Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
Much stuff on Twitter. Dr Christian DeFeo her former Aide gave evidence against her again and details about mobile phone usage from an expert witness.
A newspaper link:
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/pet...
A newspaper link:
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/pet...
Edited by carinaman on Friday 14th December 20:20
Ian974 said:
"I dont know what it was I didn't do, but I didn't do it, I was at home!"
Hasnt that been a problem with some previous miscarriages - the Jill Dando case and the Bristol LandlordFind some guy sitting at home who must have done it and has no aleeebee.
However that doesnt seem to be about what's happening in this case
AJL308 said:
Don Roque said:
saaby93 said:
The annoying thing with trials is that because the prosecution gets first go - its reported as if its fact, when some of it is conjecture they werent there.
When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact
Are you completely stupid? It's set up this way so that the defence cannot be ambushed. It puts the prosecution at a disadvantage because they must go in blind whereas the defence have had full disclosure of the prosecution case and ample time to concoct a defence, whereas the prosecution must look to second guess the defence strategy. This is entirely stacked in favour of the defendant, as most of the adversarial system is. When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact
If it didn't you could never successfully prosecute anyone as there would no case before the court for the defendant to answer!
By the time the defence has their go the press has moved on so it doesnt make the same headlines
With a retrial the prosecution can amend its stance
If the current reporting is right, it's pulled back from saying she sent the form with the details of the russian guy.
It now just says the form was returned
beeb said:
She received a Notice of Intended Prosecution that required her to state whether she was driving the car at the time, or to identify who was.
It was returned naming Aleks Antipow as the driver.
The jury was told a false address and telephone number were provided along with his name. The prosecution alleges this was in order to make Mr Antipow "untraceable to the police" and so the "true driver" would escape prosecution.
The court heard Ms Onasanya's brother Festus Onasanya had admitted this, pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice last month
-It was returned naming Aleks Antipow as the driver.
The jury was told a false address and telephone number were provided along with his name. The prosecution alleges this was in order to make Mr Antipow "untraceable to the police" and so the "true driver" would escape prosecution.
The court heard Ms Onasanya's brother Festus Onasanya had admitted this, pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice last month
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
I don't get why
>her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
we are supposed to believe that ^ To me it is a logic fail & doesn't add anything. As if someone is lying about driving then obviously they could be lying about whether they use their phone or not. I don't see it adds anything positive to their defence.
Also do we know what her response is to the 2 witnesses who state she was at their house that actual evening and they even invited her to stay as it was getting late? What is her rebuttal?
>her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
we are supposed to believe that ^ To me it is a logic fail & doesn't add anything. As if someone is lying about driving then obviously they could be lying about whether they use their phone or not. I don't see it adds anything positive to their defence.
Also do we know what her response is to the 2 witnesses who state she was at their house that actual evening and they even invited her to stay as it was getting late? What is her rebuttal?
CoolHands said:
I don't get why
>her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
we are supposed to believe that ^ To me it is a logic fail & doesn't add anything. As if someone is lying about driving then obviously they could be lying about whether they use their phone or not. I don't see it adds anything positive to their defence.
Also do we know what her response is to the 2 witnesses who state she was at their house that actual evening and they even invited her to stay as it was getting late? What is her rebuttal?
Wasnt all they knew was that she was with them on her own - nothing about whether anyone else was in the car>her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
we are supposed to believe that ^ To me it is a logic fail & doesn't add anything. As if someone is lying about driving then obviously they could be lying about whether they use their phone or not. I don't see it adds anything positive to their defence.
Also do we know what her response is to the 2 witnesses who state she was at their house that actual evening and they even invited her to stay as it was getting late? What is her rebuttal?
saaby93 said:
You think this is convincing?BBC article said:
She told the jury her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
"I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
She can't categorically say she was a passenger, her brother says he must have been driving, yet she'd said the driver was a Russian, who wasn't in the country when the offence was committed."I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
Christian DeFeo said she'd arrived alone and left alone.
You think the Jury are going to go with what looks like a pack of lies?
saaby93 said:
She comes to that conclusion because she wasnt using her phone. But you dont need to be using your phone for it's location to be triangulated to a tower.don'tbesilly said:
saaby93 said:
You think this is convincing?BBC article said:
She told the jury her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
"I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
She can't categorically say she was a passenger, her brother says he must have been driving, yet she'd said the driver was a Russian, who wasn't in the country when the offence was committed."I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
Christian DeFeo said she'd arrived alone and left alone.
You think the Jury are going to go with what looks like a pack of lies?
Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
saaby93 said:
Still keeping an open mind - the reporting still doesnt add up
Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
I admire your even handed approach. Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
Even so, the defence, as reported, is becoming ever more convoluted and contradictory.
saaby93 said:
don'tbesilly said:
saaby93 said:
You think this is convincing?BBC article said:
She told the jury her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
"I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
She can't categorically say she was a passenger, her brother says he must have been driving, yet she'd said the driver was a Russian, who wasn't in the country when the offence was committed."I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
Christian DeFeo said she'd arrived alone and left alone.
You think the Jury are going to go with what looks like a pack of lies?
Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
Do you think the claim came from someone else elsewhere, and not Onasanya herself.
Why do you think her Brother signed the form when it wasn't his responsibility to do so?
Do you want to guess? Have a wild stab.
If in doubt think along similar lines to David Jeremy QC, I don't think he's guessing,and I think the Jury will believe him.
Slaav said:
saaby93 said:
Slaav said:
Not picking on you - honest!
“It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.”
It isn’t!!!
It is about whether SHE PtCoJ!!!
What other PCoJ is there that's come out?“It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.”
It isn’t!!!
It is about whether SHE PtCoJ!!!
A) Who signed the form?
B) did she BELIEVE she was in Parliament during recess?
C) why did she avoid the investigators?
D) was she driving?
E) why did she lie about driving?
F) did she not give a f
k and just left the papers on her mums table?G) why did she ‘stand by her submissions’?
H) who actually signed the form?
I) when or where did she or anybody bring your interpretation into things?
To be fair, you are in danger of winning ‘our’ little discussion by refusing to address particular issues or answering simple questions???
I’ve got a proper bone in my mouth on this topic and I’m desperately close to dropping it and walking away unless you are prepared to address SPECIFIC points and simple questions??
Or ARE YOU IN FACT WEE FESTUS?
J) I was an innocent passenger despite witness statements to the contrary!
Sorry for being an eejit.... didn’t think of that one!?!?
Saaby, look back at your own posts and Defence of the lying cow
Ps - try not to do the old ‘only bringing a clear mind and balance’ approach again? Do you think J) is the correct version?
saaby93 said:
don'tbesilly said:
saaby93 said:
You think this is convincing?BBC article said:
She told the jury her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
"I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
She can't categorically say she was a passenger, her brother says he must have been driving, yet she'd said the driver was a Russian, who wasn't in the country when the offence was committed."I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
Christian DeFeo said she'd arrived alone and left alone.
You think the Jury are going to go with what looks like a pack of lies?
Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
CoolHands said:
If this is reported correctly she is now admitting she did visit those 2 witnesses, just in the afternoon! Jackanory
Festus is the fall guy/patsy on this occasion it sounds like - although bang to rights on the other 2 times he did this and got away with the Russian. Bang them both up. only way to be sure. 98elise said:
saaby93 said:
don'tbesilly said:
saaby93 said:
You think this is convincing?BBC article said:
She told the jury her brother "would have had to be driving me" because "I don't use my phone when driving".
"I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
She can't categorically say she was a passenger, her brother says he must have been driving, yet she'd said the driver was a Russian, who wasn't in the country when the offence was committed."I would have had to have been a passenger," she said.
Ms Onasanya also told the court her younger brother "thinks he must have been driving" because he was given the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) by their mother.
Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.
Christian DeFeo said she'd arrived alone and left alone.
You think the Jury are going to go with what looks like a pack of lies?
Has this been substantiated yet?
'Ms Onasanya had previously claimed a Russian man was driving her car when it was caught speeding.'
Previously the prosecution alleged that, but it turned out it was her brother that signed the form claiming the Russian
Youre presented with a signed form, which your brother has signed in your name, where you dont know the details are correct
Do you dob in your brother (how many people would do that)
say you dont know if the details are correct but youve signed it ( a lie)
say the details are correct ( you believe your brother must have put the right details but you dont want to dob him in)
Keep shtum
Wasnt there a board game based on these ideas - scruples?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff