LONDON CITY

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in article idG3046&in
page id=1879

thedarkman wrote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in article idG3046&in
page id=1879

It is a gross injustice that Ian Gilbert ever faced trial in the first
place.

Jessie Gibert, brilliant at chess but like so many other mathematical
geniuses, useless at Real Life, was transparently a mentally ill fantasist
who had fabricated her whole story.

Still, its good that even in death shes got at least one friend and fellow
traveller, Al.



--
Regards, Vince.

International Trucking Photographs- - http://200476.aceboard.net/

Knight Of The Road wrote in
news:s8Wdneq6j52tLi7bnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@bt.com:


There but for the grace of god and all that, Woldingham ... a mile or so
closer to London and shed have been in Kenley and the matter would have
been investigated by SCD5 rather than a bunch of carrot crunchers ...

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:50:55 -0700, thedarkman
wrote:

idG3046&in page id=1879

Its very one-sided. I remember this case from when the verdict
came... Im still no nearer understanding why his ex-wife wasnt
called to testify. Was there *no* corroborative evidence? Wife, other
daughters, nannys etc. in that house and it allegedly went on for
years and no-one saw or heard *anything*? And what of the other women
he was accused of assaulting? The jury *must* have heard something
that made them very suspicious to disbelieve all these alleged
victims.

Reminds me slightly of the Jenkins case; Im wondering if this isnt
mostly between the husband and the wife, with the daughters suffering
and poisoned to some degree. The mother says the girls dont want to
meet their dad... well she would, wouldnt she?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
As I walk along these shores
I am the history within

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:03:36 GMT, Periander wrote:


But then, facts may well have got in the way of your fantasies!

On 4 Aug, 07:47, Mike Ross wrote:

She was.


Lots of it, excluded by the judge.


Perjured character witnesses. The prosecution really didnt get its
act together; Lovell-Pank didnt even meet with the prosecution
witnesses.


Me too. Hes another guilty man walking the streets, although at least
he spent 9 years behind bars.

Understandably so.

On 3 Aug, 23:58, Knight Of The Road
wrote:
It is an injustice that he didnt stand trial for the January 2003
assault - or had you forgotten that?

On 3 Aug, 23:58, Knight Of The Road
wrote:

Way off beam this time retard. Only this time? Nobody ever had a bad
word to say about Jessie. As for fantasist, you couldnt have wished
to meet a more level-headed person of any age. Keep up the ad hominem.
Thats all you have, as ever.