Gringo

Be there or be OF

All the smart people are in the chat room

Get to the chatrooooooom

Rantin is obviously feeling naked without his customary yellow, and trying to provoke the mods.

The previous appeal was not based around the minute particle of gun powder residue - it was targeted at some of the decisions the residing judge had made in allowing spectacularly flimsy evidence to be presented to the jury - it was an appeal on technical legal grounds. Not surprisingly the appeal judges stood up for their mate and rejected it. Not the fault of the jury, they have to be guided by the experts. In this case, the legal expert, ie the judge, and the forensice expert did not guide the jury correctly. As in the case where that woman was convicted over the cot deaths - the doctor, believed the probability of two related events occurring could be found by multiplying together the probabilities. The bloke might be a good doctor, but he's a shiite statistician - but the jury were guided by his "expertise" in one subject into believing his views on another subject, in which he was not an expert, and should not have been allowed to give an opinion, and they convicted. In the dando case, the foreman of the jury has now stated that without the residue evidence they would not have convicted. That doesn't mean they acted incorrectly - forensic evidence is enough to convict if supported by other evidence. The other evidence though shouldn't have been allowed either. The jury were given wrong guidance through the trial, and the checks and balances required to counteract this eventuality, ie the defence barrister (whom you might term a "conspiracy theory nut job" as the prime thrust of the defence put forward was that the 'serbs did it') and the court of appeal, both failed in their job.

Fair enough - it's rather honourable that people own up when they have been mistaken or misled. And just to note, I haven't watched either of the "one-sided" programmes, but my knowledge of the case is based on my memory of the rather vague circumstantial evidence presented during the case, backed up by one (now discredited) piece of forensic evidence linking him to the crime.

Programmes that aim to prove a miscarriage of justice will tend to focus on the elements in the evidence that were used to convict him - I find it implausible to believe they would be anything other than one sided as otherwise there wouldn't be a story to tell and therefore no programme to air. Imagine a programme trying to overturn ian huntley's guilt and then coming to the conclusion, oh well he was guilty after all - not exactly good viewing figures. The court of appeal is to review the original evidence on which a person was convicted. Not to re-try the case. Therefore new evidence can not be admitted (to my mind) as it has not been subjected to the same level of disclosure or jury review that such evidence would in a real trial scenario. Whereas the original evidence presented at trial can be reviewed as to it's authenticity in the light of greater knowledge - as was in the case of the birmingham six where the evidence used to convict them was based on traces that could be picked up from playing cards. Then again, amazing the number of people who still believe no smoke without fire in that case. So (to my mind) the evidence could be used only to support a re-trial, and not to uphold the original conviction. Why do you have access to evidence not in the public domain? Or stuff not published in the sun and the mirror in the days following his conviction? If it's already been published it could hardly be sub-judice.

Thinking about this - are the prosecution allowed to present new evidence? Is the point of the appeal hearing to prove that the evidence that was presented in the original case was a load of tosh - or are the prosecution allowed to present so that it goes to re-trial instead of having the conviction quashed as being silly straight away? Any legal beagles out there able to shed light?

kaiser sosa, I think not - I think we should be looking a little closer to home. villahero _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ barry george

Hey - you already accused him of topping JFK - I take it you're not a big fan of freddie mercury? To answer the question posed, he's innocent. The police have no "new" evidence - it's all stuff that was in the daily mail the day after he was sent down, which basically says he's a little fruitloop-ptang-kipperbang. Of course the main defence for barry george is that he's a little fruitloop-ptang-kipperbang and not really competent enough to carry out a professional style hit.

Well it's gone to the scorecards but looks like the welshman by 3 or 4 rounds.

I've had a bit of a flutter on the welshman.

I agree with you - Huhne should have won their last poll, but the party machine didn't want him, and looks like they'll reject him again in favour of cameron-lite.

Clegg vows to defy ID cards law Of course blue labour said they wouldn't actually make the ID cards compulsory. Until 2010 it seems.

The most precious thing you can ever donate is your time.

said the three little piggies Well done - I stand corrected, I thought no official documents were to be released until all translations had been completed - but as I said, all bluff and bluster. Seeing as you have copies of the documents you will now be able to point out to the rest of us what the major differences in content are to what was proposed in the previous treaty? No he didn't. He is concerned that a referendum on the treaty AFTER it has been ratified is unworkable as the rest of the EU would not let the UK withdraw from something it had ratified and so could lead to the UK leaving the EU altogether.

For the disadvantaged - a question was asked with regards to who on here had read the treaty and could comment on the similarities or differences. It was pointed out that the treaty won't be released until all the translations have been completed. Can you download a copy of the final treaty? Would you sign up to a draft of a contract? Bizarre -It's all bluff and bluster.

How can a view of the opinions of a wide range of people be anything but a generalisation?

Translations haven't been published yet, so would be a tad difficult. Of course you could ask the question whether any one read the previously proposed constitution. As AWOL pointed out, there are times you have to rely on the opinions of those people who have read it all. And everyone of those (from all across europe, the opposition benches and the govt backbenches) seem to say it is the same proposal - the only people who have a different point of view sit next to gordo.

Here it is again. The people drafting the manifesto obviously got a little confused as they kept referring to the constitution as a treaty where as gordo keeps telling us the amended treaty is not a constitution. I do fail how this quote supports your case Drat, without being able to point to what must be glaring differences between the constitutional treaty and the amending treaty - something that no commentator has so far done. Of course, those who claim it is the same are from such a narrown band, ie those who drew it up and all the right wing politicians such as tony benn.

No - because you are making the assumption that two are the same, which they are not. Great quote on various sites about the DNA of Mice and Men being so alike but would you call them the same? Interesting you say it is 99% the same but where do you get that figure from? But the differences highlighted that I have read about are no flag (there already is one), no EU anthem, no EU foreign minister, but instead a EU foreign office. When the bloke who drew up the original constitutional treaty says the new treaty is 99% the same, would you not consider the two documents to have the same impacts? Again, the question is being asked because it is the one that will dominate for the next year, the one that gordo is continually going to be attacked on, and his achilles heel. Of mice and men, very apt.

So to get past the obstinance, lets talk about the manifesto then, which is what the original question was about. If they promised a referendum on the constitutional treaty, and the constitutional treaty was dropped and replaced with a treaty that is 99% the same as the prementioned constitutional treaty, are they not bound by the same promise?

To have a debate about a promise made by blair at PMQs without referring to the promise made by blair at PMQs would be a little silly really - again POST not POSTER please.

Not a loaded question, a pointed question, ie to try and ignore whether the EU is good or bad, whether the treaty/constitution is good or bad, whether referendums are good or bad, but reflecting the question that is going to the most prominent and continually asked for the next 18 months.