Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7740083.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 School boy error by Tobin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I suspect that Donald Findlay is going to claim that Tobin didn't murder her, but that she died in his flat, he panicked and decided to bury her in the garden. He pretty much got the coroner to say that she could have died of natural causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 I suspect that Donald Findlay is going to claim that Tobin didn't murder her, but that she died in his flat, he panicked and decided to bury her in the garden. He pretty much got the coroner to say that she could have died of natural causes. did he? How exactly can you get severe bruising to the chest etc by natural causes? I must have missed that one. Im intrigued by that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 did he? How exactly can you get severe bruising to the chest etc by natural causes? I must have missed that one. Im intrigued by that one I can't remember the details exactly; the coroner said as much i.e. evidence of severe bruising to the chest, but when he was cross-examined by DF QC he said he wouldn't be upset if another coroner came to the 'natural causes' conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Brillant just read it in yesterdays EEN His argument was that basically there was no way of proving the assault injuries killed her and thus they cant even prove she was murdered Since he is going Alibi he is definitly covering his bases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Brillant just read it in yesterdays EEN His argument was that basically there was no way of proving the assault injuries killed her and thus they cant even prove she was murdered Since he is going Alibi he is definitly covering his bases I reackon Tobin might end up not getting convicted of murder but something lesser in this case. I suppose (and I am merely suggesting) that the bruises on her chest could be explained away by him testifying he tried to revive her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Say what you want about Findlay but if I ever got in deep doo doo thats the man I want. Feckin brilliant QC. Wonder how he sleeps at night though... Actually I do, on a massive pile of the publics money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Say what you want about Findlay but if I ever got in deep doo doo thats the man I want. Feckin brilliant QC. Wonder how he sleeps at night though... Actually I do, on a massive pile of the publics money. Trust me. You dont. His "winning" record is fairly poor over the last few years. There are better QC's out there now, who would have a better chance of getting you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 But do they have tache's? I want a QC witrh facial hair. People are intimidated by facial hair. Present Hearts team = No beards = Fairly tom kite Cup winning team = 3 beards = 2nd in LEague and Scottish Cup See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Trust me. You dont. His "winning" record is fairly poor over the last few years. There are better QC's out there now, who would have a better chance of getting you off. I think you need to remember the trials he takes on He tends to take on people others wouldnt, especially those already crucified and villanfied by the Media and have little chance of sucess. I have to say the fact he has managed to give Tobin a fighting chance of a not guilty when his fingerprints are all over her is brillant. Given they cant prove she was murdered a murder conviction is going to have to be based on the fact everyone knows who he is already. If it was a judge hearing the case I have no doubt the murder charge would be gone and replaced with a charge of concealing a death, perverting the course of justice and possibly assault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think you need to remember the trials he takes on He tends to take on people others wouldnt, especially those already crucified and villanfied by the Media and have little chance of sucess. I have to say the fact he has managed to give Tobin a fighting chance of a not guilty when his fingerprints are all over her is brillant. Given they cant prove she was murdered a murder conviction is going to have to be based on the fact everyone knows who he is already. If it was a judge hearing the case I have no doubt the murder charge would be gone and replaced with a charge of concealing a death, perverting the course of justice and possibly assault And those are only the ones you see in the press. Mr Findlay has a poor "record" over the last few years, high profile or not. Ive seen him in action on several occasions, and I certainly would not want him defending me. There are plenty QC's out there who would do a better job of securing a not guilty verdict for the offence you had. While there is no dispute he is a master craftsman with his theatrics in court, he isnt the QC, I would pick to defend me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think it depends Chester If I was actually innocent, not a chance. If I was guilty as sin and screwed with the evidence, without a doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think it depends Chester If I was actually innocent, not a chance. If I was guilty as sin and screwed with the evidence, without a doubt Of course. But if you were guilty and the jury saw you walk in with Findlay, your presumed guilty before innocent regardless (rightly or wrongly). There are other and dare I say, better advocates out there, who are highly skilled enough to do the same as Findlay would do if you were guilty. The main difference is there is no preconception about you when the Advocate stands to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.