Re: Mail: Why Did It Take Police And Dogs Eight Days To Find Tia?

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:41 pm

bb1 wrote:Oh dear, Sabot. That should set them off again - it'll give Bennett a perfect excuse for another self-pitying rant.

It just goes to show that British Justice isn't biased, Bonny. Such a pity that Bennett can't plead poverty.

**Lamplighter** Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:46 pm

Sabot wrote:
martinbrunt‏@skymartinbrunt
#TiaSharp Stuart Hazell has top QC as defence lawyer ....Lord Alex Carlile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That won't go down well with Bennett. And it's all going to be Free. Well, The Defence will be Free, and Stuart Hazell won't have to pay a penny.

So much for Privilege.

He defended Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, when he was charged with theft. LL

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:54 pm

Lamplighter wrote:
Sabot wrote:
martinbrunt‏@skymartinbrunt
#TiaSharp Stuart Hazell has top QC as defence lawyer ....Lord Alex Carlile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That won't go down well with Bennett. And it's all going to be Free. Well, The Defence will be Free, and Stuart Hazell won't have to pay a penny.

So much for Privilege.
He defended Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, when he was charged with theft. LL

Sheesh. I bet that cost a few bob. Unless Paul Burrell got Legal Aid, of course.

But, but, why is Lord Carlile doing this? There must be something odd about it all. biggrin

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:05 pm

Maybe Hazell's a mason? Can't see any Lodge not wanting him.

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:09 pm

Hounder, on the benefits of fast 'justice':

Criminal cases certainly used to be heard within a few months in comparatively recent history. As examples, the Moors Murderers were arrested in October 1965 and tried in April 1966; Ruth Ellis was tried and executed within three months in 1955 and the very controversial execution of Derek Bentley was carried out in January 1953 barely three months after the murder of a policeman which his 16-year-old accomplice had committed.

Personally, I wouldn't have thought either of those cases were anything to boast about, but then, I'm not a Hounder.

Oh, and it took less than four months for Timothy Evans to be arrested, tried and executed, but that's another one they might not want to draw too much attention to.

**Lamplighter** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:15 pm

For heaven's sake, those cases are all from at least 50-70 years ago. There are far more cases waiting to be heard nowadays; also it was the practice to deal with capital cases of murder as quickly as possible, they were not allowed to 'hang around' then. LL

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:28 pm

bb1 wrote:Hounder, on the benefits of fast 'justice':

Criminal cases certainly used to be heard within a few months in comparatively recent history. As examples, the Moors Murderers were arrested in October 1965 and tried in April 1966; Ruth Ellis was tried and executed within three months in 1955 and the very controversial execution of Derek Bentley was carried out in January 1953 barely three months after the murder of a policeman which his 16-year-old accomplice had committed.

Personally, I wouldn't have thought either of those cases were anything to boast about, but then, I'm not a Hounder.

Oh, and it took less than four months for Timothy Evans to be arrested, tried and executed, but that's another one they might not want to draw too much attention to.

That is disgusting, and a perfect example of hasty and totally abhorrent Justice.

Bentley never killed anyone, and Ruth Ellis was a sad case of a Crime of passion.
Timothy Evans doesn't bear thinking of, But they did give him a Pardon, eventually. And I bet he was pleased about that.

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:37 pm

The whole lot of them are sailing very close to the legal wind on the site that isn't Bennett's - they seem to have learned nothing at all from the Yeates case.

They're still 'speculating', accusing, and making up 'theories' - it's staggering.

**lily** Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:45 pm

bb1 wrote:Maybe Hazell's a mason? Can't see any Lodge not wanting him.

That's it, Bonny. thumbsup

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:10 pm

No Lord Barrister goes racing in to Defend a Sink Estate Scum Bag for free unless something funny is going on. And it has only been about four days since Hazell was Charged. So it must be A Cover Up. What have The McCanns got to do with this? What are they hiding? What does Hazell know about The McCanns that they don't want anyone else to know?
I dare not speculate any further, or I might give the game away.

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:18 pm

Just by sheer chance, Sabot, I am entertaining two top-ranking Yard officers to afternoon tea, and from what they are saying, you're on the right lines.

No-one can come right out and say it, of course, because they are all gagged, just like the press.

Oh, all right, I made it up - and why not? The forkers and haters pretend they are related to 'top-ranking police officers' all the time.

I think their idea of 'top-ranking' is the local lollipop lady.

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:28 pm

They are coming to Tea at my house tomorrow, Bonny. No, Really. They know I've sussed it. But they are going to pay me loads a money to keep me quite.
We won't acherly be drinking Tea, or at least, I won't. But I expect I can afford to get them drunk with what they are paying me. Then I'll get them to tell me the real nitty gritty.
Watch this space. But you mustn't tell anyone else.

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:51 pm

Re: Missing Tia Sharp
Châtelaine Today

Has anyone safeguarded the MWT Thursday interview with SH? It seems to have been removed from the net ...

Quite right too, as it may well be used in court as evidence.

Seriously, what the Hell is wrong with these people? Have they no concept of how UK law works? I am just waiting for one of those idiots to post their saved copy of it, so they can discuss 'body language'.

One of these days, the likes of them are going to foul up a high-profile trial - and I hope it's not this one. mad

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:05 pm

Lord Carlile doesn't seem to be happy about it. I don't know why.

**Lamplighter** Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Sabot wrote:
Lord Carlile doesn't seem to be happy about it. I don't know why.

Was he on TV, sabot? If so, can you link me, please. LL

**Sabot** Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:19 pm

Lamplighter wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Lord Carlile doesn't seem to be happy about it. I don't know why.
Was he on TV, sabot? If so, can you link me, please. LL

Jeez, LL. I can't remember where I read it, but it might have been The Daily Mail. Definitely not TV.

**Lamplighter** Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:30 pm

Okay, ma petite, I found what I think you are talking about:

Hazell is being represented by top barrister Lord Alex Carlile QC, who successfully defended Princess Diana's Butler Paul Burrell and carried out a review of the government's anti-terror laws.
He is receiving legal aid for both his QC and a junior counsel.
Lord Carlile warned: 'We do not know what the case against this defendant is, there has been some speculation in the media for example about the cause of death but there is no evidence whatsoever, it is no more than speculation.
'It would be dangerous and possibly foolish to to indulge in speculation that may run the risk of prejudicing a fair trial. We have no idea what the issues will be until we have at least the scientific evidence.
'It is also possible there will be a lot of factual background, with some eminating from family members.'

Oh, dear that's not going to make bentit happy is it? ^^^^^^ LL

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:32 pm

I will put his warning in Big Letters for the hounders:

Lord Carlile warned: 'We do not know what the case against this defendant is, there has been some speculation in the media for example about the cause of death but there is no evidence whatsoever, it is no more than speculation.
'It would be dangerous and possibly foolish to to indulge in speculation that may run the risk of prejudicing a fair trial. We have no idea what the issues will be until we have at least the scientific evidence.
'It is also possible there will be a lot of factual background, with some eminating from family members.'

**bb1** Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:52 pm

Hounder to speculating ghoul:

could you not put your theory up, it would be easier to follow.

Yes, you do that thing, you show your utter contempt for the law, and your lack of concern for justice if it stands in the way of a good ghouling session. Then try to live with yourselves if this is thrown out of court because the likes of you have given the defence an excuse to claim the accused cannot get a fair trial in the UK.

**bb1** Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:42 am

Words fail me.

e: Missing Tia Sharp
aiyoyo Today at 2:15 am

What is wrong with some people here?
We've got a bunch of highly intellectual posters here and that's what made for aninteresting dynamics of this forum that keeps it alive and going.

Just because Mod barked " caution" do people have to jump onto the bandwagon and rapped others knuckles literally over nothing?
Are we driving away reasonable posters, or do we now all have to tip toe round the Mod watching out for her "BAN" stick? FFS we're hardly mainstream, far from it! Why stifle discussions unnecessarily?

Or is libel the fear factor? Have the mccanns' total control over liberty of free speech and were fortunate enough to have a high powered media manipulator helped them in that respect and also fortunate enough to sit on a pile of OPM that their nasty bull dog was sneaked in here so that they can sue (for more money?) set the standard for Forum for discussions of all cases?

----------

No wonder Bennett is in so much trouble. That one has NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER for the law of the land.

It doesn't care that it is endangering a trial - it doesn't care as long as it can 'speculate' about the death of a young girl and invent 'theories'.

Nothing at all matters as long as it gets the Free Speach Yuman Rites it thinks it is entitled to.

It thinks being told to behave in public is 'stifling debate'.

I hope it can sleep at night if the trial collapses because of the likes of it 'speculating'.

Oh, what am I talking about? It won't care, and it will just blame the McCanns anyway.

Nothing is more important than its Free Speach Yuman Rites. mad

**bb1** Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:29 am

In the name....

e: Missing Tia Sharp
Châtelaine Today
Châtelaine wrote:
Has anyone safeguarded the MWT Thursday interview with SH? It seems to have been removed from the net ...

***
Apologies for repeating my question, but I haven't seen a reply. I may have missed it, though.
I would really appreciate a link so that I can review it to check on one specific detail. TA
-----------

Do these idiots really not grasp it?

THERE IS A POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF A YOUNG GIRL IN PROGRESS.

IT IS NOT UP TO THESE N0-MARKS TO 'CHECK' OR 'REVIEW' ANYTHING

They really do think they are supersleuths - or maybe they just enjoy discussing ways in which young girls may have died. mad

**bb1** Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:50 pm

Tia's body has now been formally identified:

http://news.sky.com/story/973314/murdered-tia-sharps-body-formally-identified

That hasn't stopped the hounders in their tracks for one second.

They are carrying on their ghoulfest, with not a care in the world, least of all that the likes of them are endangering a UK criminal trial.

**lily** Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:14 pm

I see they have been arguing amongst themselves too over the past two or three days?

Pcorneater

**Sabot** Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:21 pm

Yet again they are abysmally ignorant of the few facts that there are. But the facts don't allow for their sort of speculation.
And I wouldn't for a minute put it past Lord Carlile to argue that the possibility of a fair trial has destroyed. That's what he is paid to do. Everyone is entitled to A Fair Trial.

**bb1** Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:24 pm

The utter contempt they are showing for UK law says it all, Lily. I know it's different elsewhere, but this is a UK crime under UK rules.

Which means all 'speculation' STOPS as soon as formal charges are laid.

They are very, very close to causing a disaster, if they haven't already. I will be honest, I am getting angry about it, because their posts are just about enough for a defence lawyer to claim that their client cannot get a fair trial, because of what is being posted on that site.

I don't suppose they will care, though, God forbid anything interferes with their ghoulfest.

Sponsored content