Harry In Court .

**philthy** · 03-02-2012, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by DorsetSpursFan

Thanks for the explanation @philthy . I understand that a tape of a conversation with a reporter is admissable in court, but what I don't undertsand is how it can be used as evidence. It is just evidence that Harry said something to a reporter that may or may not be true. If Harry had told the hack that he was the mastermind behind the Great Train Robbery would he be charged with that? No of course he wouldn't - it would just be Harry telling a journalist a load of old bollox - not a crime.

The Witchfinder General, Jack Black QC said in his closing speech - the tape recording made by the journalist, Rob Beasley, of his conversation with Redknapp in 2009 was "the most compelling and important evidence in the case". I'm sure that the mighty defender of the innocent, Mr John Kelsey-Fry QC, will convince the good people of the jury that Black is a complete cnut and kick him in the goolies (in a legal sense, actually kicking him in the nuts would probably not help) on Monday!

It's admissible because it is allegedly a comment made by 'Arry indicating guilty knowledge of an offence. It doesn't matter whether he knew he was being tape recorded or wasn't given access to legal advice as the hack is not governed by PACE. If 'Arry had equally said "That Brinks Matt bullion caper, I did that", as much as it would be farcical, it would be admissible in evidence. The authenticity is the question and whether it is an accurate reflection of a) what was said in its entirety and b) the context it was all said in. If the police had covertly recorded him whilst putting questions to him, that would have been a breach of PACE unless there was a Regulation of Investigatory Powers authority in force (RIPA). It would have to be a damn sight more serious than a £10k tax evasion case to get a RIPA authority though.

Hope that clarifies it for you?

***Rev John Ripsher*** · 03-02-2012, 08:40 PM

I would lay money on the fact that as the NOTW was such a corrupt and insidious organisation it no longer exists that the jury will decide that there is insufficient evidence to decide he is guilty and completely disregard the tape .

How a prosecution can rely on anything that came out of that place is beyond comprehension .

**gabrielconroy** · 03-02-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Rev John Ripsher

I would lay money on the fact that as the NOTW was such a corrupt and insidious organisation it no longer exists that the jury will decide that there is insufficient evidence to decide he is guilty and completely disregard the tape .

How a prosecution can rely on anything that came out of that place is beyond comprehension .

I get the impression he was advised to emphasise the fact that this supposedly damning evidence arose during a conversation with the renowned paragons of virtue, News of The World...

***stroud_jm*** · 03-02-2012, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rev John Ripsher

I would lay money on the fact that as the NOTW was such a corrupt and insidious organisation it no longer exists that the jury will decide that there is insufficient evidence to decide he is guilty and completely disregard the tape .

How a prosecution can rely on anything that came out of that place is beyond comprehension .

Honestly I was stunned that the prosecutor would point to the interview as the most damning piece of evidence. Harry had every incentive to lie in that interview. I feel a lot better about this than I did when it started. One things for sure, though, I wouldn't give any phone interviews any more if I was Harry. Didn't he see Goodfellas?

**Rivron** · 03-02-2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Rev John Ripsher

I would lay money on the fact that as the NOTW was such a corrupt and insidious organisation it no longer exists that the jury will decide that there is insufficient evidence to decide he is guilty and completely disregard the tape .

How a prosecution can rely on anything that came out of that place is beyond comprehension .

I agree entirely with this. The News of The Screws had long lost any semblance of credibility prior to being shut down.

If Black regards 'Arry's conversation with Beasley as the most compelling piece piece of evidence then the prosecution case is in deep shit, IMO.

Anyone remember the video yeaers ago of Grobbelaar taking a bung? And what was Bruce's defence in court? 'Oh I was merely playing along,' he said. Not too dissimilar to 'Arry trying to get Beasley to fukc off.

**mattyvw** · 03-02-2012, 11:30 PM

I'm surprised it was even allowed to be considered evidence. Haven't heard all the other evidence but if this is a major part of it then questions really have to be asked of how it got to court.

***Rev John Ripsher*** · 03-02-2012, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by mattyvw

I'm surprised it was even allowed to be considered evidence. Haven't heard all the other evidence but if this is a major part of it then questions really have to be asked of how it got to court.

The reporter doesn't like Harry ?

**gabrielconroy** · 03-02-2012, 11:37 PM

If it was a recording there's not much reason why it shouldn't be admissable. Just because he's talking to someone who works for a publication with no standards doesn't necessarily mean there's no truth to be found in the conversation (not saying that's the case here, just talking generally). Pointing out directly or subtly that the source isn't very credible's gotta be good for Harry's case, though.

**mattyvw** · 03-02-2012, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by gabrielconroy

If it was a recording there's not much reason why it shouldn't be admissable. Just because he's talking to someone who works for a publication with no standards doesn't necessarily mean there's no truth to be found in the conversation (not saying that's the case here, just talking generally). Pointing out directly or subtly that the source isn't very credible's gotta be good for Harry's case, though.

There just seems a lot placed on the notw interview, and I can't see how that can be deemed good credible evidence. Not just because of it being the notw. There seems to be a very weak prosecution against them both.

***P UNIT 1980*** · 05-02-2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by mattyvw

There just seems a lot placed on the notw interview, and I can't see how that can be deemed good credible evidence. Not just because of it being the notw. There seems to be a very weak prosecution against them both.

Inquiry in to misappropriation of the public purse...............???

Would love to see that against the CPS.

**liam** · 06-02-2012, 09:31 AM

"Off to Court for what could be penultimate day of football trial. Redknapp will listen to defence closing arguments then fly to Liverpool."

Hopefully it's all done with by tomorrow people...

**Don Diaz** · 06-02-2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Rivron

I agree entirely with this. The News of The Screws had long lost any semblance of credibility prior to being shut down.

If Black regards 'Arry's conversation with Beasley as the most compelling piece piece of evidence then the prosecution case is in deep shit, IMO.

Anyone remember the video yeaers ago of Grobbelaar taking a bung? And what was Bruce's defence in court? 'Oh I was merely playing along,' he said. Not too dissimilar to 'Arry trying to get Beasley to fukc off.

Perfect quick....email this to Kelsey-Fry QC just in case he hasn't thought of it...!! Harry will be free to roam again by Wednesday!!

**Yidington** · 06-02-2012, 09:58 AM

Having never made the journey from Southwark to, well, anywhere I've had to rely on Routefinder & Google maps for my prestigious information I'm about to grace you all with:

Southwark Crown Court to Anfield is just over 200 miles & a good 3.5 hour drive (in good traffic & weather - not rush hour & snow

)

So even if 'Arry gets out at 5 on the dot he wouldnt be getting into the dug-out until realistically half 8 - 9 o'clock.

Now i expected the basic results for going by train to be quicker, but sadly not. still looking at 3+ hours due to changes & waits.

Virgin's London-Liverpool service leaves London Euston at half 5 but wont get there till nearly 8 so after transfers & travel probably looking 8 - half 8.

So I'm thinking helicopter. If the average speed of a helicopter is somewhere around 130mph lets say its gonna take roughly 2 hours then so maybe just after 7ish.
Absolutely the best bet then.

All told, I've wasted the best part of my morning break on re-discovering and breaking down the bleeding obvious.

I did also look into the possibility of Joe Jordan carrying 'Arry on his back up the A5. But the kind people at Google Maps assure me that even without bearing the weight of 'Arry on their back, a person of reasonable fitness would still take 2 days & 19 hours to walk the 200 odd miles without a break.
To be honest, I don't think they have any idea of Joe's strength & determination especially as we could've hung a picture of Gattuso's face in front of him - like a carrot on a donkey.

That one's probably not a go'er though.

**bradders** · 06-02-2012, 09:59 AM

well i suppose this could come down whether or not the judge and jury are spurs supporters lol. the minute the news of the shite was spoken about this should of been thrown out of court

**bradders** · 06-02-2012, 10:00 AM

he will fly by plane or helicopter i reckon

Thread: Harry In Court .

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

These users same thanks for this post

Who Thanked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions