Rob W 0 Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 I thought I'd let you know that I got a new pair of indian flip flops in Mutra Souq on my recent trip - cost me nearly a quid but I don't mind - it all helps the 3rd World I don't HAVE any commemorative T Shirts and I seem to remember the balance of other people's opinion was in my (unsubstantiated) side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I thought I'd let you know that I got a new pair of indian flip flops in Mutra Souq on my recent trip - cost me nearly a quid but I don't mind - it all helps the 3rd World I don't HAVE any commemorative T Shirts and I seem to remember the balance of other people's opinion was in my (unsubstantiated) side 66210[/snapback] One bloke agreed with you and he couldn't back it up and manc-mag agreed with me. Again, a good effort on your part Rob, but in vain. You probably would have got away with it over on N-O like if someone like me hadn't turned up like. Of course the fact you steadfastly refused to go into which Dickens novel(s) reminded you of 'The Great Gatsby' and why more than backs up my argument. Feel free to set the record straight here and now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I thought I'd let you know that I got a new pair of indian flip flops in Mutra Souq on my recent trip - cost me nearly a quid but I don't mind - it all helps the 3rd World I don't HAVE any commemorative T Shirts and I seem to remember the balance of other people's opinion was in my (unsubstantiated) side 66210[/snapback] One bloke agreed with you and he couldn't back it up and manc-mag agreed with me. Again, a good effort on your part Rob, but in vain. You probably would have got away with it over on N-O like if someone like me hadn't turned up like. Of course the fact you steadfastly refused to go into which Dickens novel(s) reminded you of 'The Great Gatsby' and why more than backs up my argument. Feel free to set the record straight here and now though. 66235[/snapback] Stop it the pair of you. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I thought I'd let you know that I got a new pair of indian flip flops in Mutra Souq on my recent trip - cost me nearly a quid but I don't mind - it all helps the 3rd World I don't HAVE any commemorative T Shirts and I seem to remember the balance of other people's opinion was in my (unsubstantiated) side 66210[/snapback] One bloke agreed with you and he couldn't back it up and manc-mag agreed with me. Again, a good effort on your part Rob, but in vain. You probably would have got away with it over on N-O like if someone like me hadn't turned up like. Of course the fact you steadfastly refused to go into which Dickens novel(s) reminded you of 'The Great Gatsby' and why more than backs up my argument. Feel free to set the record straight here and now though. 66235[/snapback] Stop it the pair of you. Now. 66239[/snapback] No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 Falconio judge in drugs warning Drug trafficking allegations against the man accused of killing Briton Peter Falconio do not make him guilty, the judge at his murder trial has said. In his summing-up, Judge Brian Martin told jurors in Darwin, Australia, they should not assume Bradley Murdoch, 47, is a "bad character". If it's a reasonable possibility it was not the accused's vehicle, then it would also follow that it's a reasonable possibility that it was not the accused Judge Martin Several witnesses testified that Murdoch regularly drove long distances to transport drug consignments between Australia's south and north-western coasts. But Judge Martin, the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, told the jury no assumptions should be made. He said the evidence "provides the setting for the accused's travels and explains why he was on the road that weekend". 'Significant issue' Summing up after the nine-week trial, Judge Martin asked the jury to review the evidence given by Miss Lees. He reminded the jurors how she had told police after the alleged attack that she had moved from the front of Mr Murdoch's truck to the back by moving between the seats. But it emerged Mr Murdoch's truck did not have front-to-rear access. "Miss Lees now says she is not so sure. She said: 'It's possible now he' - her attacker - 'might have pushed me through the side of the canvas'." The judge described it as a "very significant issue", saying "if it's a reasonable possibility it was not the accused's vehicle, then it would also follow that it's a reasonable possibility that it was not the accused". But he also reminded the jury that Miss Lees had accurately described the seats of Mr Murdoch's vehicle as "bucket seats" - which were not the standard type of seat to have on his type of van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Just been found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Just been found guilty. 67358[/snapback] Rob will go mental at you for not posting the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Just been found guilty. 67358[/snapback] Rob will go mental at you for not posting the full article 67359[/snapback] That was what I was thinking at the time I posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsy 0 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Just been found guilty. 67358[/snapback] Rob will go mental at you for not posting the full article 67359[/snapback] That was what I was thinking at the time I posted 67360[/snapback] BRADLEY Murdoch was tonight found guilty by a Northern Territory Supreme Court jury of murdering British backpacker Peter Falconio. The Broome mechanic was also found guilty of assaulting Mr Falconio's girlfriend Joanne Lees and depriving her of her liberty. The Northern Territory Supreme Court jury of six men and six women took eight hours to reach their unanimous decision. Chief Justice Brian Martin sentenced the 47-year-old to the mandatory life term for murder. Submissions on a non-parole period will be heard at a later date. The decision followed an eight-week trial, which heard from 85 witnesses and had more than 300 exhibits tendered. Ms Lees and Mr Falconio's family have sat in court throughout the entire trial. The prosecution alleged Mr Falconio was shot in the head after Murdoch pulled over the couple's Kombi van on a remote stretch of the Stuart Highway four years ago. Murdoch then threatened Ms Lees with a gun, punched her in a head and bound her with cable-tie restraints, but she later managed to escape. The prosecution suggested Murdoch may have killed Mr Falconio either because he thought he was following him, or because he saw Ms Lees driving the vehicle earlier and thought she was alone. Link Surely there must have been some doubt about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43852 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico martin 89 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] 67452[/snapback] still dont trust his dodgy girlfriend like, perhaps we'll find out the truth when her next boyfriend gets abdusted by aliens or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] 67452[/snapback] still dont trust his dodgy girlfriend like, perhaps we'll find out the truth when her next boyfriend gets abdusted by aliens or something 67657[/snapback] When the judge was summing, up before the jury retired, I thought he was virtually telling them that the g/f's evidence was suspect and if they thought so too, then they could only find the defendent not guilty Saw pics of her going into court yesterday and she seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the attention - smiling to the cameras! Hmmmmm, don't think I like her tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3776 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] 67452[/snapback] still dont trust his dodgy girlfriend like, perhaps we'll find out the truth when her next boyfriend gets abdusted by aliens or something 67657[/snapback] When the judge was summing, up before the jury retired, I thought he was virtually telling them that the g/f's evidence was suspect and if they thought so too, then they could only find the defendent not guilty Saw pics of her going into court yesterday and she seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the attention - smiling to the cameras! Hmmmmm, don't think I like her tbh. 67662[/snapback] But when given the verdict he said he agreed they had come to the correct decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] 67452[/snapback] still dont trust his dodgy girlfriend like, perhaps we'll find out the truth when her next boyfriend gets abdusted by aliens or something 67657[/snapback] When the judge was summing, up before the jury retired, I thought he was virtually telling them that the g/f's evidence was suspect and if they thought so too, then they could only find the defendent not guilty Saw pics of her going into court yesterday and she seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the attention - smiling to the cameras! Hmmmmm, don't think I like her tbh. 67662[/snapback] But when given the verdict he said he agreed they had come to the correct decision. 67671[/snapback] Good. At the end of the day, due process of law has taken place and he has been found guilty. I respect all jury's findings, including the Mickey (heeeh) Jackson decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico martin 89 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 My only knowledge of this case is reading through this thread but I must say I'm surprised at this decision, there seemed to be more than a reasonable doubt. Could it be the jury can't differentiate between moving a bit of marijuana and pushing smack on kindergarderers? 67438[/snapback] Given Rob's extensive coverage you probably know more than the prosecution tbh. 67446[/snapback] 67452[/snapback] still dont trust his dodgy girlfriend like, perhaps we'll find out the truth when her next boyfriend gets abdusted by aliens or something 67657[/snapback] When the judge was summing, up before the jury retired, I thought he was virtually telling them that the g/f's evidence was suspect and if they thought so too, then they could only find the defendent not guilty Saw pics of her going into court yesterday and she seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the attention - smiling to the cameras! Hmmmmm, don't think I like her tbh. 67662[/snapback] But when given the verdict he said he agreed they had come to the correct decision. 67671[/snapback] Good. At the end of the day, due process of law has taken place and he has been found guilty. I respect all jury's findings, including the Mickey (heeeh) Jackson decision. 67682[/snapback] the referee's decision is final and all that? i think the number of miscarriages of justice and manipulation of trials makes it clear that the legal system id far from perfect. You'll be telling me you think OJ was innocent now sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 the referee's decision is final and all that? i think the number of miscarriages of justice and manipulation of trials makes it clear that the legal system id far from perfect. You'll be telling me you think OJ was innocent now sheesh 67708[/snapback] OJ was, of course, innocent. Everyone could see the glove didn't fit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 THis is a difficult one - the evidence wasn't exactly overwhelming and the police are either incompetent or bent The fact the jury were back in so quickly and with a unanimous verdict suggests to me that the accused made a pretty dreadful impression in court - they obviously thought he looked like the sort of guy who WOULD do it. Now - keep your eyes open for Falconio............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 THis is a difficult one - the evidence wasn't exactly overwhelming and the police are either incompetent or bent The fact the jury were back in so quickly and with a unanimous verdict suggests to me that the accused made a pretty dreadful impression in court - they obviously thought he looked like the sort of guy who WOULD do it. Now - keep your eyes open for Falconio............. 68123[/snapback] A little from column A, a little from column B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Can't believe how much coverage this has got tbh. Not in the press, I mean on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I see she was paid £50,000 for the interview with Sir Trev a couple of years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I see she was paid £50,000 for the interview with Sir Trev a couple of years back. 68202[/snapback] So what? TBH. There's no way I'd turn down that type of moolah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I see she was paid £50,000 for the interview with Sir Trev a couple of years back. 68202[/snapback] So what? TBH. There's no way I'd turn down that type of moolah. 68204[/snapback] Whey, I don't agree with it. Making money out of it is a bit poor imo, especially before a trial had actually taken place. If she gave it to charity then fairy muff. So bite me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I see she was paid £50,000 for the interview with Sir Trev a couple of years back. 68202[/snapback] So what? TBH. There's no way I'd turn down that type of moolah. 68204[/snapback] Whey, I don't agree with it. Making money out of it is a bit poor imo, especially before a trial had actually taken place. If she gave it to charity then fairy muff. So bite me. 68209[/snapback] Is it really that different to victim compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now