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

Status
Not open for further replies.
[ QUOTE ]
Patty,

you are right, the grey's evidence was dismissed very quickly. However, even though he was advised to give 'no comment', this was still his choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was his choice but if he wasnt going to bother listening to the advice a lawyer was going to give him, what was the point of even having a lawyer present?

Also, what about his wife and children? This was a whole new expirence to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on this one thing BUT the guy (& his son) are as guilty as it gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty of what?


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the video & photographic evidence was enough for the Judge??

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt enough for the judge in the april 08 case where the judge awarded Mr Gray his animals back,

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are so hell bent on defending Mr Grey - have you seen (yourself) the horses that were rescued?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen as much as Peter Green has seen.

[ QUOTE ]
They were certainly NOT a picture of health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. However, the photos which the public didnt get to see, show animals looking closer to obese rather than emaciated.

[ QUOTE ]
They did not receive adequate feed & vet care.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you know this how?

[ QUOTE ]
As John Parker suggests, perhaps the weakest were left...? As it's cheaper for nature to take its course?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the case and the Mr Parker has been taken out of context.

However, according to the RSPCA none of the animals were safe.

[ QUOTE ]
There were many dead animals & carcases. My understanding is that these were burned to get rid of bodies, again perhaps to save the expense??

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I really cannot help you with this one because I didnt hear Mr Gray give evidence about this. However, if I find out anything I'll bring it to the attention of the board.

[ QUOTE ]
As you say, they are not worth anything to him in this state. But I'm sure as you're so close to him / his family that you will know that there is more to come & further charges to be delt with... I can only imagine this will be 'old news' to you as you claim to be so in the know...??

[/ QUOTE ]

Close to him / his family - in what way?

I dont know of anymore charges so if there are anymore then I'm as in the dark about them as everyone else.
 
Or perhaps because he told the truth he would get hounded by 'Grays' associates......... Is that closer to the truth
wink.gif
 
you clearly take great pleasure in going through peoples posts & twisting everything written.

You know damn well that the horses were certainly NOT obese - I can't believe your even trying to suggest this???

So where are you suggesting the obese horses are? I would have loved to have seen them.

Guilty of what - OF ALL CHARGES - do you really need things spelt out??

Well clearly since April 08, the evidence compiled by the RSPCA is now much more conslusive.

'Seeing as much as Peter Green has seen' DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. As others have said you are evasive.

I am making the assumption that you are close to him - my mistake if not. I don't think I am alone in making this assumption as why would you be so hell bent on defending him if not??

Let's see what the future holds regarding him & further court appearances. I suggest we leave it there as I don't want to say anything which may imact on future hearings.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Good evening patty. I would like you to make an open and honest statement about who you are, what your relationship is with this case, and why you took it upon yourself to become so interested in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been completely honest with you. Many people throughout the country have become very interested in the case. Just because someone diggs a little further and bothers to try to find out more information than most would bother to, does not mean such a person is any more closer to the family involved than the next person. If I sided with the RSPCA after my findings then I am more than sure that I would have been commended for my efforts rather than be accused of all that I have been accused of. I have some very helpful contacts - just like PW claims to have.


[ QUOTE ]
You have replied to this style of question twice now with what are in my opinion evasive answers, very much the style of a politicians. In order to stop me from believing that you are either fake, or in some way linked with the defence team, please can you OPENLY and WHOLLY explain the above
to me in plain english as I seem to have missed something.

Thank you.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well unless I give out my personal details I'm not sure how else I am supposed to tell you who I am.

I'm affraid you're going to have to conclude whatever you will because I will not give my personal details to total strangers.
 

Patty,
I response to whether I think it is fair that the Judge should be entitled to draw an adverse inference from ALL of the Gray’s failure to comment whilst in police interview; I think it is TOTALLY FAIR AND RIGHT. I suggest you go and research the case law that establishes under what circumstances adverse inferences may be drawn.
The Grays, when arrested and at the beginning of the interview will have been cautioned.
Are you disputing that? If so, please state time and date that a complaint was logged with the IPCC and expected date of completion of their enquiries.

If not, you accept that they were told that
IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION, WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT.
The judge is therefore perfectly entitled to draw an inference from any failure to provide an account from the defendant.

You appear to be suggesting that the horses arrived at their premises in that condition? If so, perhaps you could enlighten us why that wouldn’t be EXACTLY what was said in the taped police interview?
If the Grays are stating that they picked the horses up in that condition, why did they not state WHEN ASKED in police interview
‘I purchased horse x from person 1 at place A at [time] on [date]. I present my receipt and horse x’s passport as supporting evidence that I have only just purchased this animal.
If you are claiming that the Grays horses were all in perfectly good condition (apart from the dead horses, OBVIOUSLY) why did the Grays not say WHEN ASKED in police interview
‘The horses on my land that are not currently dead are in good health, and I present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time]. Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.
Ah no, but wait...didn’t the defence vet claim that the deaths may have been due to a massive outbreak of worms? Worms which could have been prevented by an appropriate CARE program including worming (both routinely and new entrants to the herd), poo-picking and not overstocking land).
Unless there is a new type of worm that appears unexpectedly despite all the above having been done that no-one else has discovered yet? Is this what you are suggesting? Does it kill instantly and with none of the recognisable and well documented symptoms? Does it prevent timely removal of the bodies?
Perhaps it is a type of worm that Equine Specialist vets are not familiar with, and only mixed practice vet surgeons are able to identify it?
Or one that took the other defence vet “several months” to work it out, and that was “after he had compiled his initial 73 page report on his findings”. Well GOSH, how do I hire him to look at my horses? When mine are ill, I find it PERFECTLY REASONABLE that it takes SEVERAL MONTHS for an allegedly competent vet to diagnose something as SIMPLE as worms!
Regarding the dead horses, why not answer WHEN ASKED
‘Dead horse 1 died at [time] on [date] of [condition] as diagnosed by my vet and i present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time]. Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above’. Dead horse 2 ditto. Dead horse 3 ditto. Ad nauseum.
Then continue with:
‘They were all due to be buried at [time] on [date] in [place] and I present the appropriate permissions from x county council confirming that I have permission to do this’.
In an earlier post you questioned
“where they died,
When were they going to be removed.
When dead pet was going to be buried”

By including ‘where they died’ are you suggesting that some of the horses died in places other than Spindles Farm? If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview ‘Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here]. It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner]. I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement. I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate]. I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

On a vaguely related note, wasn't Peter Green the vet that used to do articles for Horse and Hound?
Admin, if you are reading this thread is it possible that you could approach him to do an article about this case in a forthcoming issue? Thanks.
 
shocked.gif
shocked.gif
bloody hell
shocked.gif
shocked.gif


I was at THT and recognise PWs pics, it was so very sad. I have witnessed the evidence which is the 14 most poorly who went to the nearest centre. Two had strangles which were immediately isolated (one being a chestnut mare), the rest were weak and depressed, full of lice and worms. As PW explained, the donkeys were immediately to the right when entering the barn and when THT staff told me of Gladys (ancient donkey) and how she arrived before the other donkeys and just laid down exhausted, given up, the whole atmosphere was very thought provoking.

I have an open mind and if this man and his family are innocent, set up by authorities and tarred, I would want to leave my country.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won.

[/ QUOTE ]

43. Mr. Gray was convicted in 2006 ( upheld on appeal ) of causing unnecessary suffering to a Piebald colt by unreasonably failing to obtain veterinary treatment for the horse’s diarrhoea – fine £3,500 and deprived of ownership of the animal,

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I cant believe how blatent this is in the report.

In May 2005 Mr Gray had a horse removed from a field by no other then the little Ms Hampton herself. The horse was removed along with another horse which didnt belong to Mr Gray. It was a shared field. Mr Gray owned other horses in that same field but they wasnt removed. When Mr Gray discovered the RSPCA had removed his horse he called them to ask what was going on. They prosecuted Mr Gray but he wasnt aware of it until notice came that he had been found guilty in his absence. The charge was that the animal had insuficient food and water. Mr Gray appealed and WON the appeal. The RSPCA certainly shot their self in the foot with that one because if there wasnt enough food and water in the field for THAT particular animal then the same would have been true for the rest of the animals, but they was not removed.
 
This is the advice given by the Self Help group who support people accused by the RSPCA.

http://the-shg.org/Arrest.htm

This makes interesting reading if any of you have time.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/Defending%20Animal%20Welfare%20Prosecutions.htm

I also found this site very enlightening. Takes a while to get through the links but well worth it if you want to see the other side of the story and are willing not to believe everything you see in the press.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

I have read through the court reports and summing up and I also have further questions.

65 horses went to Norfolk (I think). Described as a safe haven. No-one was allowed to see them. In the trial there was no evidence that veterinary care was required. In fact the emphasis was on the fact the the sanctuary had to build shelters and create paddocks/pens.

So 65 horses were deemed to be needing no special care. Where are the photographs? Why was nobody allowed to know where they were? They were happy to let people see the poor ones but not the healthy ones. Why?
confused.gif


To present a fair picture to the general public the RSPCA should have released pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

To present a fair picture to the court they should have presented pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

Why didnt they do this?
confused.gif


Finally, why was his son found guilty but not given the opportunity to defend himself? That seems like a medieval approach to justice.
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a horse was removed from a field by the RSPCA. Mr Gray was prosecuted and found guilty. Mr Gray had no knowledge of the prosecution until he received notice that he had been found guilty. Mr Gray appealed and won.

[/ QUOTE ]

43. Mr. Gray was convicted in 2006 ( upheld on appeal ) of causing unnecessary suffering to a Piebald colt by unreasonably failing to obtain veterinary treatment for the horse’s diarrhoea – fine £3,500 and deprived of ownership of the animal,

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I cant believe how blatent this is in the report.

In May 2005 Mr Gray had a horse removed from a field by no other then the little Ms Hampton herself. The horse was removed along with another horse which didnt belong to Mr Gray. It was a shared field. Mr Gray owned other horses in that same field but they wasnt removed. When Mr Gray discovered the RSPCA had removed his horse he called them to ask what was going on. They prosecuted Mr Gray but he wasnt aware of it until notice came that he had been found guilty in his absence. The charge was that the animal had insuficient food and water. Mr Gray appealed and WON the appeal. The RSPCA certainly shot their self in the foot with that one because if there wasnt enough food and water in the field for THAT particular animal then the same would have been true for the rest of the animals, but they was not removed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know all this to be fact how, exactly?
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is the advice given by the Self Help group who support people accused by the RSPCA.

http://the-shg.org/Arrest.htm

This makes interesting reading if any of you have time.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/Defending%20Animal%20Welfare%20Prosecutions.htm

I also found this site very enlightening. Takes a while to get through the links but well worth it if you want to see the other side of the story and are willing not to believe everything you see in the press.

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

I have read through the court reports and summing up and I also have further questions.

65 horses went to Norfolk (I think). Described as a safe haven. No-one was allowed to see them. In the trial there was no evidence that veterinary care was required. In fact the emphasis was on the fact the the sanctuary had to build shelters and create paddocks/pens.

So 65 horses were deemed to be needing no special care. Where are the photographs? Why was nobody allowed to know where they were? They were happy to let people see the poor ones but not the healthy ones. Why?
confused.gif


To present a fair picture to the general public the RSPCA should have released pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

To present a fair picture to the court they should have presented pictures of ALL the horses, IMO.

Why didnt they do this?
confused.gif


Finally, why was his son found guilty but not given the opportunity to defend himself? That seems like a medieval approach to justice.
frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I said in the beginning of this thread that I had seen some when they were first removed. These were in Norfolk. I would not class them as 'healthy' in any way!
 
QR
dozzie thank you for showing me that site, makes me angry im prepared to admit that there will always be right and wrong on both sides but i dont think an organisation as large as rspca is corrupt, it is hardly the russian mafia, its a respected well known national organisation and i feel that website is just an uprising from other people who did not have the decency to look after there animals properly in the 1t place
 
[ QUOTE ]

Patty,
I response to whether I think it is fair that the Judge should be entitled to draw an adverse inference from ALL of the Gray’s failure to comment whilst in police interview; I think it is TOTALLY FAIR AND RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you suggest that all people who give no-comment police interviews on the advice of a solicitor, are all guilty?

If not, do you believe it is totally right and fair for a judge, after seeing and hearing evidence that could have been produced in a police interview but was not, to find people guilty just because they didnt produce that evidence in the police interview because they were advised by their solicitor not to?


[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you go and research the case law that establishes under what circumstances adverse inferences may be drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this but it does not mean he must find them guilty just because they made no comment.

[ QUOTE ]
The Grays, when arrested and at the beginning of the interview will have been cautioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were not arrested, but was threatend with arrest if they didnt have the interviews. They later found out that such actions taken by the police was not lawful. I truely believe that their solicitor at that time should have still been in law school.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you disputing that? If so, please state time and date that a complaint was logged with the IPCC and expected date of completion of their enquiries.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not disputing it but it still does not make it fair.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, you accept that they were told that
IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION, WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were not arrested.

[ QUOTE ]
The judge is therefore perfectly entitled to draw an inference from any failure to provide an account from the defendant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The defendants may not have made comment in the police station but the judge heard why they didnt give an account at the police station - and he also heard all the evidence they would have given if they had commented in their interviews. So basically the judge dismissed irrefutable evidence just because they didnt give that evidence in a police interview.

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to be suggesting that the horses arrived at their premises in that condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The word condition keeps being used in broad brush comments and questions.

Some did, some were animals that Mr Gray was in the process of building up. Most were as fat as butter but so conveniant for the RSPCA that the public wasnt fortunate enough to see those animals.


[ QUOTE ]
If so, perhaps you could enlighten us why that wouldn’t be EXACTLY what was said in the taped police interview?

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they were instructed by their solicitor at the time not to make any comment. They obiviously thought he knew best.

I remember hearing Jodie Gray answer a question from Mr Seabrook about the no comment police interview. She said she had wished she had not listened to the solicitor but she thought he knew best. This was a whole new experience to her.


[ QUOTE ]
If the Grays are stating that they picked the horses up in that condition, why did they not state WHEN ASKED in police interview
‘I purchased horse x from person 1 at place A at [time] on [date]. I present my receipt and horse x’s passport as supporting evidence that I have only just purchased this animal.
If you are claiming that the Grays horses were all in perfectly good condition (apart from the dead horses, OBVIOUSLY) why did the Grays not say WHEN ASKED in police interview
‘The horses on my land that are not currently dead are in good health, and I present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time]. Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Need I repeat why the Grays never answered questions in the police interview?

After what they had just experienced and seeing how the RSPCA can do and say as they please - they sought legal advice and trusted it was the right thing to do.


[ QUOTE ]
Ah no, but wait...didn’t the defence vet claim that the deaths may have been due to a massive outbreak of worms? Worms which could have been prevented by an appropriate CARE program including worming (both routinely and new entrants to the herd), poo-picking and not overstocking land).
Unless there is a new type of worm that appears unexpectedly despite all the above having been done that no-one else has discovered yet? Is this what you are suggesting? Does it kill instantly and with none of the recognisable and well documented symptoms? Does it prevent timely removal of the bodies?
Perhaps it is a type of worm that Equine Specialist vets are not familiar with, and only mixed practice vet surgeons are able to identify it?
Or one that took the other defence vet “several months” to work it out, and that was “after he had compiled his initial 73 page report on his findings”. Well GOSH, how do I hire him to look at my horses? When mine are ill, I find it PERFECTLY REASONABLE that it takes SEVERAL MONTHS for an allegedly competent vet to diagnose something as SIMPLE as worms!

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you take another look at the report. Though out of context as it is, I feel it will answer your questions better than I can. I have answered the same questions time after time. People dont seem to be reading through the thread and think they are asking all new and improved questions, when really they are doing no more than repeating what has already been asked.



[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the dead horses, why not answer WHEN ASKED
‘Dead horse 1 died at [time] on [date] of [condition] as diagnosed by my vet and i present my vet bills as evidence that horse x was examined by my vet Mr whatever on [date] at [time]. Please contact him on this number and he will be happy to provide a statement confirming the above’. Dead horse 2 ditto. Dead horse 3 ditto. Ad nauseum.
Then continue with:
‘They were all due to be buried at [time] on [date] in [place] and I present the appropriate permissions from x county council confirming that I have permission to do this’.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did what other people do in such circumstances. But here, I'll break it down for you.

1. They hired a solicitor.

2. the took his advice which was to make NO COMMENT.

3. They acted upon that advice.

[ QUOTE ]
In an earlier post you questioned
“where they died,
When were they going to be removed.
When dead pet was going to be buried”

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look through the tread you'll see.

[ QUOTE ]
By including ‘where they died’ are you suggesting that some of the horses died in places other than Spindles Farm?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview ‘Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here]. It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner]. I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement. I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate]. I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

[/ QUOTE ]


No comment.


[ QUOTE ]
On a vaguely related note, wasn't Peter Green the vet that used to do articles for Horse and Hound?
Admin, if you are reading this thread is it possible that you could approach him to do an article about this case in a forthcoming issue? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and while you're at it ask Peter Green about the little comment he made to the Asian security guard before he gave his evidence. Something about the Gray family not being as bad as they were being made to look in the court room.

He really should be careful who is within earshot before makeing comments about people who's names he is about to drag through the mud.

Ask him about his little chat with Cordelia Gray when he asked her for a sweet just before he walked into the witness room.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps because he told the truth he would get hounded by 'Grays' associates......... Is that closer to the truth
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

So he was telling the truth yet kept apologizing to Mr Gray while at SF?
 
I see that poor patty is the only person that walks about with her eyes and ears open has ive herd KATIE ROBINSON DONT !!!!!!!
 
NOt that they think they are vet exsperts and police officers / and a member of the public like the R.S.P.C.A. thats all they are is a member of the public but now they think they are school teachers aswell !!! now come on !!!! im just writeing in little sort hand quadro !!!!!ok ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
patty. you have said on this thread that you do not know JG and his family but simply took an interest in the investigation, if I understand you correctly.

If this is true you could not have been at the farm before the RSPCA visited, or there when the RSPCA and Police attended,

[/ QUOTE ]

I had never been to the yard before the raid, no.

[ QUOTE ]
nor there subsequently when further animals were removed (you commented earlier that one was removed because it had a 'scratch on its leg' - that is so not true, I saw those ponies and they were walking skeletons but you will be happy to know they have put on weight with good care).

[/ QUOTE ]

They were removed against the wishes of the vet. The vet made a full report and said Mr Gray was being harassed by the RSPCA. And I know for a fact that they were most certainly NOT walking skeletons. That is a blatant lie.

[ QUOTE ]
So, if everything you are saying here is simply a report of what you have heard the defence say in court you are horribly, horribly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive. However, with the mountain of information I had even before it went to court, I knew Mr Gray was innocent. And as for his family members, prosecuting them was an utter joke because Kirsty Hampton and Claire Ryder know for a fact that the woman had no dealings with the animals. And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy.


[ QUOTE ]
i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here. Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had issues before the JG case went to court, but after hearing the lies they told in court gave me even more reason to have issues with them......Most of the prosecution witnesses completely contradicted one another - and themselves. Kirsty Hampton re-wrote her statement after hearing evidence from another prosecution witness, which apparently, 'jogged her memory'. She was allowed to change what she said in her first statement, which was contradicted by the other witness, to say the exact same thing as that witness. She was then re-called to the stand after being released as a witness. Thats just not right.

[ QUOTE ]
JG has more Court cases in the pipeline, I understand, on other matters (all horse related), hopefully this is enough to put him and his family out of business and away from all animals for a very, very long time

[/ QUOTE ]

DEFRA or Trading standards I believe.
 
Oh for christ sake Patty,pack it in !!!!
Nobody really gives a toss what you think,get a life and instead of writing page fter page on a national forum.
The trial was not a 1 or 2 day trial,it went on for weeks,the prosecution had an overwhelming amount of evidence,if you want to write long letters in the Greys defense,write to the defense lawyer and give him advice and inform him what he did wrong. At the end of the day both sides had their chance to speak up,but only 1 side can win !
And luckily in this case the right verdict came in..
 
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here. Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"I had issues before the JG case went to court, but after hearing the lies they told in court gave me even more reason to have issues with them......Most of the prosecution witnesses completely contradicted one another - and themselves. Kirsty Hampton re-wrote her statement after hearing evidence from another prosecution witness, which apparently, 'jogged her memory'. She was allowed to change what she said in her first statement, which was contradicted by the other witness, to say the exact same thing as that witness. She was then re-called to the stand after being released as a witness. Thats just not right."




So, does that make you a bit of an anti RSPCA activist who has the time and resources to follow this trial in detail?

Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe, especially if you have approached this with the mindset that all RSPCA staff, all Equine Welfare Staff, all vets and all Police Officers involved in this case must be liars - and the defendants (who are the only people in the case with a good reason to lie) are telling the clear unblemished truth.

I don't have the time or inclination now to challenge some of your points - which are actually just rubbish. But, you have called me a liar and I will not allow that to pass unchallenged.

You said there was nothing wrong (other than a little scratch) with two ponies that were later seized and removed by the RSPCA. You have not seen these so only have the word of JG and family (presumably) on which to base your opinion.

I saw them within 24 hours of their arrival at their current home, they were in dire condition - a little scratch would have been the least of their problems - and I am no tree hugger and fully understand the principles of keeping horses as stock, rather than as pets. Funnily enough it has only taken access to good hay and decent grazing to put them right - the very things that the animals on JG's farm were denied.

Only one person has been hoodwinked here, and it is you patty - in some ways I feel sorry for you, now knowing where you are coming from. Conspiracy theories only work as theory - they are rarely found in real life.
 
I think paddywhack has expressed the views of a lot os us on this forum. JG and his family were found guilty after a 51 day trial during which a great deal of evidence was heard from both sides, and they lost the case.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I just ask one question with reference to your above statement?

WHY?

What can you possibly gain from doing all that? And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?

I really cannot get my head round why soneone, who says they are nothing to do with the case, would go to so much trouble to gain all this information and not put it to use???
 
Patty

I quote:
"And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy."

Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.

Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING
 
Having just read 15 pages all i one hit, im amazed that this is still going on. I dont understand how such blatent cruelty and neglect is even being questioned.. There is enough conclusive evidence, in my opinion that horses were left in poor conditions ( to say the least.) Dead and emaciated horses are enough ...let alone letting horses stand next to those that have died .

Patty, you say that you "mistook " those photos at the horse trust, for those at SF because of the bedding. How?!


I'll be posting photos for comparison ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top