Judges words

by picard 26.02.13 22:50

I read the entire judges summing up document published and out of the whole document I was fixed on one certain part and you guys have used it as a quote in your header above. I felt this was a strange statement by the judge and I could not see any reasons for him to add it. But who am I?

by lufc50337 26.02.13 23:01

It's the 'did in fact' that does it

by picard 26.02.13 23:20

sally66 wrote:It's the 'did in fact' that does it

Yes Exactly I don't like to sensationalise but its almost a "read between the lines" quote

by bobbin 26.02.13 23:27

picard wrote:
sally66 wrote:It's the 'did in fact' that does it

Yes Exactly I don't like to sensationalise but its almost a "read between the lines" quote

my thoughts too, either careless or clever. Given the succinct and impeccable way that Justice Tugendhat has shown himself to be, I can only imagine it's the latter.

by Inspectorfrost 27.02.13 0:32

I think its exactly what he said, that Tony meant to alledge that the Mccanns did actually do x y z
You can read it in a couple ways, and I have read it several times and IMO that is what he is saying

The words at the beginning,he meant to aledge that they should be suspected, are followed by that they did in fact, ie saying they are guilty

Just my reading, could be wrong but staying realistic

Having said that Ive never seen TB state as a fact that x y z happened so IMO the judge jumped the gun, to say someone is suspect or should be suspect is equal to a statement that they are guilty

it seems to me the judge was saying that TB was telling people that the Mccanns were guilty rather than putting out facts and asking people to think for themselves

An example is the dog evidence, yes you should suspicious if they bark and alert to cadaver scent and blood, does that make x person guilty? No,but its JUSTIFIABLE suspicion at best
thumbsup

by Smokeandmirrors 27.02.13 6:08

I think this Judges statement is an interesting add-on to what he said in the pre-hearing. When the dogs findings and other material was mentioned, the Judge said that Tony would have the opportunity to air such material should it turn out the McCanns had been lying or the stay was lifted on a libel hearing. Something about expert witnesses and so on. At the time of reading the first summary, it sounded to me, and others here, if I remember correctly, that the Judge had a open mind.

In suspending Tony's sentence and only making it 3 months it seems that the Judge had to make a point that the undertakings were serious as it had been done within a legal framework, but it also seems that he didn't have too much of a problem with what was actually said, and by repeating an allegation in his summing up, IMO shows where his thoughts lie. He didn't need to spell it out, he could simply have said something like " I am sure he intended to breach his undertakings by repeating the allegations that the undertakings sought to curtail" or something without stating what he did. It is now all there in Hansard for ever more.

The frustration is, that whilst the McCanns are free to trot around saying they have been officially cleared, we know that any member of the judicial system, police, journos and so on, have EXACTLY the same access to information as we do, and can perfectly well dig around on the net and find, at the very least, intriguing "co-incidences" and questions that most definitely need answering. The difference is, whilst most of us are focussing on this one case, all the "professionals" have loads of cases on the go at any one time, and are very unlikely to have the time or the reason to give this one too much time, or at least not more so than any other.

And who knows what the real purpose of Grange is. On the face of it we have been told that it is to be a thorough review. In nearly two years we've had one or two "awkward" moments from Redwood, but nothing that has any substance. I'm sure with their visits to Portugal and 37 people reading the info, that by now there would be a bit of progress.

by lufc50337 27.02.13 8:41

bobbin wrote:
picard wrote:
sally66 wrote:It's the 'did in fact' that does it

Yes Exactly I don't like to sensationalise but its almost a "read between the lines" quote
my thoughts too, either careless or clever. Given the succinct and impeccable way that Justice Tugendhat has shown himself to be, I can only imagine it's the latter.

That's what I thought, either very clever, careless or a brain leak

If he'd said "I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter and disposing of her body" that reads completely different

by aiyoyo 27.02.13 11:19

And, that is said in open Court in full audience of Journalists for them to quote freely and it will not be libelous to quote Court's proceedings. So yes, Judge T is either playing the blinder or reckless or insensitive to TB.

by **PeterMac** 27.02.13 12:15

sally66 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
picard wrote:
sally66 wrote:It's the 'did in fact' that does it
Yes Exactly I don't like to sensationalise but its almost a "read between the lines" quote
my thoughts too, either careless or clever. Given the succinct and impeccable way that Justice Tugendhat has shown himself to be, I can only imagine it's the latter.
That's what I thought, either very clever, careless or a brain leak

Judges spend a long time preparing their judgments. What you are seeing is something he prepared, read, re-read, corrected, edited, and finalised over a number of days.
No question of carelessness. No question of a brain leak - he was not speaking ex-tempore, he was reading his judgment into the record.
He intended to say it, intended it to be understood, and possibly even intended it to be reported.
He certainly intended it to be understood by Carter-Ruck.
The fact that his words are capable of interpretation makes them even more likely to be debated and pored over, and thereby repeated time after time.

by Nina 27.02.13 12:34

PeterMac wrote:
sally66 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
picard wrote:
sally66 wrote:It's the 'did in fact' that does it
Yes Exactly I don't like to sensationalise but its almost a "read between the lines" quote
my thoughts too, either careless or clever. Given the succinct and impeccable way that Justice Tugendhat has shown himself to be, I can only imagine it's the latter.
That's what I thought, either very clever, careless or a brain leak
Judges spend a long time preparing their judgments. What you are seeing is something he prepared, read, re-read, corrected, edited, and finalised over a number of days.
No question of carelessness. No question of a brain leak - he was not speaking ex-tempore, he was reading his judgment into the record.
He intended to say it, intended it to be understood, and possibly even intended it to be reported.
He certainly intended it to be understood by Carter-Ruck.
The fact that his words are capable of interpretation makes them even more likely to be debated and pored over, and thereby repeated time after time.

Good on you PM thumbup

by aiyoyo 27.02.13 13:00

So let's be reminded again of the Judge's words:

"I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of
causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her
body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done."'

The "did in fact" stood out like sore thumb - not allegedly disposed of her body but "did in fact dispose of her body".

The Judge is putting words in TB's mouth, and there is nothing TB can do about that. It is just as well that that is on record and any one is at liberty to quote it ad infinitum with no risk of being sued by the pair of Mclibels.

by lufc50337 27.02.13 22:58

Thanks Petermac, I thought that was probably how it worked but wasn't sure

So a very deliberate point made

by Guest 28.02.13 16:52

sally66 wrote:Thanks Petermac, I thought that was probably how it worked but wasn't sure

So a very deliberate point made

Like I said earlier: a hatchet job both on mr Bennett -admonished publicly for being insincere in his first set of apologies- and the McCs -their alleged flaws now quotable not from a nutter driven internetsite, but from a UK Court of Laws formal decision.

I thought and still think it an admirable judgement.

STRICTLY TO BE ADHERED TO!!!!!

by lufc50337 28.02.13 17:15

Portia wrote:
sally66 wrote:Thanks Petermac, I thought that was probably how it worked but wasn't sure

So a very deliberate point made

Like I said earlier: a hatchet job both on mr Bennett -admonished publicly for being insincere in his first set of apologies- and the McCs -their alleged flaws now quotable not from a nutter driven internetsite, but from a UK Court of Laws formal decision.

I thought and still think it an admirable judgement.

STRICTLY TO BE ADHERED TO!!!!!

He's certainly nobody's fool Judge T