Jump to content

Natalie McGarry- Again


Tom McB

Recommended Posts

She always seemed like a disorganised fool with money, rather than a determined fraudster. If it was intentional it was a really shite fraud if she thought she would get away with it. Not sure what the penalty would be for negligence rather than embezzlement.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

“The judges made their ruling after hearing submissions, which cannot be reported for legal reasons, from defence advocate Gordon Jackson QC.”

 

 

Bit of a step up from Upstairs, Downstairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Expect a low key announcement that they won't be seeking a retrial between Christmas and New Year. 

 

Would have thought that would be inevitable in any case. Justice works slowly at best, not sure about the cuts here but they're just about falling apart down south.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does look dodgy as f**k that she is going to get off on an undisclosed reason.

The Scottish establishment look after each other regardless of party.

Maybe, just maybe, the reasons for quashing haven’t been made public as it is evidence to be presented in the future trial? Thick c**t.

 

She hasn’t “got off”, there will be a future trial, as in her previous one, she suffered a miscarriage of justice.

 

FWIW, I think she may or may not be guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Maybe, just maybe, the reasons for quashing haven’t been made public as it is evidence to be presented in the future trial? Thick c**t.

 

She hasn’t “got off”, there will be a future trial, as in her previous one, she suffered a miscarriage of justice.

 

FWIW, I think she may or may not be guilty.

She is guilty as sin.

There is a good chance the reason she got off will be her mental state due to the miscarriage leading to her changing her plea.

I don't think there will be a future trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Maybe, just maybe, the reasons for quashing haven’t been made public as it is evidence to be presented in the future trial? Thick c**t.

 

She hasn’t “got off”, there will be a future trial, as in her previous one, she suffered a miscarriage of justice.

 

FWIW, I think she may or may not be guilty.

If it doesn’t go to a new trial, and I assume that’s possible depending upon the view of the Fiscal’s office, then I hope the reasons for this decision are made public.  Otherwise it will look like a stitch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is guilty as sin.
There is a good chance the reason she got off will be her mental state due to the miscarriage leading to her changing her plea.
I don't think there will be a future trial.

Shut up, you’ve no inside knowledge.
There will be a future trial, unless the PF decides that they have no case.

I actually believe she is guilty of something, but whether it’s what her charges were or not is a different matter. That’s an opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
1 hour ago, Detournement said:
It does look dodgy as f**k that she is going to get off on an undisclosed reason.
The Scottish establishment look after each other regardless of party.

I was right - Unionists really are fucking scumbags.

And Independence supporters who a prejudging this in her favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

And Independence supporters who a prejudging this in her favour?

Don't think anyone is, just that it's normal for reasons for a retrial not to be disclosed so as not to prejudice a jury, and it's frankly laughable to suggest a fix is in because they're unlikely to schedule it for between Christmas and New Year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It's the unsubtle hints at a corrupt decision that get on my tits.

Anyone who know how's the judiciary works in Scotland knows that they are rarely influenced by government - no matter who's in power.

I don’t think there’s anything corrupt about it but prima facie it looks like she did something wrong and if, for any reason, there is not a retrial it would be best if the undisclosed information was disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...