So were the posters who backed Jamie Gray "Trolls" ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the sooner we get the proof the better for your credibilty eh? And I was here last year, but like you had a name change (but not by registering another account!)
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
And you saw the photos I posted?
If you dont mind me asking - What was your name last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on Patty, your such a good detective you should have worked that one out all by yourself!!! After all you flung that much [****] at me, surely you remember who I am?

In fact I shall now apply to admin to change my name back to make it a little easier for you shall I, but how you haven't worked out such a simple thing against the fact that you've managed to get all this "evidence" that JG is innocent is quite funny!!!!
 
bodies - permission to bury?

as you have chosen not to address this issue, i think we can safely assume that if any burials occured, it was done illegally.

hopefully you have dropped the Grays into yet another presecution.
well done Patty.

I'm signing off this one now. Personally, i think Janetgeorge summoned up the situation perfectly.

I believe the Grays are guilty of neglect, and if you are not part of the family, then someone is clearly taking advantage.

Patty, please think about why you have chosen to get involved. I suspect there is some aspect of your life causing depression and this case is providing you with a distraction.

Please take the advice of one of the other posters and get involved with charity work. You will soon meet individuals with far graver problems than the Grays.

Fenris - whatever your issues are with the RSPCA, you can not ignore the alleged buried bodies. Either way this issue illustrates that the Gray operation has been correctly represented by the media.

Corpses - jolly inconvenient arent they?
 
Thank you for answering Patty.
Although I cannot agree with you on this matter I do have to commend you on the fact that once you have an idea in your head you really do go all out for it.
 
Before I withdraw from the thread, I'd just like to say all credit to Gray for having a nice bouncy haystack in full view of everyone. What a shame he didn't want to disturb its beauty by cutting a few bales open for his horses.

OK, I've got this all straight in my head now.

And to all the nasty HHOers who keep saying all these horrible things about Mr Gray, 3-2-1, you're back in the room. It was all a horrible nightmare, like in Dallas. None of it really happened, and Gray's place is full of pretty, fat My Little Ponies gamboling about.

And the big bad welfare charities all got eaten up by the Good Giant.

Get real Patty. If this so-called "evidence" that you have actually exists (sorry, I don't believe you've got a goddam thing - you just want to keep this myth going that you know more than us because you're a twisted individual getting off on it, and if you're not, prove me wrong) I'm sure it would have been very useful for the defence to have sight of it before the trial.

Isn't withholding evidence an offence in itself?
 
Some more questions:

AS a trader who depends on these animals for his livelihood, once the first one died, presumably from unknown causes did the Grays have a post mortem carried out to discover the cause of death? If not, why did they choose not to knowing that it may be passed on to the other animals in their care? If they did have a post mortem which showed small encysted redworms, did they then treat all the other horses on the site to prevent any more deaths?

Why would the knacker man lie about being available over Christmas? What did he have to gain from telling lies? What proof is there that he was not available? If as he said he was available for the whole period, why didn't JG pay for the bodies to be removed to prevent possible environmental and health problems from the decomposing bodies? Were the remaining horses however fat and healthy removed to prevent them being exposed to possible disease from these corpses? Even if they were kept seperately there is the possibility of contamination to water, food, soil etc from organisms from the dead bodies.

I have no reason to think that Patty is not involve with the Grays other then her say so and I wonder who she is that she is going to get hold of all this evidence in favour of the Grays presumably from the Grays or the defense if she is just an interested member of the public. I do look forward to seeing it though - it must be something pretty special if it backs up all her claims.
 
Ah there we go - should make things a little easier now - back to OVIDIUS for those that couldn't work out who I was!!!!

However fully intend to revert to MrT again in a few days!
grin.gif
 
The day Patty got any information there will be 13 months in a year,53 weeks in a year and 8 days in a week...........WHY would Patty receive ANY proof to prove the Grays innocence when his lawyer couldn't ???
NAH she is full of cr@p
The only thing that she has ever provided were some staged photos of some well looking horses that were "supposed" to be from S.F at the raid last year, again CR@P coming from a source that saw the horses at the raid and quickly confirmed that the photos were NOT taken at the time of the raid !
 
[ QUOTE ]
Goodness no Patty tonight, maybe she’s got RSI or out doing her Hetty Wainthropp investigations at SF again, such dedication to JG.

[/ QUOTE ]
sssssssshhhhhhhh not to loud lol she can stay where she is
grin.gif
 
I just wanted to clarify something in relation to the no comment interviews. Whilst it is true to say that the Gray's relied on their solicitors advice and that in hindsight it was maybe silly to, it doesn't really explain why a solicitor might have advised them to do so.

The caution has been amended to include the words 'that it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something you later rely on in court'.

Obviously what was said in both instructions and advice is confidential but a solicitor will be very aware that should a matter proceed to trial, an adverse inference could be drawn by a silence in interview. I do not know what was said in consultation however if for example James Gray put forward his account as per his evidence, it would be difficult to see why he was not advised to say so at the time.

Solicitors are aware that they can always be called to give evidence in court, if legal priviledge is waived, as to the reasons for their advice to answer no-comment. As such, they make sure that the client knows all the pro's and consequences of all their available options in interview, including answering questions and saying no comment.

In advising a no-comment interview a solicitor will have based his advice on primarily 2 things, the evidence and the client's instructions. If the evidence was weak for example, and unlikely to result in further action, that may be a good reason for a no comment interview. In relation to the evidence, It must be able to be said that the scene at Spindalls invited some explanation from Gray, therefore the evidence was sufficient to require an explanation.

The client's instructions are the second consideration for the solicitor. If for example Gray gave the same account to his solicitor as he did in evidence, it is difficult to see why the solicitor would have told him not to put his defence forward at that stage. Bear in mind the solicitor will be aware that he can be called to explain his advice in court and also that he will know from case law that a solicitors advice to say no comment does not prevent an inference being drawn.

I am not saying therefore that Gray said no comment because he hadn't yet thought of his defence but it was open to Gray to waive priviledge in court and ask his solicitor to explain the reasons for his advice. A good example of this would be in a situation where Gray had told his solicitor all of which he subsequently told the court. He would have the opportunity to call his solicitor so the solicitor could confirm by looking at his notes that Gray did give this account at that time.

This would of course go a long way to re-butting the inference that Gray subsequently made up his defence. A court would then be made aware that the defence although not given in interview, was given to his solicitor and subsequently not made up. This could have to a large extent negated the adverse inference drawn.

From what I am aware Gray did not call his solicitor to give evidence to the court on what his instructions on were at interview.

This could mean that Gray did not tell his solicitor the account he later gave to the court.
 
yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz go back under the stone, never seen so much cr@p in mylife,those photos were again NOT from the raid,and the numbers are not written on the horses any one can see that
 
[ QUOTE ]
Where did these photos come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why AM, I'm surprised you hav to ask, these are 100% genuine photos of the horses at Amersham that were so wrongfully siezed from Mr James-genuine-geezer-done-nothing-wrong-its-all-a-conspiracy-honest-guv-Gray!

The ones that completely blow the RSPCA and vet evidence out of the water...

Can't you tell???
tongue.gif
 
You must have run out of room on your phone/camera by the time you got round to the thin ones? Or did you delete those? I am having difficulty believing that they are unbiased depictions of SF. The same difficulty I am having believing JG is entirely innocent of horse neglect.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I recieved some photos today and when I went to publish them I saw that the photos were there from last year.


http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/Horsedevotee/?newest=1

I am waiting on another batch of photos and when they arrive I will post them. Not too sure how long I'll have to wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be interesting to see if you have any pictures of those horses/ponies which went to the Horse Trust and were the subject of the court case

I would be looking for numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20

I may be wrong but I understand all horses were removed to prevent them from the same fate that others had clearly suffered

With the kind of turnover of horses Mr Gray said the farm had, I imagine the land to be 'horse sick' and worms and salmonella can continue to exist in the ground for quite some time. For any 'farmer' (I use the term loosely) to lose the quantity of stock he was admitting to (10 a year) it should have been obvious that changes needed to be made in the management of the farm.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did these photos come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why AM, I'm surprised you hav to ask, these are 100% genuine photos of the horses at Amersham that were so wrongfully siezed from Mr James-genuine-geezer-done-nothing-wrong-its-all-a-conspiracy-honest-guv-Gray!

The ones that completely blow the RSPCA and vet evidence out of the water...

Can't you tell???
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
well said,i could do the same and then with the right equipment write number on top of the photos so that people will think its on the animals
grin.gif
good try Patty
 
[ QUOTE ]
yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz go back under the stone, never seen so much cr@p in mylife,those photos were again NOT from the raid,and the numbers are not written on the horses any one can see that

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY.yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Get over yourself PW. Those photo were indeed from the raid. You tried your best to tell people I was lying last year and made yourself look like an idiot - carry on and you'll achive the same for yourself this year.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You must have run out of room on your phone/camera by the time you got round to the thin ones? Or did you delete those? I am having difficulty believing that they are unbiased depictions of SF. The same difficulty I am having believing JG is entirely innocent of horse neglect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The media have given you the photos of the thin animals. Unfortunately they didnt give you photos of ALL the animals. That said, they gave you a sob story of how terribly thin ALL the animals were.

The Grays would have nothing to lose by me pubishing photos of the thin animals because they have already been shown by the media. But what would the RSPCA have to lose by allowing photos of the other animals to be published? If nothing, then WHY have they not given them to the media? And why did they not give them to the court?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recieved some photos today and when I went to publish them I saw that the photos were there from last year.


http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj168/Horsedevotee/?newest=1

I am waiting on another batch of photos and when they arrive I will post them. Not too sure how long I'll have to wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be interesting to see if you have any pictures of those horses/ponies which went to the Horse Trust and were the subject of the court case

[ QUOTE ]
I would be looking for numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can get them I will post them.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but I understand all horses were removed to prevent them from the same fate that others had clearly suffered

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the most recent story as far as I am aware. However, at one point it was said that ALL the animals were emaciated.

[ QUOTE ]
With the kind of turnover of horses Mr Gray said the farm had, I imagine the land to be 'horse sick' and worms and salmonella can continue to exist in the ground for quite some time. For any 'farmer' (I use the term loosely) to lose the quantity of stock he was admitting to (10 a year) it should have been obvious that changes needed to be made in the management of the farm.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latest outbreak aside. Concerning the previous years, basically those 10 horses all die as a result from going to spindles farm? That they would not have died if they had been purchased by another trader or private owner? Or if Mr Gray had put them at another location?

I find it rather hard to believe that any trader would willingly put his purchases on a farm knowing it was riddled with danger which would cost him thousands of pounds in losses.
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

well said,i could do the same and then with the right equipment write number on top of the photos so that people will think its on the animals
grin.gif
good try Patty

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have seen all of the animals like you claim you have then you will KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that the horses in those photos are most certainly of the raid at Spindles Farm.

I have posted several more that I recieved late last night. They have now been posted on photobucket too.
grin.gif
 
Thanks for posting the link Patty. It does show a different side to the story. There are clearly horses in good shape and on good bedding.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting the link Patty. It does show a different side to the story. There are clearly horses in good shape and on good bedding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone can see what's staring them right in the face.

As much as the people here have hung drawn and quatered JG and his family without knowing the facts, I would hate for them to have the RSPCA knock at their doors.

I have seen the effect this whole thing has had on that family and it's not something I would wish on anyone. Unless of course, that person was guilty of the crimes the Gray family have been wrongly accused of.
 
According to newspaper article 16 and 17 were young colts both with body score of 1 when removed
The photos shown are not body score 1 nor do they look very young I give up.
 
So are the photos wrong or were the press wrong?

People keep stating that the photos that the RSPCA provided are enough evidence.

So why are these photos being questioned against the press evidence? How many people have said they dont believe everything they read in the press?

Unfortunately they do!
wink.gif
Despite thinking that they dont.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
According to newspaper article 16 and 17 were young colts both with body score of 1 when removed

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the RSPCA vets all the animals were 1 and below.


By looking at a photo of the teeth of one particular fallen animal Peter Green said it was an aged pony, when in fact it was a foal.

[ QUOTE ]
The photos shown are not body score 1 nor do they look very young I give up.

[/ QUOTE ]


But the RSPCA vets scored those animals at 1 or below.

If this is their idea of a body score of 1 then I suggest all you people start feeding your horses chocolate to put some fat on their emaciated frames.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So are the photos wrong or were the press wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quiet clearly it's the press reports that were wrong. I'm not blaming the press for being wrong. It's not the press that are supposed to be the experts. It's the RSPCA's so-called veterinary experts that are wrong - and purposely so I believe.

[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the photos that the RSPCA provided are enough evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only enough because people want it to be enough.

[ QUOTE ]
So why are these photos being questioned against the press evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people do not like to believe that they have been duped by the "charity" that they have donated their hard earned money to.

[ QUOTE ]
How many people have said they dont believe everything they read in the press?

Unfortunately they do!
wink.gif
Despite thinking that they dont.
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Or maybe they dont but push any doubt to the back of their mind because they want to believe the press.
 
patty, you can bang on and on about this as much as you like - it doesn't change anything. If out of over 100 equines JG happened to have a handful with decent covering that does not excuse the condition of the vast majority - for all we know the ones that look OK may just have been purchased and not yet deeply exposed to his particular brand of 'horse farming'.

You really have been completely hoodwinked by this family
 
[ QUOTE ]
If out of over 100 equines JG happened to have a handful with decent covering that does not excuse the condition of the vast majority


[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority went to The grange, Norfolk. The grange needed to erect shelters and pens. No more than that according to the court report. So they cant have been in the severe conditon quoted. 17 went to the HT on the second day and were said to be a bit underweight but nothing serious.


[ QUOTE ]
for all we know the ones that look OK may just have been purchased

[/ QUOTE ]

And for all we know he had had them for months.

And for all we know he had had the thinner ones for a few weeks.

We dont actually know unless we were in the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top