Olivia’s killer guilty - Minimum of 42 years

they should look into his house , cars and anything else, if they can prove the only way he could pay for them was by selling drugs they should confiscate everything sell it and the proceeds go towards the little girls parents

Him and his girlfriend's were living in a very expensive property. Not sure if it was bought or rented.
 
I haven't seen the photos but I can picture what scouse, murdering drug-dealing scum look like...

Let me guess - the women head to toe in snide Gucci, the men in snide black North Face?
Not far off...

TELEMMGLPICT000330648238_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqI_nWroZV2Kj5BLP-0LLaCPEeTFgPXoiyxxl0vFVRUd4.jpeg


1_271571225.jpg
 
Him and his girlfriend's were living in a very expensive property. Not sure if it was bought or rented.

Rented. He doesn’t sound like the type who is going to have much, if any, investment worth going after for proceeds of crime.

Some of the media were trying to portray him as some kind of Mr. Big. But Mr. Big’s don’t run around streets waving guns around and getting themselves banged up for 40 years. They have idiots like this to do that.
 
Rented. He doesn’t sound like the type who is going to have much, if any, investment worth going after for proceeds of crime.

Some of the media were trying to portray him as some kind of Mr. Big. But Mr. Big’s don’t run around streets waving guns around and getting themselves banged up for 40 years. They have idiots like this to do that.

Supposedly earning £5,000 a week. It's a stupid way of life as it ends in prison or death and you're always looking over your shoulder.
 
Good article in the guardian on the case

This part did confuse me somewhat, given the location of the trial:
Cashman’s prompt conviction – he will be sentenced at a later date – could be a sign that tolerance for organised crime in Merseyside is running low
I have to say, reading that article, she must have been a seriously compelling witness for the jury to be sure. Certainly seems doubt was at least raised by Cashman. She must have been a wholly plausible wintness. Only rational explanation.
 
This part did confuse me somewhat, given the location of the trial:

I have to say, reading that article, she must have been a seriously compelling witness for the jury to be sure. Certainly seems doubt was at least raised by Cashman. She must have been a wholly plausible wintness. Only rational explanation.

I didn’t follow the trial at all closely so wouldn’t even begin to offer an opinion on the verdict.

But it’s a strange article. Apart from that woman’s evidence it almost entirely seems to concentrate on putting doubts in the reader’s mind of the validity of the conviction.

No mention whatsoever of the evidence of the guy who had already pleaded guilty to being his accomplice. Even though the press weren’t privy to his actual evidence, you’d imagine it would have to be pretty compelling evidence and worthy of mention in a summary of the trial.
 
I didn’t follow the trial at all closely so wouldn’t even begin to offer an opinion on the verdict.

But it’s a strange article. Apart from that woman’s evidence it almost entirely seems to concentrate on putting doubts in the reader’s mind of the validity of the conviction.

No mention whatsoever of the evidence of the guy who had already pleaded guilty to being his accomplice. Even though the press weren’t privy to his actual evidence, you’d imagine it would have to be pretty compelling evidence and worthy of mention in a summary of the trial.
None of us can begin to understand the dynamics in that room.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.