WoopsiiD
Well-Known Member
Can I just ask Patty-what do you do for a living?
So were the posters who backed Jamie Gray "Trolls" ?
- Thread starter Janetterose
- Start date
- Status
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you put patty will continue to defend them all,it amazes me still and many others here how she says she has facts that noone has still yet not seen.
When she has never stepped a foot on SF before this came to light yet still manages to have facts about SF.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me - As soon as I have those documents in my hands you will have them. What excuse will you use then to continue believing the lies?
[ QUOTE ]
How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF, with my useful contacts.
[ QUOTE ]
Patty also claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.
Its not worth feeding.
[/ QUOTE ]
They did indeed. Most of those photos were taken near a gate that joins the yard to the fields. If they hadnt been buried then they would have been clearly seen by vet Katie Robinson on the 21st Dec 07 when she was there in pen 3 (barn right next to gate) examining the animals to which she issued health certificates for. One animals at a time was taken in to pen 3 to be examined.
Whatever you put patty will continue to defend them all,it amazes me still and many others here how she says she has facts that noone has still yet not seen.
When she has never stepped a foot on SF before this came to light yet still manages to have facts about SF.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me - As soon as I have those documents in my hands you will have them. What excuse will you use then to continue believing the lies?
[ QUOTE ]
How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF, with my useful contacts.
[ QUOTE ]
Patty also claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.
Its not worth feeding.
[/ QUOTE ]
They did indeed. Most of those photos were taken near a gate that joins the yard to the fields. If they hadnt been buried then they would have been clearly seen by vet Katie Robinson on the 21st Dec 07 when she was there in pen 3 (barn right next to gate) examining the animals to which she issued health certificates for. One animals at a time was taken in to pen 3 to be examined.
Happy Horse
Well-Known Member
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview. Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.
I am trying to keep an open mind although I know exactly my thoughts but there are clearly one or two people supporting the Grays. I fortunately have faith in the legal process and am happy with the result.
In 18 years of horse ownership and 5 years in one of the largest equine hospitals in the country I have never heard of one horse drop dead from worms let alone the number claimed in this case. Surely Mr Gray must be the unluckiest horse owner ever!
As a point of interest, why haven't the Grays or Patty with their exposure to the allegedly healthy horses and well bedded pens been able to produce any images of these?
I am trying to keep an open mind although I know exactly my thoughts but there are clearly one or two people supporting the Grays. I fortunately have faith in the legal process and am happy with the result.
In 18 years of horse ownership and 5 years in one of the largest equine hospitals in the country I have never heard of one horse drop dead from worms let alone the number claimed in this case. Surely Mr Gray must be the unluckiest horse owner ever!
As a point of interest, why haven't the Grays or Patty with their exposure to the allegedly healthy horses and well bedded pens been able to produce any images of these?
mtj
Well-Known Member
Patty, may I also ask what is your profession?
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future.
I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age
[ QUOTE ]
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future.
I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview. Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview. This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed.
While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.
Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all.
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview. Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview. This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed.
While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.
Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all.
Paddywhack
Well-Known Member
He was 15 when the raid was !
James John Gray (05/09/63) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Julie Gray (24/05/67) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Jodie Gray (12/09/82) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; and Cordelia Gray (29/05/88) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire are due to appear at Banbury Magistrates Court at 10am on Tuesday 13 May.
They face 12 charges related to section 4 and section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and cover causing unnecessary suffering to and failing to meet the welfare needs of a total of 125 equines, removed between 4 and 12 January 2008.
A 15-year-old male, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will also be facing charges in connection with this case."
Patty go back where you came from,you are tedious now with your cr@p and page after page with quotes that is most likely rubbish, you know nothing and is just trying to stall things since people are starting to see through you realizing that you are fake.....and don't waste your time quoting me since i can't read it since you are on my ignore !
And yo,ask the Gray's why they kept the barn with the thin and starved ponies/donkeys locked when Katie,Bob or R.S.P.C.A came for their visits,no wonder that no one was aware that they were on the farm !!!! Everyone knows that they can ONLY report animals that they can SEE !!!!!!!
James John Gray (05/09/63) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Julie Gray (24/05/67) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; Jodie Gray (12/09/82) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire; and Cordelia Gray (29/05/88) of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire are due to appear at Banbury Magistrates Court at 10am on Tuesday 13 May.
They face 12 charges related to section 4 and section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and cover causing unnecessary suffering to and failing to meet the welfare needs of a total of 125 equines, removed between 4 and 12 January 2008.
A 15-year-old male, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will also be facing charges in connection with this case."
Patty go back where you came from,you are tedious now with your cr@p and page after page with quotes that is most likely rubbish, you know nothing and is just trying to stall things since people are starting to see through you realizing that you are fake.....and don't waste your time quoting me since i can't read it since you are on my ignore !
And yo,ask the Gray's why they kept the barn with the thin and starved ponies/donkeys locked when Katie,Bob or R.S.P.C.A came for their visits,no wonder that no one was aware that they were on the farm !!!! Everyone knows that they can ONLY report animals that they can SEE !!!!!!!
mtj
Well-Known Member
Fenris, were you also in court during the proceedings?
Tabbi
Well-Known Member
I have followed this post and I still believe the conviction is just.
If there was any evidence to prove otherwise I would presume that this came up in the court case and the judge had seen this evidence, yet they still got a conviction.
If the Grays are appealing against their conviction then they will need to produce something to prove that they did indeed provide appropriate veterinary care, food and water.
Just because the animals are "stock" animals this does not mean that it is ok not to care for them appropriately.
I do find it unusual that patty is privvy to all this information about the Grays yet has no connection with the Grays.
Sorry but the video/photos say it all.....if you could produce video/photos showing the opposite then that would be very interesting to see.
If there was any evidence to prove otherwise I would presume that this came up in the court case and the judge had seen this evidence, yet they still got a conviction.
If the Grays are appealing against their conviction then they will need to produce something to prove that they did indeed provide appropriate veterinary care, food and water.
Just because the animals are "stock" animals this does not mean that it is ok not to care for them appropriately.
I do find it unusual that patty is privvy to all this information about the Grays yet has no connection with the Grays.
Sorry but the video/photos say it all.....if you could produce video/photos showing the opposite then that would be very interesting to see.
Quadro
Well-Known Member
patty has already told me in a previous post she does not work she is a "wife and mother" and her husband a "successful" business man
take from that what u will
take from that what u will
WoopsiiD
Well-Known Member
Oh right quadro......
mtj
Well-Known Member
well given how often Jamie Gray didn't turn up in court, at least Patty will have been able to keep up with the ironing
WoopsiiD
Well-Known Member
So being a Domestic Engineering Operative just wasn't enough eh?
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris, were you also in court during the proceedings?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Fenris, were you also in court during the proceedings?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is what RSPCA v C indicates should happen. Nevertheless, we have a new Act now, so this is the ideal chance to determine whether the precedents should change.
He wasn't tried for crimes he might yet commit, he was tried, with others, for crime that have already been committed - and found guilty. My point was that it would have been wrong to exclude him from this process merely by virtue of his age
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is what RSPCA v C indicates should happen. Nevertheless, we have a new Act now, so this is the ideal chance to determine whether the precedents should change.
WishfulThinker
Well-Known Member
Anyone else think we should alert the media to this thread, so they can dig and see what they can uncover? They will probably be able to find out who Patty is (if they don't know already) and so they can speak to them about their uncovered evidence and get to the bottom of whatever is supposedly going on?
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
The images were awful I agree,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
[/ QUOTE ]
They did indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry
[/ QUOTE ]
Totally.
[ QUOTE ]
and donations flooded in.
[/ QUOTE ]
and still are.
[ QUOTE ]
He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
[/ QUOTE ]
The legal team of a certain newspaper was in court that day applying for the images to be released. The application was granted but Mr Gray was already guilty in the eyes of the nation. Those releases put the younger family members of the Gray family in instant danger.
[ QUOTE ]
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree.
[ QUOTE ]
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court.
[ QUOTE ]
Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you.
I am a great believe in justice and honesty at all costs. Sadly the opposite bought about such a verdict.
During the case in April 08 in which the Grays were awarded their aminals back, the RSPCA tried to bargain with the family. For the 2nd time, they offered to drop all charges against the Grays if they signed their animals over to the RSPCA. The Family declined.
[ QUOTE ]
I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would do every animal owner well to brush up on their knowledge where the RSPCA are concerned.
They are an extremely powerful organization. My personal opinion is that they are above the law. The police and vets seem to be putty in their hands, and they are an idol to the smaller animal charities.
Far fetched? It would seem so on the face of it - but when people care to search deeper the true colours of the so-called animal loving charity are revealed. I dont expect people to take my word for it. The information is available for anyone who will care to look at it.
[ QUOTE ]
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are 100% correct.
[ QUOTE ]
That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
Something I cant grasp either.
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
The images were awful I agree,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
[/ QUOTE ]
They did indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry
[/ QUOTE ]
Totally.
[ QUOTE ]
and donations flooded in.
[/ QUOTE ]
and still are.
[ QUOTE ]
He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
[/ QUOTE ]
The legal team of a certain newspaper was in court that day applying for the images to be released. The application was granted but Mr Gray was already guilty in the eyes of the nation. Those releases put the younger family members of the Gray family in instant danger.
[ QUOTE ]
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree.
[ QUOTE ]
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court.
[ QUOTE ]
Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you.
I am a great believe in justice and honesty at all costs. Sadly the opposite bought about such a verdict.
During the case in April 08 in which the Grays were awarded their aminals back, the RSPCA tried to bargain with the family. For the 2nd time, they offered to drop all charges against the Grays if they signed their animals over to the RSPCA. The Family declined.
[ QUOTE ]
I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would do every animal owner well to brush up on their knowledge where the RSPCA are concerned.
They are an extremely powerful organization. My personal opinion is that they are above the law. The police and vets seem to be putty in their hands, and they are an idol to the smaller animal charities.
Far fetched? It would seem so on the face of it - but when people care to search deeper the true colours of the so-called animal loving charity are revealed. I dont expect people to take my word for it. The information is available for anyone who will care to look at it.
[ QUOTE ]
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are 100% correct.
[ QUOTE ]
That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
Something I cant grasp either.
mtj
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, one of my friends used to be a hack on the Mail on Sunday.
I remember asking her about some of the interviews and she told me that all the tabloids employ private detectives.
I doubt if they would have any trouble hacking into HHO to find patty's ip address.
I remember asking her about some of the interviews and she told me that all the tabloids employ private detectives.
I doubt if they would have any trouble hacking into HHO to find patty's ip address.
dozzie
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, LONG TERM, so it really comes back down to when did he take ownership of those horses.
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, LONG TERM, so it really comes back down to when did he take ownership of those horses.
nicky_jakey
Well-Known Member
patty
your quote: "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"
So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms and let you walk around the yard & fields...???
your quote: "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"
So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms and let you walk around the yard & fields...???
WoopsiiD
Well-Known Member
"Quote:
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court."
<font color="red"> </font> How long had he had them patty?
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
Sadly, it does not appear to make any difference. He is guilty in the eyes of the nation. And it obviously didnt make any difference in court."
<font color="red"> </font> How long had he had them patty?
Taboo1968
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'm not sure where you got that idea from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Somewhere in these 18 pages you stated that you did not hear JG give evidence, so thats where that idea came from.....
Yes you are definately a minority, as I still cannot see what there is to gain from your little adventure, other than the fact that you've got nothing better to do!!! Your choice, but at the end of the day, Judgement has been passed and the verdict was guilty...... No doubt if there has been a huge miscarriage of justice, there will be an appeal..... we'll just have to wait and see!!!!
And why on earth re register as someone else, when your still registered as Myjack???
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'm not sure where you got that idea from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Somewhere in these 18 pages you stated that you did not hear JG give evidence, so thats where that idea came from.....
Yes you are definately a minority, as I still cannot see what there is to gain from your little adventure, other than the fact that you've got nothing better to do!!! Your choice, but at the end of the day, Judgement has been passed and the verdict was guilty...... No doubt if there has been a huge miscarriage of justice, there will be an appeal..... we'll just have to wait and see!!!!
And why on earth re register as someone else, when your still registered as Myjack???
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Can I just ask Patty-what do you do for a living?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a wife and mother.
Can I just ask Patty-what do you do for a living?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a wife and mother.
Paddywhack
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
patty
your quote: "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"
So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms
and let you walk around the yard & fields...???
[/ QUOTE ]
Well,somewhere in these 18 pages or another thread Patty has stated that she has never been to the farm nor meet J.G. I do have a life and do not have the time to go through it all ,find it and do the quote,and also how does a mother and wife of a successfull business man have the time to sit up all night and write on a forum ?
I am also that and when night times comes I am in bed so that I can be alert the next day !!! Nope pieces does not fit I am afraid,
Patty is here late afternoon/early evening and in the middle of the night,on 1 or 2 occasion she/he/it has been here in the morning,which makes me think that she sits in another country with a huge time difference,and has therefor not been in court.
patty
your quote: "I have taken several unexpected visits to the yard of SF"
So are we to assume that Jamie Gray welcomed you with open arms
and let you walk around the yard & fields...???
[/ QUOTE ]
Well,somewhere in these 18 pages or another thread Patty has stated that she has never been to the farm nor meet J.G. I do have a life and do not have the time to go through it all ,find it and do the quote,and also how does a mother and wife of a successfull business man have the time to sit up all night and write on a forum ?
I am also that and when night times comes I am in bed so that I can be alert the next day !!! Nope pieces does not fit I am afraid,
Patty is here late afternoon/early evening and in the middle of the night,on 1 or 2 occasion she/he/it has been here in the morning,which makes me think that she sits in another country with a huge time difference,and has therefor not been in court.
mtj
Well-Known Member
So you have lots in common with Mrs Gray
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are indeed correct. The press did requested them. BUT it was the RSPCA that TOOK the photos, and only gave the images to the court and press that would cause public outcry. The RSPCA could have (IF THEY WANTED TO) have also produced the photos of all the animals in lovely condition.
The Gray family produced photos of all the other animals to the court. So why were they not published?
A side note for you....The RSPCA and an editor of a certain national news paper are beyond friendly.
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are indeed correct. The press did requested them. BUT it was the RSPCA that TOOK the photos, and only gave the images to the court and press that would cause public outcry. The RSPCA could have (IF THEY WANTED TO) have also produced the photos of all the animals in lovely condition.
The Gray family produced photos of all the other animals to the court. So why were they not published?
A side note for you....The RSPCA and an editor of a certain national news paper are beyond friendly.
Quadro
Well-Known Member
ah but patty's husband is a "successful" business man mrs grays' obviously not so much
Tabbi
Well-Known Member
Can you then please post those pics here so we can see them?
mtj
Well-Known Member
last time i looked, the uk still has a number of national newspapers
Happy Horse
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview. Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview. This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed.
While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.
Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Patty has regularly blamed the lawyer for advising the Grays not to comment as a reason for their defense failing in court. You seem to be at odds with one another here.
It seems clear to me that the prosecution evidence was more than sufficient to convict the Grays and their failure to provide any evidence in their own defence under questioning is their own fault and can't be blamed on anyone other than themselves or their lawyer - if the latter is the case then they should be taking legal action against them. Maybe you should be encouraging this as you seem so friendly with them instead of banging the same old drum on here.
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we will see Mr Gray bringing a case against the lawyer who told him not to say anything at interview. Surely anyone in their right mind who believed they are not guilty would realise that they have to answer questions to prove their innocence and if the advice given as Patty has said on many occasions caused their downfall then the sensible option for the Grays is a legal claim against the lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly normal advice to give a no comment interview. This is one of the reasons why the result should be appealed.
While the court can be sceptical of evidence that could have been provided at iterview it is unusual to say the least to discount all of the defendant's evidence.
Note also that it is not for the defendants to prove their innocence, at least not in the UK. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for a defendant to give evidence at his own trial at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Patty has regularly blamed the lawyer for advising the Grays not to comment as a reason for their defense failing in court. You seem to be at odds with one another here.
It seems clear to me that the prosecution evidence was more than sufficient to convict the Grays and their failure to provide any evidence in their own defence under questioning is their own fault and can't be blamed on anyone other than themselves or their lawyer - if the latter is the case then they should be taking legal action against them. Maybe you should be encouraging this as you seem so friendly with them instead of banging the same old drum on here.
- Status