tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post5598179816134704115..comments2024-03-28T13:35:30.500+00:00Comments on TPQ: Vacuum In The EvidenceAMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-90133974977090360582021-04-08T19:42:29.990+01:002021-04-08T19:42:29.990+01:00I think they did have an expert of their own. I do...I think they did have an expert of their own. I don't recall too much of the detail. So I don't think the evidence went without expert challenge. <br />I don't think CMP was involved. <br />Defence lawyers have indeed caused their clients no small measure of grief. I don't see it being a factor here. I recall the Kiszko case, mainly because he died a year after getting his freedomAMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-57371169790887825072021-04-08T12:14:05.050+01:002021-04-08T12:14:05.050+01:00AM
I cant fault your assessment. I have not foll...AM<br /><br />I cant fault your assessment. I have not followed the case as closely as you have. There are a lot of things that do not add up for me. If the D knew how the absence of the originals was going to be treated then why didn't they get an expert of their own to assist the court in understanding how the originals are of importance. Yes the judge has a role to play to ensure the Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-62341959906640252042021-04-08T08:13:36.232+01:002021-04-08T08:13:36.232+01:00The originals are crucial and could easily be diff...The originals are crucial and could easily be different in the ways you point out. But I thought this was the argument of the Defence and not merely a reliance on cognitive bias. I think the latter has to be teased out in cross examination. Yet another filter to strip the Prosecution case of all the impurities down to the point where there is nothing pure in it. But cognitive bias is ancillary, AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-1702495132399105052021-04-07T23:46:08.876+01:002021-04-07T23:46:08.876+01:00AM
I get what your saying but the originals are c...AM<br /><br />I get what your saying but the originals are crucial evidence because the copies could be significantly different in many ways. Things have changed only so far as the judiciary have tried to move away from diplock style of justice. If the trial is conducted Diplock style, which it appears may be the case, then any convictions will be on inferences only. I totally get your point onChristy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-87623570088834803142021-04-07T21:56:38.287+01:002021-04-07T21:56:38.287+01:00Not how I see it.
Arrest. Cops put questions to t...Not how I see it. <br />Arrest. Cops put questions to those arrested.<br />Charge and remand.<br />No need for disclosure until PE. Defence can challenge but challenge not strong enough so Beak rules a Return For Trial.<br />Trial begins many years after arrests.<br />Arguments then take place on admissibility during trial.<br />Judge rules on admissibility.<br />If admissible judge decides on AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-3306486935536794972021-04-07T20:27:12.512+01:002021-04-07T20:27:12.512+01:00To put it in steps on basis of the only evidence i...To put it in steps on basis of the only evidence is audio recordings:<br />1: arrest<br />2: P: gives copies of the evidence to D<br />3: D: should ask for missing originals or dismiss charges as no case to answer.<br />4: P: we have copies and 2 experts who will vouch for their authenticity<br />5: D: -ok we'll fight the copies and fact experts listened to them in company of P<br />--they Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-58106783666016114532021-04-07T17:53:32.578+01:002021-04-07T17:53:32.578+01:00It is a easier second time round but not a lot!
M...It is a easier second time round but not a lot!<br /><br />My experience is that evidence is not weighed properly until a trial. A least that was how it was back in the day.<br /><br />The PE was simply getting you returned for trial with the minimum of fuss. Outside of that I am unaware of any pre-trail procedure for examination of the evidence. That starts with the trial. Evidence does not get AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-4331761004833188102021-04-07T16:51:35.057+01:002021-04-07T16:51:35.057+01:00Unfortunately, I don't really follow thatUnfortunately, I don't really follow thatAMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-65154756228584100442021-04-07T16:42:11.398+01:002021-04-07T16:42:11.398+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-79822693265066850452021-04-07T13:24:06.807+01:002021-04-07T13:24:06.807+01:00Christy - I don't know how it could have been ...Christy - I don't know how it could have been challenged seven years ago in circumstances where the prosecution only have to present a prima facie case. Even at the bail court or depositions a challenge has virtually no chance. The opportunity to challenge comes when the trial starts and that took quite some time in this case. And during the trial the admissibility was challenged. <br />I am AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-81546957481349198752021-04-07T13:17:40.769+01:002021-04-07T13:17:40.769+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-59016034192253668442021-04-07T08:57:59.076+01:002021-04-07T08:57:59.076+01:00I take a different view. I think they have been ch...I take a different view. I think they have been challenging the admissibility of the evidence - and did that during what became known as a trial within a trial. <br />And the obvious question has been posed - that is what the judge is deliberating on now.<br />That the copies have been accepted as evidence is a judicial decision. The judge overrode the opposition of the Defence and allowed the AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-9201702640082490842021-04-06T21:26:55.781+01:002021-04-06T21:26:55.781+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-24553335167079720022021-04-06T20:53:11.906+01:002021-04-06T20:53:11.906+01:00I think to ask for a stay would not have achieved ...I think to ask for a stay would not have achieved much other than to have asked for a stay. I believe they have asked for evidence to be ruled out. If I recall there was a trial within a trial and the judge overruled Defence submissions. <br />It is the judge who decides on the admissibility of questionable evidence not the Defence. It seems to me that the Defence has challenged the expert AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-87942329272704738312021-04-06T20:19:15.208+01:002021-04-06T20:19:15.208+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-61744788378601329102021-04-06T15:29:24.442+01:002021-04-06T15:29:24.442+01:00I get the impression they have been aggressive eno...I get the impression they have been aggressive enough in that they have robustly taken apart the prosecution case. The questioning of the evidence has been going on since the Defence began the presentation of its case. But it took so long before it got the chance to make its case because of the time it took for the trial to start. <br />I simply cannot imagine 7 years meeting a reasonable time AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-74649933859886348752021-04-06T14:11:49.712+01:002021-04-06T14:11:49.712+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christy Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529990561635818286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807238897188927967.post-38935937086288675662021-04-05T21:00:48.138+01:002021-04-05T21:00:48.138+01:00It seems incredible that a trial can be allowed to...It seems incredible that a trial can be allowed to continue for seven years. This one is sustained by falsehoods. Given the presumption of innocence, there should be a statutory bar on the length of time a case should be allowed to run. And that is even before we get to the dirty tricks. AMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559413440743290550noreply@blogger.com