious that the person did the evil deed then all attention is focused on technical matters: whether the police officer had his hat on or in one appeal whether, when the offender had eaten the print out from the breath test machine, another should have been offered. When there is a chance of getting the offender off on lack of evidence, the efforts of the defence are diluted. When it's overwhelming then it is details.
As with yesterday and the acceptance of guilt of manslaughter, but not murder by that self-styled "Psycho" scumbag who shot the Indian student at Christmas - presumably suggested by some canny and immoral defence solicitor. "Yes I came up to an innocent person I didn't know, threatened and bullied him and shot him in the head at point blank range. But I never meant to kill him, honest Guv..."
Trial starts tomorrow ?
A date for the trial, due to last up to two weeks, has been set for 2 October.
From 1 June 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18294898
A date for the trial, due to last up to two weeks, has been set for 2 October.
From 1 June 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18294898
Reads like he's applied to have the case dismissed.
http://www.eastleighnews.org.uk/news/2012/10/01/ca...
http://www.eastleighnews.org.uk/news/2012/10/01/ca...
hornetrider said:
Reads like he's applied to have the case dismissed.
http://www.eastleighnews.org.uk/news/2012/10/01/ca...
I love the implied 'suport' from his peers!http://www.eastleighnews.org.uk/news/2012/10/01/ca...
"Campaigners from Labour, Conservatives and Ukip were all out in force with the recently refitted Conservative Club playing host to activists from as far afield as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Officially, no one was prepared to admit to electioneering, but off the record people were speculating on the identity of potential candidates and ‘big hitters’ preparing to descend on the town should Huhne be forced to stand down."
It looks like the trial has been postponed until tomorrow.
There are suggestions that Huhne's legal team are trying to stop the trial going ahead. I find these suggestions difficult to believe. After all, Chris did say that he was looking forward to clearing his name in court. He couldn't have been lying, could he?
Don
--
There are suggestions that Huhne's legal team are trying to stop the trial going ahead. I find these suggestions difficult to believe. After all, Chris did say that he was looking forward to clearing his name in court. He couldn't have been lying, could he?
Don
--
don4l said:
It looks like the trial has been postponed until tomorrow.
There are suggestions that Huhne's legal team are trying to stop the trial going ahead. I find these suggestions difficult to believe. After all, Chris did say that he was looking forward to clearing his name in court. He couldn't have been lying, could he?
Don
--
He would claim that getting the case thrown out would be clearing his name. I seem to recall seeing this being reported in the media some weeks back as the the intended legal strategy. Going to form so far.There are suggestions that Huhne's legal team are trying to stop the trial going ahead. I find these suggestions difficult to believe. After all, Chris did say that he was looking forward to clearing his name in court. He couldn't have been lying, could he?
Don
--
Slaav said:
Someone above is right in that his legal team have thrown their cards behind getting the case against him thrown out on a technicality or legality. Any other 'defence' or strategy for him will no doubt (it seems) result in him ging down
He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
I believe that it is not the done thing but..... I wanted to post the above again! He is fooked
WHether she gets off or not, she appears to be saying that her main defence is that she was coerced - i.e. he is guilty as SIN!!!!! The Judge may well find her Guilty as a result of her defence; but he stands no chance at trial if this is indeed the case.
Getting it thrown out on a technicality appears his only chance to not put orange fatigues on
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff