JG would have been reminded of her bail conditions at the beginning of the trial after that she will just be told each evening she is on bail as before. Her conditions are a matter of public record so the clerk of the court can be asked them. All phone calls in and out of the prison are monitored and BB has to provide a list to the prison of all the phone numbers he wishes to ring and the details of the person they are to . Having been in prison before he will be aware all calls are monitored and will not say anything incriminating on them. Interesting he sacked his previous solicitors. To be allowed to change solicitors and therefore cause more expense to the public purse he would have to have had a very good reason , the main one is usually a break down in the relationship or the solicitor becomes professionally embarrassed . IMO the reason would therefore be his solicitor wouldn't follow his unreasonable instructions or he has told them something and then changed his story meaning they can no longer act! I would bet on the latter! He must be a nightmare to represent and will be a complaint waiting to happen. I pity these solicitors if he is convicted because he will be including them on his list of people who have wronged him !
BIB This is good to know. So basically she isn't under any conditions. As Tortoise has "reported" the pair are very much working on the case together, passing each other notes, speaking to each other at trial. As they are co-defendants are they only entitled to comm via their solicitors or are they allowed to meet with their sols present to discuss their strategy? Seems strange if they are barred as they are communicating in full view and passing papers etc without a care.
On the call monitoring front - do you really think the authorities do monitor in practice - that's the issue I was left with when I checked that monitoring is possible. Their face to face visits will not be that closely monitored though will they? That seems contradictory.
UL That's interesting.. I have no idea how many firms he has used since 2013 and I'm pretty sure he's used to dealing with them as this guy has needed to use one off & on since 2004 that we know of! Plus this trial has been delayed so many times.
He was in contact with a solicitor before E died, on at least two occasions Feb & June 2013 I guess maybe due to social services/school pressure.. By 2014 he is representing himself briefly as he was without solicitors and the trial had to be put back. Maybe he now needed someone more specialist in crim defence as opposed to family law?
During cross he said he had "sacked" one team, IDK if he means the 2013 firm or in fact he's had another lot since then. Anyway, he hasn't said why he sacked them except something like he wasn't going to be a "d%ckhead" turning up for trial with them/not ready. I am sure they are very grateful to be sacked, whoever they are.
He's also claimed all manner of conspiracy re arrangements of the cremation not being agreed by his solicitors, but as Tortoise found out from court that argument was also a non starter. ( ie that vital evidence was thus lost)
He is in receipt of Legal Aid and the rules have changed haven't they, more restrictive - will that have had an impact on what he can do re litigation of all and sundry as let's face it he has a number of different authorities in his sights at the moment.
Almost lost count.....police, CPS, his ex-solicitors ( ?) .......... Threats of litigation might have worked with Avenue School though as a fob off.
I am interested though, in whether it would be good enough reason to stop SServices visiting though, for the last 6 months of her life.
