Nick Freeman
01 November 2006, 03:37 PM
#31
Originally Posted by DCI Gene Hunt
So Sherlock, have you just 'educated' the SN ******* on how to 'get off' with TWOC.......
Please tell me it isn't so............
Please tell me it isn't so............
Besides they are ways around it in certain circumstances.
01 November 2006, 03:39 PM
#32
Originally Posted by David Lock
Sounds like the jury aren't even given a chance to conclude that the defendant is making up a pile of **** - even though evidence is not definitive??
01 November 2006, 03:49 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix.
Not really
it’s a well known defence.
Besides they are ways around it in certain circumstances.
01 November 2006, 03:58 PM
#34
Honest, they are ways around it and it is a well known line that all solicitors will know.
Besides, most ******* shoot themselves in the foot before they speak to the solicitor.
Besides, most ******* shoot themselves in the foot before they speak to the solicitor.
01 November 2006, 04:04 PM
#35
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look Felix.... we can't go on agreeing about stuff... people will start to talk! 
start posting stuff I can disagree with before it's too late
start posting stuff I can disagree with before it's too late
01 November 2006, 08:09 PM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndiThompson
He's a tosser who was no problems getting guilty people off serious charges if they pay him enough. I won't be surprised if he's guilty.
01 November 2006, 10:19 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Daryl
As regards Freeman, he can't continue to represent a client if they admit their guilt to him and, as stated, it seems as though the police think he may have known they were guilty and suggested various scenarios/excuses that might get them off.
e.g. Fergeson and Beckham admitted speeding but in the case of Ferguson argued he had the squits, and in Beckham that he was being chased by photoographers
01 November 2006, 11:36 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix.
You can only handle if you know the goods were stolen in the first place.
Therefore, if the said £3000 car was actually valued excessively more you would still have enough to charge with Handling Stolen Goods
(unless the CPS decided otherwise
)
01 November 2006, 11:39 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 November 2006, 11:52 PM
#41
Originally Posted by Adidas
Know or BELIEVE it to be stolen.
Originally Posted by Adidas
Therefore, if the said £3000 car was actually valued excessively more you would still have enough to charge with Handling Stolen Goods
01 November 2006, 11:58 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix.
True, so the thief just states that he had the correct amount of money in his back pocket. Most solicitors carry a copy of the local news paper for a reason you know.
02 November 2006, 12:03 AM
#43
Originally Posted by Adidas
Most Solicitors (or more likely Legal Rep) will submit a prepared statement and let you do all the leg work
02 November 2006, 12:07 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix.
Its not America - he will still be interviewed
Causing you to do the hard work
02 November 2006, 10:14 PM
#45
Originally Posted by Adidas
02 November 2006, 11:46 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix.
When you think, I don't know what his argument was. Part of the custody procedure is to ask her 'Are you taking any form of medication' which she must have answered 'No'
The only problem was, they were dispensed 9 months after she got nicked
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
