comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
The audio and insta posts aren’t going to be admissible in the Greenwood case. Already in the public domain so can’t use it as it’s tainted evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not really that stupid are you…?
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 3 minutes ago
What happens to this woman that is now proven to be a waffler?? Nothing . Even her name we don't know
But fellow men, I call them imbeciles quick to crucify another fella. I have hardly seen women anywhere condemning this liar. Had se*, on tape bloody enjoying it, accused someone of rape and walking away free
A BLOODY DISGRACE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask Boris… he’s Mendy’s QC apparently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mendy's KC.
Do try to keep up.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
Nope wrong again Boris…
In legal cases they’re still QC’s until they start a new trial…. They were Queen’s Counsel at the start of proceedings and until proceedings cease they cannot change title.
Boom.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
Nope wrong again Boris…
In legal cases they’re still QC’s until they start a new trial…. They were Queen’s Counsel at the start of proceedings and until proceedings cease they cannot change title.
Boom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One consequence of of Queen Elizabeth II’s death on Thursday was that in a single moment, the industry’s Queen’s Counsel (QC) became King’s Counsel (KC) instead.
https://www.law.com/international-edition/2022/09/12/qcs-become-kcs-like-the-monarchy-itself-the-legal-profession-is-used-to-transitions/?slreturn=20220813175747
Go to bed Culer.
The evidence is probably prejudiced.
No it doesn’t Boris, not when a trial has already started… they will be when they cease the Mendy trial or start on another one.
Go to bed Binky.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
That or you think we’re living in a US tv show with a limited understanding of the law even there.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
Isn't that why they carefully select the jury?
In most cases yes but in a high profile case like this one it won’t be possible. Any jury would more than likely be tainted and therefore the evidence isn’t admissible. It’s probably why they’re scratching round trying to find more on him that ain’t public.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
Culer the simpleton getting fried
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 7 minutes ago
In most cases yes but in a high profile case like this one it won’t be possible. Any jury would more than likely be tainted and therefore the evidence isn’t admissible. It’s probably why they’re scratching round trying to find more on him that ain’t public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just read that back to yourself, in particular the second sentence. Surely you can work out yourself how that doesn’t actually make sense - it don’t need any experience in law at all, that’s just fundamentally illogical.
You’re confusing right to a fair trial and some frankly bizarre opinions on admissibility of evidence.
Final comment on it, it is not the evidence itself that is the issue with public domain - that doesn’t change pre trial to during trial. It is anything else that is discussed that could be classed as conjecture that could taint the perception of the jury. It’s why I’ve argued there’s been a few threads on here over the years that I wouldn’t have allowed if I was the admin.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh deary me. It seems you have no idea of the standards of case law at all. The evidence is already PUBLIC. Greenwood's team will simply point out to the judge that any juror could've already viewed the Insta stuff and decided he's guilty.
That means it won't be a fair trial.
That means there will be no trial.
The law in this case must be applied correctly and all evidence admissable to a standard in which the defendant gets a fair trial. That isn't possible in this case which is why Greenwood will be NFA'd by the police.
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 9 hours, 3 minutes ago
Culer the simpleton getting fried
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No i'm not it's just Melton doesn't understand the standards of case law.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite, one of the the women gave evidence today. Mid way through, the prosecution chose not to progress with charges related to the accusations that woman had raised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, just seen some more info about the video that wasn't initially in the BBC report.
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 10 hours, 14 minutes ago
I think Greenwood gets off.
He said, she said. The audio isn't evidence of rape.
Even the threats to kill, if not dismissed as idle threats, are unlikely to result in serious punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that what was released was only part of the audio. Could be a lot more on there that the police have heard that we haven't.
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A video came out which essentially discredited her allegations, so the prosecution dropped the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris is the one who found the video
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For someone that has made his mind up on the outcome, you’re not following the case particularly closely are you…?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that aimed at me?
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they will you idiot. Otherwise defendants could release evidence against them to the general public and prevent a trial going ahead. Please think about things before posting your absolute moron.
Sign in if you want to comment
Not guilty - at least so far
Page 3 of 5
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
The audio and insta posts aren’t going to be admissible in the Greenwood case. Already in the public domain so can’t use it as it’s tainted evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not really that stupid are you…?
posted on 13/9/22
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 3 minutes ago
What happens to this woman that is now proven to be a waffler?? Nothing . Even her name we don't know
But fellow men, I call them imbeciles quick to crucify another fella. I have hardly seen women anywhere condemning this liar. Had se*, on tape bloody enjoying it, accused someone of rape and walking away free
A BLOODY DISGRACE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask Boris… he’s Mendy’s QC apparently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mendy's KC.
Do try to keep up.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
posted on 13/9/22
Nope wrong again Boris…
In legal cases they’re still QC’s until they start a new trial…. They were Queen’s Counsel at the start of proceedings and until proceedings cease they cannot change title.
Boom.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
Nope wrong again Boris…
In legal cases they’re still QC’s until they start a new trial…. They were Queen’s Counsel at the start of proceedings and until proceedings cease they cannot change title.
Boom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One consequence of of Queen Elizabeth II’s death on Thursday was that in a single moment, the industry’s Queen’s Counsel (QC) became King’s Counsel (KC) instead.
https://www.law.com/international-edition/2022/09/12/qcs-become-kcs-like-the-monarchy-itself-the-legal-profession-is-used-to-transitions/?slreturn=20220813175747
Go to bed Culer.
posted on 13/9/22
The evidence is probably prejudiced.
posted on 13/9/22
No it doesn’t Boris, not when a trial has already started… they will be when they cease the Mendy trial or start on another one.
Go to bed Binky.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
posted on 13/9/22
That or you think we’re living in a US tv show with a limited understanding of the law even there.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
posted on 13/9/22
Isn't that why they carefully select the jury?
posted on 13/9/22
In most cases yes but in a high profile case like this one it won’t be possible. Any jury would more than likely be tainted and therefore the evidence isn’t admissible. It’s probably why they’re scratching round trying to find more on him that ain’t public.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
posted on 13/9/22
Culer the simpleton getting fried
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 7 minutes ago
In most cases yes but in a high profile case like this one it won’t be possible. Any jury would more than likely be tainted and therefore the evidence isn’t admissible. It’s probably why they’re scratching round trying to find more on him that ain’t public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just read that back to yourself, in particular the second sentence. Surely you can work out yourself how that doesn’t actually make sense - it don’t need any experience in law at all, that’s just fundamentally illogical.
You’re confusing right to a fair trial and some frankly bizarre opinions on admissibility of evidence.
posted on 13/9/22
Final comment on it, it is not the evidence itself that is the issue with public domain - that doesn’t change pre trial to during trial. It is anything else that is discussed that could be classed as conjecture that could taint the perception of the jury. It’s why I’ve argued there’s been a few threads on here over the years that I wouldn’t have allowed if I was the admin.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh deary me. It seems you have no idea of the standards of case law at all. The evidence is already PUBLIC. Greenwood's team will simply point out to the judge that any juror could've already viewed the Insta stuff and decided he's guilty.
That means it won't be a fair trial.
That means there will be no trial.
The law in this case must be applied correctly and all evidence admissable to a standard in which the defendant gets a fair trial. That isn't possible in this case which is why Greenwood will be NFA'd by the police.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 9 hours, 3 minutes ago
Culer the simpleton getting fried
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No i'm not it's just Melton doesn't understand the standards of case law.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite, one of the the women gave evidence today. Mid way through, the prosecution chose not to progress with charges related to the accusations that woman had raised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, just seen some more info about the video that wasn't initially in the BBC report.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 10 hours, 14 minutes ago
I think Greenwood gets off.
He said, she said. The audio isn't evidence of rape.
Even the threats to kill, if not dismissed as idle threats, are unlikely to result in serious punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that what was released was only part of the audio. Could be a lot more on there that the police have heard that we haven't.
posted on 14/9/22
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
posted on 14/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A video came out which essentially discredited her allegations, so the prosecution dropped the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris is the one who found the video
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For someone that has made his mind up on the outcome, you’re not following the case particularly closely are you…?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that aimed at me?
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they will you idiot. Otherwise defendants could release evidence against them to the general public and prevent a trial going ahead. Please think about things before posting your absolute moron.
Page 3 of 5