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.
It is confusing as to why the driver is regarded as so key to the case. I get that the defence are trying to claim that Mahmood influenced his testimony, but given that the driver has now changed his story at LEAST twice I'm puzzled why claims are held in higher regard than irrefutable evidence such as recordings, texts, and the confession of her co-dealer.
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 knows all about lies. "It's not me giving that BJ on camera, it's not it's not it's not it's not - oh alright it is"
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.
The only person who could get Tulisa drunk is Tulisa. There is no evidence at all that Mahmood coerced her into drinking excessively in any way. And you'd have to be pretty damn smashed to think that setting up a £850 drug deal is not 'serious'.
This is shocking to find out that sheikh guy set her up and put her through all that surely she can sue him now? also take him to court and get him sent down
This is shocking to find out that sheikh guy set her up and put her through all that surely she can sue him now? also take him to court and get him sent down
He may be done for perjury, but note that the judge suspects him of lying he/she does not have definite proof, so a lawsuit may not work..
Was the judge in charge the same one who oversaw the R. Kelly trial?
I like how video evidence now doesn't matter when it comes to celebrities. Steven Gerrard and Tulisa seem to have some very impressive body doubles committing crimes while looking like them. If only Rolf Harris had known he should have abused someone on camera, he'd be scot free.
He may be done for perjury, but note that the judge suspects him of lying he/she does not have definite proof, so a lawsuit may not work..
Ms Couldn'tgiveatossalos could still be charged with - Allowing premises you occupy or manage to be used unlawfully for the purpose of producing or supplying controlled drugs.
Don't think above was one of the charges against her.You can't bring a fresh charge on something you have 'technically' been found 'not guilty' of in a court of law.
Anybody out there willing to press charges.The police could press this charge even & she is asking them to investigate the fake Sheikh - at taxpayers expense of course - unbelievable
Like the lady said,she has never either taken or dealt Cocaine.:D
If you put person-seeking-drugs in touch with person-selling-drugs to enable drugs to be purchased, you're not dealing. So in that respect, she is indeed telling the truth. But then, as I've said, she wasn't charged with dealing anyway.
But then let's not forget she is on tape admitting to dealing crack in her "ghetto" days .. that point seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
‘When I was a kid, right – and this is completely between you and me,’ she was quoted saying as she unwittingly talked to an undercover reporter for the Sun on Sunday.
‘This is like in my ghetto, ghetto days, I specifically remember a time where a couple of my mates, like boy mates, I was in obviously a gang of boys, they were [selling] crack in little balls.’
She allegedly went on to claim her good looks made her the perfect accessory, saying: ‘Because I’m young and I was pretty and female, no one suspected me.’
‘So they would give me the drugs, I would get a cut out of it,’ she went on, adding: ‘I would go on to the streets and the Feds would never suspect me.’
‘So I would go and I would do the exchange. And I’d give them the drugs and I’d take the money and I would get a cut out of it,’ she said, revealing she would receive money in exchange for her involvement.
Was the judge in charge the same one who oversaw the R. Kelly trial?
I like how video evidence now doesn't matter when it comes to celebrities. Steven Gerrard and Tulisa seem to have some very impressive body doubles committing crimes while looking like them. If only Rolf Harris had known he should have abused someone on camera, he'd be scot free.
The witness was exposed as a liar in court. No matter what video evidence there is, if the accuser has been inconsistent with the story, this could then mean that the video evidence might not be as it seems. This is why the case got threw out, because the witness changed his story every time he appeared in court.
Tulisa knows all about lies. "It's not me giving that BJ on camera, it's not it's not it's not it's not - oh alright it is"
The only person who could get Tulisa drunk is Tulisa. There is no evidence at all that Mahmood coerced her into drinking excessively in any way. And you'd have to be pretty damn smashed to think that setting up a £850 drug deal is not 'serious'.
Obviously Tulisa would have had to have drank the alcohol herself, but the point I'm making is that she said they gave her drink upon drink (in so many words) and then when she was drunk enough, that's when they started trying to set her up. Tulisa did finally admit that it was her in the blowjob video and that's what matters.
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.
It is confusing as to why the driver is regarded as so key to the case. I get that the defence are trying to claim that Mahmood influenced his testimony, but given that the driver has now changed his story at LEAST twice I'm puzzled why claims are held in higher regard than irrefutable evidence such as recordings, texts, and the confession of her co-dealer.
Because a conviction would be unsafe given that the source of this process has been found to be untruthful I suppose. With regards to her friend who pleaded guilty, don't forget that his legal counsel will have had access to the case evidence against him, and will have advised him on potential sentencing outcomes for guilty or not guilty pleas. Therefore to believe that a case against you isn't going to go in your favour based on the evidence, a guilty plea may be the lesser of two evils. The judge will have been aware of this, and when the prosecution's case collapses because their evidence is discredited, then so must any guilty plea be disregarded I guess.
Because a conviction would be unsafe given that the source of this process has been found to be untruthful I suppose. With regards to her friend who pleaded guilty, don't forget that his legal counsel will have had access to the case evidence against him, and will have advised him on potential sentencing outcomes for guilty or not guilty pleas. Therefore to believe that a case against you isn't going to go in your favour based on the evidence, a guilty plea may be the lesser of two evils. The judge will have been aware of this, and when the prosecution's case collapses because their evidence is discredited, then so must any guilty plea be disregarded I guess.
Basically, the case started falling apart because of the lying Sun reporter.
Basically, the case started falling apart because of the lying Sun reporter.
Yes. The presumption of innocence is supreme in the British legal systems. The accused must be convicted by evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is provided by someone who is proved to be untrustworthy, even deceitful, then "reasonable doubt" becomes much more likely. Still, in such cases, it is normal for the judge to allow the defence to do its job and for the jury to decide - perhaps with some directions from the judge about how to weigh the evidence, and relevant statute and case law.
That the judge felt it necessary to stop the trial by his own authority suggests that the evidence offered by the prosecution is so unreliable that the case simply cannot continue because the risk of a miscarriage of justice is too great. This is not unheard of, but it is certainly unusual.
What I am watching for now is whether the judge directs the CPS to charge Mahmood with perjury or contempt. If he has been lying to the Court then he is going to experience a Series of Unfortunate Events.
Sorry to pipe up out of nowhere but I just hate the way being "caught" sucking cock on camera is being used to snipe at Tulisa. **** shaming much? I am a heteroseual woman. I like sucking cock. Technically that makes me a cocksucker, yes it does. How on earth is that relevant for how I conduct my life? Rant over.
Obviously Tulisa would have had to have drank the alcohol herself, but the point I'm making is that she said they gave her drink upon drink (in so many words) and then when she was drunk enough, that's when they started trying to set her up. Tulisa did finally admit that it was her in the blowjob video and that's what matters.
What she says is irrelevant. She lies, time and time again. She only confessed to the BJ tape when it became screamingly, hilariously obvious that it was her. She denies plastic surgery, when Ray Charles can see she's had it done. As JasonWatkins points out, she is on tape admitting crack dealing when she was younger - now that could be a lie, or her current denial of ever dealing could be the lie. It's difficult to tell, but again, she is lying one way or the other.
Anyone remember John Alford from London's Burning? I bet he's more than a little pissed off today...
Comments
It is confusing as to why the driver is regarded as so key to the case. I get that the defence are trying to claim that Mahmood influenced his testimony, but given that the driver has now changed his story at LEAST twice I'm puzzled why claims are held in higher regard than irrefutable evidence such as recordings, texts, and the confession of her co-dealer.
Tulisa knows all about lies. "It's not me giving that BJ on camera, it's not it's not it's not it's not - oh alright it is"
The only person who could get Tulisa drunk is Tulisa. There is no evidence at all that Mahmood coerced her into drinking excessively in any way. And you'd have to be pretty damn smashed to think that setting up a £850 drug deal is not 'serious'.
Don't get in the way of conspiracy theories lol
He may be done for perjury, but note that the judge suspects him of lying he/she does not have definite proof, so a lawsuit may not work..
I like how video evidence now doesn't matter when it comes to celebrities. Steven Gerrard and Tulisa seem to have some very impressive body doubles committing crimes while looking like them. If only Rolf Harris had known he should have abused someone on camera, he'd be scot free.
Don't think above was one of the charges against her.You can't bring a fresh charge on something you have 'technically' been found 'not guilty' of in a court of law.
Anybody out there willing to press charges.The police could press this charge even & she is asking them to investigate the fake Sheikh - at taxpayers expense of course - unbelievable
If you put person-seeking-drugs in touch with person-selling-drugs to enable drugs to be purchased, you're not dealing. So in that respect, she is indeed telling the truth. But then, as I've said, she wasn't charged with dealing anyway.
But then let's not forget she is on tape admitting to dealing crack in her "ghetto" days .. that point seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/02/tulisas-crack-dealer-past-revealed-3825062/
The witness was exposed as a liar in court. No matter what video evidence there is, if the accuser has been inconsistent with the story, this could then mean that the video evidence might not be as it seems. This is why the case got threw out, because the witness changed his story every time he appeared in court.
Obviously Tulisa would have had to have drank the alcohol herself, but the point I'm making is that she said they gave her drink upon drink (in so many words) and then when she was drunk enough, that's when they started trying to set her up. Tulisa did finally admit that it was her in the blowjob video and that's what matters.
Because a conviction would be unsafe given that the source of this process has been found to be untruthful I suppose. With regards to her friend who pleaded guilty, don't forget that his legal counsel will have had access to the case evidence against him, and will have advised him on potential sentencing outcomes for guilty or not guilty pleas. Therefore to believe that a case against you isn't going to go in your favour based on the evidence, a guilty plea may be the lesser of two evils. The judge will have been aware of this, and when the prosecution's case collapses because their evidence is discredited, then so must any guilty plea be disregarded I guess.
No, there was a penis in the way.
She just happened to phone a friend who knew what 'sweets' meant and turned with £800 worth of cocaine at her request.
The claim she was drunk, yeah right. It's more likely she was drunk when she had her lips done?
Brilliant!!
That is an insult to a piece of trash.
All you had to do was read post above yours.
There's a lot of irrational conclusions in your post. How do you know she wasn't drunk?
Basically, the case started falling apart because of the lying Sun reporter.
Yes. The presumption of innocence is supreme in the British legal systems. The accused must be convicted by evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is provided by someone who is proved to be untrustworthy, even deceitful, then "reasonable doubt" becomes much more likely. Still, in such cases, it is normal for the judge to allow the defence to do its job and for the jury to decide - perhaps with some directions from the judge about how to weigh the evidence, and relevant statute and case law.
That the judge felt it necessary to stop the trial by his own authority suggests that the evidence offered by the prosecution is so unreliable that the case simply cannot continue because the risk of a miscarriage of justice is too great. This is not unheard of, but it is certainly unusual.
What I am watching for now is whether the judge directs the CPS to charge Mahmood with perjury or contempt. If he has been lying to the Court then he is going to experience a Series of Unfortunate Events.
Granted I may not be able to smell the drink on her breath but I can definitely smell BS.
Sorry to pipe up
What she says is irrelevant. She lies, time and time again. She only confessed to the BJ tape when it became screamingly, hilariously obvious that it was her. She denies plastic surgery, when Ray Charles can see she's had it done. As JasonWatkins points out, she is on tape admitting crack dealing when she was younger - now that could be a lie, or her current denial of ever dealing could be the lie. It's difficult to tell, but again, she is lying one way or the other.
Anyone remember John Alford from London's Burning? I bet he's more than a little pissed off today...