What was Jamie Grays' line of business?

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.

Why did this delay occur? Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed? There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter Green who was the expert vet acting for the RSPCA had not EVER seen the animals. His opinions was formed by looking at photos.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal. I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well. At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Patty was not there that's the end of it

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exacty?

 

[M_G]

we don't all have as much time to waste as you seem to Patty

 

[RhiannonE]

[ QUOTE ]
I know I wasn't going to comment further - but found this:

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

Very long but an interesting read.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting thank you. Hate the part about "100 horses all but 6-10 had suffered significantly".

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of the veterinary expert witnesses gave assistance to the court, they were both hired guns acting for JG and the Judge realised this so their evidence was dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!! Mr Parker was hired by JG first solicitor and Ms Forsyth was hired by Nigel weller. John Parkers evidence was dismissed because he was unwell for ONE day during the trial, and Ms Forsyths evidence was dismissed because she could not agree with Peter Green who was acting for the RSPCA.

Should Mr Greens evidence not also have been dismissed because he could not agree with Ms Forsyths evidence?


[ QUOTE ]
I found this rather interesting report written by Ms Madeleine Forsyth in which she goes to great lengths to state that the Vet expert witnbesses should assist the court in arriving at a verdict, but she obviously has not acted upon it as she and John Parker were anti RSPCA and did all they could to assist JG even to the point of making themselves look entirely stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ms Forsyth was not anti RSPCA - She is an expert who has acted for the RSPCA in previous cases.

Please do explain just how they made themselves look idiots?

Did Mr Parker make himself look an idiot because he was unwell for ONE day during the trial?

Did Ms Forsyth make herself look an idiot because she did not agree with the RSPCA's expert witness Peter Green?

I ask this because these were the only reasons for their evidence being dismissed.


[ QUOTE ]
Veterinary Expert-or not ? By Ms Madeleine Forsyth
The role of the veterinary surgeon as a witness in Court proceedings is a position of enormous importance, professionally, ethically and morally. And it isn’t taken seriously enough.
Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons do not understand their duty to the Court, their status as a witness, the effect of their opinion, and it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise haven’t been considered before the Expert exposes themselves to inevitable criticism.


What sort of Witness ?
You may be a Witness of Fact, where you simply state your observations, or an Expert Witness, or both at the same time. It is in the latter case that an immediate conflict arises. If the witness of fact then gives an Expert opinion on their factual statement which leads to charges being laid, it is very difficult for that person to be objective if contrary ( and persuasive) Expert opinion is offered, as a change of mind will destroy the prosecution case. The RSPCA often employ a second veterinary Expert Witness to support the opinion of the Expert of fact, which avoids the dilemma.
Veterinary Surgeons employed by state agencies such as Defra and MHS have a further dilemma in that it is their duty to enforce the legislation. This increases their need for objectivity, but also increases the risk that the law might be used as a weapon to control those who do not perfectly comply with those who audit their farms and abattoirs.
The Game.
UK law is adversarial, unlike the inquisitorial European systems where information is provided to the Court which makes its determination on the facts. In this country the prosecution and defence present their contrary cases and argue (often aggressively) to persuade the Magistrates or Judge to decide in their favour. It’s a game, and a game of war in which the object is to discredit the Expert Witness for the other side.
By nature the veterinary surgeon does not enjoy criticism and is accustomed to providing advice and guidance, which in the main is accepted with gratitude. However, under cross examination it is entirely normal for the opposing advocate to attack the statement, opinion and competence of the unsuspecting Expert, which can seem a most unpleasant personal and professional assault, but is to be expected in contested cases.
Effect of Opinion.
The effect of a veterinary surgeon’s opinion that unnecessary suffering has been caused to an animal is to provide the prosecution with a hugely powerful tool to secure a conviction, and of course this results in criminalising the defendant. Added to this there may be a custodial sentence or financial penalty ( 1 year and £20.000 under the Animal Welfare Act 2007), and disqualification from keeping animals, or any particular sort of animal for any length of time.
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, most criminal convictions can become 'spent' or forgotten after a 'rehabilitation period' of five years.
There is however a very large category of people for whom convictions can never be spent, including people working in the following professions: doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives, lawyers, opticians, teachers, police officers and people working with children and vulnerable people.
Giving an opinion which may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered, and truthful, and these duties are laid down in law.
Duties of an Expert Witness
An expert, according to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 35 is a person “ instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purposes of Court proceedings”, and this requirement is also followed in criminal matters as laid down by Lord Justice Cresswell in the case “The Ikarian Reefer” :
The evidence of an expert should be:
Independent objective and unbiased.
Relate to matters in their field of expertise.

The expert should:
State facts and assumptions which form the basis of their expert opinion.
Consider facts which are capable of detracting from their opinion.
Clearly indicate when a matter falls outside their expertise, or that there is insufficient information to form more than a provisional opinion.
Where the expert could not swear that the content of their report was true without adding a qualification, the expert should state that qualification.
If it is so an expert should state, after exchange of expert reports, that their opinion has changed.
The expert should provide the other party with photographs, clinical data, laboratory results etc to which their evidence refers.

The duty of the expert is to the Court, irrespective of the party instructing them.
A very common misconception is that because an Expert is called either by the prosecution or defence lawyers, their loyalty lies towards that party. This could not be further from the truth. The duty is to assist the Court with technical details of
veterinary issues that the Court might not otherwise understand, and help them come to a fair conclusion.
Of course the expert may have formed a view as to the strength or otherwise of the alleged charge, but it is NOT their duty to be judgmental, but to provide a balanced view of all associated issues so as to best allow the Court to make the ultimate decision.
Writing Statements.
The opinion should be that of the independent practitioner, and as such not dictated or assisted by a third party, nor written on the headed paper of that third party. The format of the statement can be found on any expert Witness website and should contain a statement of truth, qualifications and experience of the writer relative to the issues at trial, be dated and signed by the author and in complete compliance with the rules of the Ikarian Reefer and/or CPR 1998 Part 35, depending on whether the matter is heard in the Criminal or Civil Court.
The evidence should not be discussed with any other Witness in the same case, nor should the writer be coerced into attending joint meetings with any other witnesses or enforcement agents as this is regarded as witness “coaching” . 1 It has the potential for a prosecuting body to allow the witnesses to rehearse their evidence before trial, and repair any weaknesses in the case.
Court Etiquette.
As a professional person you have a duty of courtesy to the Court which should be reflected in your dress-sober and formal, your manner, professional, objective and properly detached and particularly under cross examination, your manners. To the naïve witness the perceived aggressive affront during the testing of their evidence can cause a confrontational reaction-much to the satisfaction of the opposing advocate because it can reduce the credibility of the witness in front of the Court, particularly a lay bench of Magistrates. In the Crown Court the Judge is less likely to permit bullying of a professional witness, but the object is still the same-to discredit the witness to any extent.
It is sensible to ask advice of the advocate as to how to address the bench, when to sit or stand, and how to answer questions, whether in full, or succinctly, but it would be even more useful for the aspiring witness to attend Court before appearing themselves to see the gladiatorial theatre !
In summary.
A Veterinary Expert Witness is not judge or jury, or a hired gun for either party, but a robustly independent professional person, with best knowledge and understanding of the matters at issue before advancing an opinion that may assist to criminalise a
1 R v Momodou [2005] EWCA 177 02/02/2005.
defendant. They should consider all the evidence available, and ensure that is sufficient to form their opinion, rather than make an immediate assumption based on a “snapshot” of information.
Everything about their behaviour should express their objectivity, and their proper conviction.
Madeleine Forsyth (Expert Vet witness)

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal. I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well. At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
we don't all have as much time to waste as you seem to Patty

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thats just tough.

And if you don't all have as much time as I have maybe you should THINK of that before you accuse me of ignoring questions.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
27. It was clear during the his evidence that Mr. Parker was unwell and had found the trial stressful . I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Gray’s behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance. I am unable to rely upon his expert reports in assisting me to determine the relevant facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like more than a days illness - more like his evidence was unreliable or not well researched and as such could not be used. If he found it too stressful he should not have accepted the role.

[ QUOTE ]
She does not agree with the feeding requirements Mr. Green identifies from his experience and the records of feed required by the horses in the refuges as they recover and put on weight. She does not agree with his opinion on the suitable dimensions for stock densities in the pens and fields at Spindles Farm, preferring to compare what was there with space requirements for 1 to 2 year old cattle. Spindles Farm used to be a dairy farm but it is not clear that comparisons between bovine and equine behaviour are appropriate at this level of disagreement. She disagrees with his rejection that many of the horses at Spindles Farm are “store”
horses and links the 10% mortality rate of cattle and sheep for animals farmed as store animals in those trades with what happened at Spindles Farm Again a basic disagreement on what should be a factually agreeable issue. She mirrors Mr. Parker’s concern that the Compendium is not directed at the commercial and agricultural equine industry but more specifically at the requirements for keep of the individual horse or pony in a leisure capacity. Thus it is “a guide and not a statutory requirement. It does not take into account the economic reality of the management and disposal of animals of little worth who historically have been “farmed” in much the same way as done by Mr. Gray “. She returns to her assertion that cyathostomes can cause the death of their host and maintains that the laboratory blood tests and faecal counts and biochemistry results all point to a picture of cyathostomiasis. Further that the tests in relation to urea:creatinine are indicative that the animals were not starved but lost weight because of a protein losing enteropathy. She cautions against relying on a snapshot and that “veterinanrian is under an obligation to make every effort to aarive at a diagnosis of the cause of the poor condition, even if the diagnosis must await laboratory results” (taken from Mr. Green’s tutorial) She appears to missed the irony of cautioning against relying on a snapshot and yet using singular test results to support a concusion of overwhelming small strongyle infestation likely to lead to sudden death. A diagnosis not supported in any of the papers or literature supplied to the court.
32. The more concerning feature of the second and in fact third paper submitted is the attempt to qualify the agreement reached between the prosecution and Mr. Fullerton on the correct interpretation of the Beaufort Cottage Laboratory test results commentary where it was stated that “no abnormal metabolic activity” meant no damage to the liver or kidneys and could not be used to indicate anything about the energy level or nutritional status of the animal. She introduced the phrase” in the absence of any biochemical change “ into the Laboratory test comment to support her contention that what a single sheet of paper produced on a single occasion i.e. a snapshot, was a determinative scientific foundation to rule out that it was being deprived of food and removing responsibility for its condition from Mr. Gray or others. It was a blatant withdrawal from the acceptance that Annalisa Barrelet had correctly informed the court on what could be inferred from the test result .As a consequence the prosecution were permitted to call her to rebut the misstatement as to the meaning of the phrase.
33. Unable to retreat from a position that was to prove unsustainable, Ms Forsyth introduced more scientific information about the basal metabolism required to carry out the activities of the resting, fasting cell in a further attempt to establish that the chemical indicators revealed by the tests could be read to confirm that the animal had sufficient energy to fuel basal metabolism. It is hard to avoid interpreting the move from a considered suggestion that if the worming was being carried out, it was the cyathostome infections that caused sudden unexpected death to the assertion that the lab tests prove that the horses were not being starved, as a reactive and subjective response rather than an objective development to assist the court reach a better understanding.
34. The indication that Ms Forsyth considered herself to be a mixed practitioner in the veterinary field with a significant part of her practice being avian, and specialised flock management, domestic animals and horses together with the inability to accept
what was patently obvious from the author of the lab test, leads me to be unable to rely upon her expert reports to assist me in determining the facts in this case. This leaves the Court to consider the two reports of Peter Green in determining the facts and understanding the behaviour of equines, their needs in terms of feed, space, company, exercise, cleaning, bedding, and susceptibility to disease internal and external parasites and the reasonable steps that are required to be taken for the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly more to it than not being able to agree with Peter Green! It seems like she completely misinterpreted the blood test results and changed her mind on what they did or didn't show. In the light of such a change of opinion it is no wonder the evidence was dismissed!

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal. I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well. At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What accusations are you making against the vets from the sanctuaries exactly? Would you care to put them in writing? Are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
27. It was clear during the his evidence that Mr. Parker was unwell and had found the trial stressful . I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Gray’s behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance. I am unable to rely upon his expert reports in assisting me to determine the relevant facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like more than a days illness - more like his evidence was unreliable or not well researched and as such could not be used. If he found it too stressful he should not have accepted the role.

[ QUOTE ]
She does not agree with the feeding requirements Mr. Green identifies from his experience and the records of feed required by the horses in the refuges as they recover and put on weight. She does not agree with his opinion on the suitable dimensions for stock densities in the pens and fields at Spindles Farm, preferring to compare what was there with space requirements for 1 to 2 year old cattle. Spindles Farm used to be a dairy farm but it is not clear that comparisons between bovine and equine behaviour are appropriate at this level of disagreement. She disagrees with his rejection that many of the horses at Spindles Farm are “store”
horses and links the 10% mortality rate of cattle and sheep for animals farmed as store animals in those trades with what happened at Spindles Farm Again a basic disagreement on what should be a factually agreeable issue. She mirrors Mr. Parker’s concern that the Compendium is not directed at the commercial and agricultural equine industry but more specifically at the requirements for keep of the individual horse or pony in a leisure capacity. Thus it is “a guide and not a statutory requirement. It does not take into account the economic reality of the management and disposal of animals of little worth who historically have been “farmed” in much the same way as done by Mr. Gray “. She returns to her assertion that cyathostomes can cause the death of their host and maintains that the laboratory blood tests and faecal counts and biochemistry results all point to a picture of cyathostomiasis. Further that the tests in relation to urea:creatinine are indicative that the animals were not starved but lost weight because of a protein losing enteropathy. She cautions against relying on a snapshot and that “veterinanrian is under an obligation to make every effort to aarive at a diagnosis of the cause of the poor condition, even if the diagnosis must await laboratory results” (taken from Mr. Green’s tutorial) She appears to missed the irony of cautioning against relying on a snapshot and yet using singular test results to support a concusion of overwhelming small strongyle infestation likely to lead to sudden death. A diagnosis not supported in any of the papers or literature supplied to the court.
32. The more concerning feature of the second and in fact third paper submitted is the attempt to qualify the agreement reached between the prosecution and Mr. Fullerton on the correct interpretation of the Beaufort Cottage Laboratory test results commentary where it was stated that “no abnormal metabolic activity” meant no damage to the liver or kidneys and could not be used to indicate anything about the energy level or nutritional status of the animal. She introduced the phrase” in the absence of any biochemical change “ into the Laboratory test comment to support her contention that what a single sheet of paper produced on a single occasion i.e. a snapshot, was a determinative scientific foundation to rule out that it was being deprived of food and removing responsibility for its condition from Mr. Gray or others. It was a blatant withdrawal from the acceptance that Annalisa Barrelet had correctly informed the court on what could be inferred from the test result .As a consequence the prosecution were permitted to call her to rebut the misstatement as to the meaning of the phrase.
33. Unable to retreat from a position that was to prove unsustainable, Ms Forsyth introduced more scientific information about the basal metabolism required to carry out the activities of the resting, fasting cell in a further attempt to establish that the chemical indicators revealed by the tests could be read to confirm that the animal had sufficient energy to fuel basal metabolism. It is hard to avoid interpreting the move from a considered suggestion that if the worming was being carried out, it was the cyathostome infections that caused sudden unexpected death to the assertion that the lab tests prove that the horses were not being starved, as a reactive and subjective response rather than an objective development to assist the court reach a better understanding.
34. The indication that Ms Forsyth considered herself to be a mixed practitioner in the veterinary field with a significant part of her practice being avian, and specialised flock management, domestic animals and horses together with the inability to accept
what was patently obvious from the author of the lab test, leads me to be unable to rely upon her expert reports to assist me in determining the facts in this case. This leaves the Court to consider the two reports of Peter Green in determining the facts and understanding the behaviour of equines, their needs in terms of feed, space, company, exercise, cleaning, bedding, and susceptibility to disease internal and external parasites and the reasonable steps that are required to be taken for the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly more to it than not being able to agree with Peter Green! It seems like she completely misinterpreted the blood test results and changed her mind on what they did or didn't show. In the light of such a change of opinion it is no wonder the evidence was dismissed!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!!

I was there and heard the exact reasons why the judge dismissed the evidence of the defence experts.

Those reasons I have stated several times.

He also dismissed the evidence of all defendants because they did not comment in their interviews to the RSPCA - Interviews in which they were not bound by law to attend.
They did not comment because a lawyer advised them not to.


Sod the irrefutable documented evidence provided to the court by Mr Gray - he and his family made no comment interviews so therefore, it's good practice to overlook that evidence and find them guilty on the basis that they gave such interviews.

 

[Paddywhack]

If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !!
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it

He is toast it's as simple as that

It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????

Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal. I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well. At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What accusations are you making against the vets from the sanctuaries exactly? Would you care to put them in writing? Are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your own mind.

 

[Happy Horse]

So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear. I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through! The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial. If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him?

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]


Make up your own mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

My own mind is that they are doing the very best for the horses which reached them in dreadful condition. If you are accusing them of anything else please do share - if what you are accusing is true you have nothing to lose by putting it in writing do you

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !!
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it

He is toast it's as simple as that

It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????

Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Make up your own mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

My own mind is that they are doing the very best for the horses which reached them in dreadful condition. If you are accusing them of anything else please do share - if what you are accusing is true you have nothing to lose by putting it in writing do you

[/ QUOTE ]

If only you knew!!

 

[Happy Horse]

Please do tell us!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear. I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through! The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial. If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !!
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it

He is toast it's as simple as that

It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????

Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Gray’s behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance

[/ QUOTE ]

So why did the judge not simply say "Mr Parker was ill for a day so I can't accept his evidence?" Why bother making up a very plausible explanation?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us!

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!!

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear. I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through! The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial. If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they had this irrefutable evidence that would according to you have proved their innocence, presumably they discussed this with the lawyer and instead of telling them to produce the irrefutable evidence when questioned he told them to make no comment -okaaaay! Makes perfect sense

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !!
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it

He is toast it's as simple as that

It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????

Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Gray’s behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance

[/ QUOTE ]

So why did the judge not simply say "Mr Parker was ill for a day so I can't accept his evidence?" Why bother making up a very plausible explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably for the same reason he did not give much detail to the witness evidence in his report.

Take another look at the report.

 

[dozzie]

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !!
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it He is toast it's as simple as that It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????
Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....

[/ QUOTE ]

It all makes sense now! He is your supplier! That is how you knew he was smuggling drugs. Can you get me some as it seems like it is bloody good stuff!

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us!

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are prepared to make these accusations and not back them up in any way? Just making sure I am understanding you. I assume as youhavetaken this stance on this you will not be posting any more as no one believes anything else you have said either yet you are still commenting!

With regards to the photos you have shown an empty barn and a patch of clean straw that could have been anywhere, it's hardly proof of anything you have been saying is it?!

Anyway, when is the sentencing? Perhaps I'll come along to watch

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear. I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through! The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial. If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they had this irrefutable evidence that would according to you have proved their innocence,

[/ QUOTE ]

ABSOLUTELY - without a shadow of a doubt!!!


[ QUOTE ]
presumably they discussed this with the lawyer and instead of telling them to produce the irrefutable evidence when questioned he told them to make no comment -okaaaay! Makes perfect sense

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe they discussed this evidence. They first met the lawyer at the police station after they were asked to attend.

They were threatened with arrest if they did not take the interviews. The lawyer arrived at the station and told them to take the interview but make no comment.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us!

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are prepared to make these accusations and not back them up in any way? Just making sure I am understanding you. I assume as youhavetaken this stance on this you will not be posting any more as no one believes anything else you have said either yet you are still commenting!

With regards to the photos you have shown an empty barn and a patch of clean straw that could have been anywhere, it's hardly proof of anything you have been saying is it?!

Anyway, when is the sentencing? Perhaps I'll come along to watch

[/ QUOTE ]

I have made lots of accusations and none have been believed.

And the photos are genuine which were taken at SF during the raid. Apart from a couple which I took the day after the raid.

12th of June - I'm hoping to attend.

 

[Happy Horse]

Well it sounds to me like the lawyer didn't do his homework as his advice apparently caused the conviction of his 'innocent' client unless the court was acting illegally by allowing the no comment interviews to be considered. Is JG making an appeal on the verdict and if so when does this happen? Presumably before the sentencing?

 

[Happy Horse]

Excellent, if I can make it we can have a custard pie fight in the gallery!

You remind me of a mosquito, I can't see your purpose and you really irritate me but I admire your tenacity!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it sounds to me like the lawyer didn't do his homework as his advice apparently caused the conviction of his 'innocent' client unless the court was acting illegally by allowing the no comment interviews to be considered. Is JG making an appeal on the verdict and if so when does this happen? Presumably before the sentencing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe the court was acting illegally - just unfairly imho.

I dont know about an appeal but I'm sure hoping the Gray family will appeal.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent, if I can make it we can have a custard pie fight in the gallery!

You remind me of a mosquito, I can't see your purpose and you really irritate me but I admire your tenacity!

[/ QUOTE ]