Recent content by iclaudia

Well, quite. Without wanting to sound too rude, ahem, most of them can hardly string a sentence together and hardly seem as though they represent the cream of the gene pool...

IIRC both of them said that NM had bought them and that although her name was used (was it her other name, SP?) the general consensus was that she hadn't been the one to purchase them. I could be wrong though.. ? I think she said she had no idea they were stun guns although she may have seen...

Totally agree. Lynch mobs.

Thank god the lynch mobs wield no actual power. It's sickening to read posts on the UK & Eire FB feed with people baying for blood and saying they'd like to stamp on NM's head with their stiletto until he bleeds to death. WTAF is wrong with people, can they not see the irony in their...

Quite. I imagine the fact the judge used the rape example in his summing up is because it is documented as having actually happened.

You misunderstand me. The reason why her barrister has to make submissions which recognise the jury's verdict (ie. that she is guilty of manslaughter) is because that is the jury's verdict and that is what he is now dealing with. You will notice that he did not admit her guilt and chose his...

Because he has been found guilty in a court of law, and so the jury's verdict is considered to be final.

Not just of taking her to a tree and shouting at her in a deep voice, but then telling her to shut her eyes and running off quickly before she could see it was him. What an idiot for thinking any of that is remotely believable.

Precisely. I'm sure they are extremely used to picking up on such things. They're probably also very well trained to hide their reactions whilst they interview their subjects! For example, if they highlighted to SH that they had noticed she used the past tense, she would have instantly...

I agree completely with her. "This wasn't about sex, it was about envy."

There should be, but whether there will be is a different matter. I completely agree with you, and posted to that effect a few days back. Reading about the various fractured families and the almost complete lack of the main protagonists being raised by their mother was incredibly depressing...

If this is true, I would also be annoyed at somebody lending a 16 year old £500 to buy a television. What 16 year old needs that kind of kit?!

Does anyone know why evidence such as might be available above (BBM)? I don't understand why crucial evidence would be left out if it would help with a conviction..?

No evidence of it though, is there?

Is this normal for prosecution line of questioning? All feels a bit tame to me, I mean she's hardly going to say "yes", is she??!