Pixie Child
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2020
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 1,311
It seemed bizarre because MM is not relevant to the 5 cases charged. If it was a jury trial the issue would be deemed prejudicial.Bizarre or just the Defence doing the professional job it's hired to do? If it turns out that HeB's account in 2017 is more or less the same account he recently gave in court, than that's a good result for the prosecution. Wouldn't you welcome that?
If, on the other hand, HeB's statement in his 2017 interview with SY's DC Mark Draycott differs significantly from what he's said in court, then you should welcome that too since it's all part of the justice process.
Because we're here for justice to be served, right?
But less bizarre now I understand that the Defence are using it to attack HB’s credibility.
The Defence will claim that the reward in the MM case is a motivating incentive for HB to
It seemed bizarre because MM is not relevant to the 5 cases charged. If it was a jury trial the issue would be deemed prejudicial.Bizarre or just the Defence doing the professional job it's hired to do? If it turns out that HeB's account in 2017 is more or less the same account he recently gave in court, than that's a good result for the prosecution. Wouldn't you welcome that?
If, on the other hand, HeB's statement in his 2017 interview with SY's DC Mark Draycott differs significantly from what he's said in court, then you should welcome that too since it's all part of the justice process.
Because we're here for justice to be served, right?
But less bizarre now I understand that the Defence are using it to attack HB’s credibility.
In addition to inconsistencies, the Defence will claim that the reward in the MM case is a motivating incentive for HB to inform on CB re all crimes.