If you work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, by default she reverts to being not guilty, as the prosecution's case against her has collapsed, and there is no case to answer.
It's a bit rich of Tulisa to be acting outraged at the 'lies'. How long did she swear blind that it wasn't her in that video? How often has she denied plastic surgery? She wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the arse, and she is insanely lucky to get away with this.
It seems she has forgotten she did in fact hook him with up someone who could get him drugs so whether she thought it was a film audition or not, she did know someone involved in drugs. That is fact, He's already admitted that. She is extremely lucky to walk free.
It think it is very unlikely that anyone in those circles, doesn't know where to get drugs from. They are at any nightclub that the rich and famous hang out. Not sure why they chose to pick of Tulisa for this. Cocaine is hardly elusive.
Some people are very confused about what the defence actually said. Tulisa's accomplice has ADMITTED that the deal was real. Tulisa has not said that she was given lines to read, she has said that she felt pressured (read "entrapped", if you like, but that's bollocks) into going along with what he said as she was being offered major film roles. Her argument was that she basically panicked in the heat of the moment and said things she cannot explain, but that in reality, it's not something she has ever done. Hence this idea of entrapment as if she was forced into it.
But really, that term is generally used for situations when your well-being, livelihood or someone else's well-being is compromised unless you commit a crime on someone else's terms - and does not cover such trivial, unnecessary crap as sucking up to someone who's offered you a film role. Entrapment is a sort of combination of blackmail and trickery to varying extents. It does not mean offering someone bait and waiting for them to bite such as in this case.
The reason it has collapsed is because the witness for the prosecution has spoken proven lies in court, which has compromised the integrity of the courtroom process and therefore of the case itself as an ongoing concern.
And just to confirm, in the eyes of the law she is of course not guilty, but no, she has not been explicitly found as "not guilty", and if ever a suitable case could be mounted where all this evidence could be reliably presented by someone else, it would happen.
And from the evidence I've seen, all I will say is that the pair of them have been extremely lucky and would do well to keep their heads down for years to come.
It was entrapment. They got her drunk, filmed her saying things that she thought was an audition tape and then edited it and twisted her words later. The trial collapsed because Mahmood's driver heard her saying she was opposed to cocaine and had never taken it.
Simon is pretty tight with The Sun so I don't think he will do anything but blame this one reporter.
So for an 'audition tape', she contacted an actual drug dealer and arranged the supply of actual drugs. That's taking method acting a little far in my opinion.
So for an 'audition tape', she contacted an actual drug dealer and arranged the supply of actual drugs. That's taking method acting a little far in my opinion.
To me, this case raises the question over whether prejudice in court should actually take priority over everything else. What with all the messages and confirmation that a deal took place, I can't see that she was heading for anything other than a guilty verdict, and to me, that should be more important. One man here has pleaded guilty and been let off without a verdict or even a due process.
If this was a murder case and the same problems occurred, would the case be dropped as lightly what with the amount of evidence? Genuinely asking that for anyone who knows that answer.
To me, this case raises the question over whether prejudice in court should actually take priority over everything else. What with all the messages and confirmation that a deal took place, I can't see that she was heading for anything other than a guilty verdict, and to me, that should be more important. One man here has pleaded guilty and been let off without a verdict or even a due process.
If this was a murder case and the same problems occurred, would the case be dropped as lightly what with the amount of evidence? Genuinely asking that for anyone who knows that answer.
If your key to the prosecution, emphasise on the word key, like a keystone, is removed by being thoroughly discredited, then everything built on that case, no matter how solid previously, must collapse, like a stone archway would.
So for an 'audition tape', she contacted an actual drug dealer and arranged the supply of actual drugs. That's taking method acting a little far in my opinion.
I agree totally .Jesting aside I've just had a debate with my brother on this .He basically says the entrapment issue deletes her crime ,which is nonsense .If someone asks you to do a drug deal then you either say *no.I have no such contacts* and back off or you arrange the deal. She chose the second option. The reasons she did it whether to impress or whatever are irrelevant. I hope she just goes away now because she has just dodged a massive bullet and would be better laying low.
Like the lady said,she has never either taken or dealt Cocaine.:D
Lovin' all the legal experts on here who on the say so of the judge are ready to park their common sense and their instincts about what has been revealed so far in this case up to and including a co defendant who had already pleaded guilty......his statement of what occurred would make very interesting reading wouldn't it.
I have no undue reverence for the legal system I'm afraid even though I totally appreciate that you can't run a legal system on common sense or instinct but I'm afraid that slavish adherence to what amounts to someone's opinion jars just as horribly if not more with me ............but like the lady says: she has never either taken or dealt Cocaine ................
Reminds me of the Burrell trial where the intervention of the Queen with some cryptic warnings about 'dark forces' brought the whole trial to an end .........weird and typically British legal system but believable and credible?.....not for me thanks.
So for an 'audition tape', she contacted an actual drug dealer and arranged the supply of actual drugs. That's taking method acting a little far in my opinion.
The fact that the reporter's story was shown to be inconsistent might mean that what's been said about what happened by The Sun at the time is complete lies.
I agree totally .Jesting aside I've just had a debate with my brother on this .He basically says the entrapment issue deletes her crime ,which is nonsense .If someone asks you to do a drug deal then you either say *no.I have no such contacts* and back off or you arrange the deal. She chose the second option. The reasons she did it whether to impress or whatever are irrelevant. I hope she just goes away now because she has just dodged a massive bullet and would be better laying low.
Tulisa said in the video in the link below that the reporter got her intoxicated, so I'm guessing that when drugs were mentioned, she didn't fully realise the seriousness of what they were asking.
Good result, the whole thing was a farce and should never have got this far-what a waste of money and I assume it is taxpayers money or will the Sun have to foot the bill? I do hope so.
They foot the bill....and then put the price up of the paper next week.
It's a bit rich of Tulisa to be acting outraged at the 'lies'. How long did she swear blind that it wasn't her in that video? How often has she denied plastic surgery? She wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the arse, and she is insanely lucky to get away with this.
I was mesmerised wih her face today. Why on earth does she need plastic surgery at her age?
Comments
If you work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, by default she reverts to being not guilty, as the prosecution's case against her has collapsed, and there is no case to answer.
It think it is very unlikely that anyone in those circles, doesn't know where to get drugs from. They are at any nightclub that the rich and famous hang out. Not sure why they chose to pick of Tulisa for this. Cocaine is hardly elusive.
No way was the semi pretty wealthy white girl going to get a sentence.
A mess. Either way, Tuloosa's career is over!
Who plead guilty to dealing drugs after being filmed doing exactly that and has subsequently gotten off scott free!
Tulisa caught on video and audio - the CPS obviously were happy with the evidence to take this to trial
Amazing!!!
The 'tip off' was probably just some fella who decided to set up Tulisa.
He is a legend - you can only entrap yourself!
But really, that term is generally used for situations when your well-being, livelihood or someone else's well-being is compromised unless you commit a crime on someone else's terms - and does not cover such trivial, unnecessary crap as sucking up to someone who's offered you a film role. Entrapment is a sort of combination of blackmail and trickery to varying extents. It does not mean offering someone bait and waiting for them to bite such as in this case.
The reason it has collapsed is because the witness for the prosecution has spoken proven lies in court, which has compromised the integrity of the courtroom process and therefore of the case itself as an ongoing concern.
And just to confirm, in the eyes of the law she is of course not guilty, but no, she has not been explicitly found as "not guilty", and if ever a suitable case could be mounted where all this evidence could be reliably presented by someone else, it would happen.
And from the evidence I've seen, all I will say is that the pair of them have been extremely lucky and would do well to keep their heads down for years to come.
So for an 'audition tape', she contacted an actual drug dealer and arranged the supply of actual drugs. That's taking method acting a little far in my opinion.
555-dealer.
If this was a murder case and the same problems occurred, would the case be dropped as lightly what with the amount of evidence? Genuinely asking that for anyone who knows that answer.
If your key to the prosecution, emphasise on the word key, like a keystone, is removed by being thoroughly discredited, then everything built on that case, no matter how solid previously, must collapse, like a stone archway would.
Lovin' all the legal experts on here who on the say so of the judge are ready to park their common sense and their instincts about what has been revealed so far in this case up to and including a co defendant who had already pleaded guilty......his statement of what occurred would make very interesting reading wouldn't it.
I have no undue reverence for the legal system I'm afraid even though I totally appreciate that you can't run a legal system on common sense or instinct but I'm afraid that slavish adherence to what amounts to someone's opinion jars just as horribly if not more with me ............but like the lady says: she has never either taken or dealt Cocaine ................
Reminds me of the Burrell trial where the intervention of the Queen with some cryptic warnings about 'dark forces' brought the whole trial to an end .........weird and typically British legal system but believable and credible?.....not for me thanks.
The fact that the reporter's story was shown to be inconsistent might mean that what's been said about what happened by The Sun at the time is complete lies.
Tulisa said in the video in the link below that the reporter got her intoxicated, so I'm guessing that when drugs were mentioned, she didn't fully realise the seriousness of what they were asking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28406152
They foot the bill....and then put the price up of the paper next week.