posted on May, 1 2007 @ 11:56 AM
this " strategy " is not a legal defence - it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice
it is blatant pandering to the lowest common denominator , and the
whatever happened to the principle of " innocent untill proven guilty " ?
she should have no need to conduct any such form of " defence "
if the authorities charge that she did indeed commit a crime , or series of crimes , it is THEY who must show edicence of this
in short - produce evidence that a NAMED " call girl " and co-defendant preformed an illegal act , on a NAMED client of befalf of , and at the
express instruction of the defendant [ and with her express knolwedge that such act was occuring , and was illeggal ]
she [ and every one else ] should exercise thier right to silience - and let the prosecution make thier case , if any exists
even if there is primea faecia evidence of guilt on one charge of pandering in one case - there is no legal basis for " guilt by association "
in short - just because one clinent can testify that thier relationship with her was totally legal - that does not provide any defence in other cases
because as i stated earlier - it is the responsibility of the prosecution to present EVIDENCE in every case they want to prosecute
this case and any like it get my blood boiling - they have little to do with justice or due process - rather they are a media wankfest of innuendo and
titilation - designed to pervert the course of justice by thinly vieled black mail
PS - i am not a slolicitor - so all legal interpretations given in this post are just my opinion - and are unlikley to have a legal framework