Sergeant Wilson Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I appreciate that this is somewhat after the fact but Joanne Majics always came across as a little weird to me. Her story had strange elements to it - she continued a sexual relationship with Watkins, flying across to California to spend time with him, AFTER she said he'd sent her images of him abusing children, AFTER he'd told her he had raped children and AFTER she'd reported him to the police. Her justification was that she was trying to gather evidence and that strikes me as narcissism. She's since left Twitter but spent the weeks after the sentencing relentlessly retweeting people paying her compliments and getting into utterly bizarre arguments with people who she accused of being Watkins supporters. It was very strange. A little weird? In a mad of the stark fucking raving way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 He's challenging his sentence as he thinks it was too harsh. He also claims he didn't know entering a guilty plea would make him "look guilty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreElgin Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I don't know if it was the plea itself that made him look guilty or the videos of him sucking off children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Very disappointed. I assumed I was getting points on the dead pool when I seen this had been bumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 He's challenging his sentence as he thinks it was too harsh. He also claims he didn't know entering a guilty plea would make him "look guilty" Denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Must be a difficult job for his lawyer to argue these. He's no longer in Wakefield Prison, not sure where he's being held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Must be a difficult job for his lawyer to argue these. He's no longer in Wakefield Prison, not sure where he's being held. By his goolies, hopefully... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tramaziboy Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Must be a difficult job for his lawyer to argue these. He's no longer in Wakefield Prison, not sure where he's being held. Long Lartin http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ian-watkins-moved-same-prison-6558170 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Cheeky b*****d!!! These defence lawyers must really be heartless, trying to lessen peoples punishments even though they know they are in the wrong purely for cash, don't think I could defend the c**t no matter how much cash I was getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Cheeky b*****d!!! These defence lawyers must really be heartless, trying to lessen peoples punishments even though they know they are in the wrong purely for cash, don't think I could defend the c**t no matter how much cash I was getting. I doubt there's much danger of you troubling the legal profession any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I doubt there's much danger of you troubling the legal profession any time soon. Not in that way anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richey Edwards Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I was surprised that he received such a lengthy sentence but that doesn't mean that he didn't deserve such a sentence. They usually give out paltry sentences for such crimes. The justice system needs to show consistency with cases like this and continue to hand out such sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 These defence lawyers must really be heartless, trying to lessen peoples punishments even though they know they are in the wrong purely for cash That SEETHING poster claims to be one. Perhaps he could give us a defence of his own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The guy is entitled to legal representation, regardless of whether it's for the initial court case or any subsequent appeals. What I can't understand is why they sometimes get some of the most highly qualified lawyers in the country (e.g. Donald Findlay). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The guy is entitled to legal representation, regardless of whether it's for the initial court case or any subsequent appeals. What I can't understand is why they sometimes get some of the most highly qualified lawyers in the country (e.g. Donald Findlay). Profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The guy is entitled to legal representation, regardless of whether it's for the initial court case or any subsequent appeals. What I can't understand is why they sometimes get some of the most highly qualified lawyers in the country (e.g. Donald Findlay). I thought Donald enjoys these high profile cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Cheeky b*****d!!! These defence lawyers must really be heartless, trying to lessen peoples punishments even though they know they are in the wrong purely for cash, don't think I could defend the c**t no matter how much cash I was getting. If you're going to be a solicitor you have to completely detach yourself, emotionally, from the cases you're involved in. Otherwise you wouldn't be capable of practicing law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Here's a good article about defence lawyers for notorious clients http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/27/lawyers-defended-toughest-cases-charles-manson-jon-venables-ted-bundy-charles-ng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christophe Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't really know how sentencing is worked out but part of me thinks it's been a bit trial by media and paedophiles being the monster of our times, given the severity of the sentence. At the same time reading the court report was truly upsetting and he is a serial offender...so f**k knows. I also wonder if the sentence secretly reflected the probability of more victims, even though it shouldn't. I think it did given that they said upon pleading guilty in the first place it prevented further evidence being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't really know how sentencing is worked out but part of me thinks it's been a bit trial by media and paedophiles being the monster of our times, given the severity of the sentence. At the same time reading the court report was truly upsetting and he is a serial offender...so f**k knows. I also wonder if the sentence secretly reflected the probability of more victims, even though it shouldn't. I think it did given that they said upon pleading guilty in the first place it prevented further evidence being used. The judges comments detail how he arrived at the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.