PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[its grim up north]

I have appeared as an expert witness quite a few times in a past life, albeit always at magistrate / sheriff court level and in connection with food quality / contamination issues. My view is that flipping a coin would probably give a more accurate judgement. I was normally asked to appear by a food company although at times I did warn them that sometimes my evidence might not be to their advantage but I would have to give it as I saw it.

Anyhow let me give you an example of a case where I thought that there was a cut and dried ‘not guilty’ verdict coming.

The case involve a metal bolt in a sausage. By the time I got the evidence it had been mauled by a public analyst. However it was clear that the sausage had been cut along its length and the bold was more or less central and the head had been approximately flush with the plane of the cut with the shaft of the bolt at right angles to the length of the sausage. That in itself is unlikely. We put some bolts of the same size and shape through the sausage filler at the Research Association where I worked, and admittedly with a small sample size, they tended to go through into the sausage with the head leading the way and with the shaft following at an angle of about 30 degrees. The head normally went towards the outside of the sausage. This would be expected as the sausage meat would tend to push the head forward with the shaft following. I analysed the metal that the bolt was made of and found it to be cadmium plated, such bolts would not be allowed in food machinery. The bolt was a good match for bolts used in telephone exchanges at the time.

The public analyst had reported that as he pulled the bolt out of the sausage with tweezers the force require was such that it indicated that the bolt had been cooked inside the sausage rather than being pushed in afterwards. We cooked bolts in sausages, pushed bolts into sausages and screwed bolts into sausages and measures the force required to pull them out with an Instron and found no difference between the force required pull out the bolt between that which had been cooked in the sausage and that which had been pushed in and a very small,increase in the force required to remove the bolt that had been screwed into the cooked sausage.

My colleague, a meat technologist, carried out a factory inspection and found no bolts resembling those found in the sausage (though he didn’t go 30’ up to the roof to inspect the sheilded fluorescent light fitting). The metal detector consistently rejected a pack of sausages with the bolt inside one of the sausages and the factory records showed that the metal detector was functioning correctly and had been checked as required on the day the sausage had been manufactured.

In my view we had assembled irrefutable evidence that the bolt had not got into the sausage in the factory. Certainly enough to to raise reasonable doubt that it had been the result of a factory incident.

At the court case the complainant who was a telecom engineer working in an exchange gave evidence. He was a middle aged slightly below average height and slightly above average weight for his height, bespectacled and balding. Asked for his account of how the bolt had been discovered he responded “I was making supper for my disabled wife……..”. At this point I thought that simply because the alternative to it being a factory incident was, effectively, to accuse him of deliberately putting the bolt into the sausage that the magistrate would find it easier to find the company guilty, which he did. Perhaps the under threat Scottish “not proven” verdict (which was in my view the most appropriate verdict in many of the cases I was involved in) would have provided an escape route for the magistrate.

Was the bolt called Bernie by any chance?

 

[Lord Blue]

OK, the thread starts by quoting slbsn saying no one should be certain about the outcome of any legal case …….

City claim to have irrefutable evidence to support their case …… I believe them ….

I give an example of a case I was involved in where I thought (and still do) that the evidence in favour of the defence was irrefutable but for probably emotional / humane reasons the magistrate gave a verdict that defied the facts of the case.

After some questioning by Kinkys Left Foot I give an example of another case where I think the prominence of media attention may have swayed the verdict, despite evidence to the contrary.

The details may be complex but I think the message in relation to City’s position and this thread is fairly clear.

it is certainly a curious thing. that a case supported by evidence can be swayed due to whoever is sat in judgement allowing an element of emotional judgement to cloud their legal judgement.

Hopefully the IC don't have significant emotional involvement.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

True. One small aspect still causes me a touch of concern. CAS did clear us, great, but as those still circling snidely point out some of that was because some issues became time expired. Unlike in this open ended prem witch hunt. Am happy to be corrected.

The time Barring stuff has passed into myth.

It isn't true (that we got away with it all due to time bar) but off that bollocks whole articles have been written.

What you've read is probably that because we got away with it last time due to time barring, this time we won't because there's no time bar in the PL investigation.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Not disputing what you say but I’m puzzled as to how City can think this when according to the media and PL the actual hearing, which is scheduled to last for some weeks, has’nt started.

Not disputing what you say but I’m puzzled as to how City can think this when according to the media and PL the actual hearing, which is scheduled to last for some weeks, has’nt started.

They will have seen some advanced disclosure of evidence on both sides by now. Lawyers on both sides will have a good idea what is coming as will the panel.

 

[Lord Blue]

The bolt was probably the healthiest part of the sausage.

sounds like a horror movie. we've had Bride Of Frankenstein, now witness Frankenstein's Sausage

 

[Didsbury Dave]

OK, the thread starts by quoting slbsn saying no one should be certain about the outcome of any legal case …….

City claim to have irrefutable evidence to support their case …… I believe them ….

I give an example of a case I was involved in where I thought (and still do) that the evidence in favour of the defence was irrefutable but for probably emotional / humane reasons the magistrate gave a verdict that defied the facts of the case.

After some questioning by Kinkys Left Foot I give an example of another case where I think the prominence of media attention may have swayed the verdict, despite evidence to the contrary.

The details may be complex but I think the message in relation to City’s position and this thread is fairly clear.

I enjoyed having a butchers at your post.

I just hope you weren’t telling porkies.

 

[GortonBlue62]

OK, the thread starts by quoting slbsn saying no one should be certain about the outcome of any legal case …….

City claim to have irrefutable evidence to support their case …… I believe them ….

I give an example of a case I was involved in where I thought (and still do) that the evidence in favour of the defence was irrefutable but for probably emotional / humane reasons the magistrate gave a verdict that defied the facts of the case.

After some questioning by Kinkys Left Foot I give an example of another case where I think the prominence of media attention may have swayed the verdict, despite evidence to the contrary.

The details may be complex but I think the message in relation to City’s position and this thread is fairly clear.

And I think you're point is that the law is practised and implemented by human beings and human beings are unpredictable. Hence the advice to not take things to court if at all possible.

My feeling from listening to our legal and financial experts is that the biggest threat to us is the 'independence' of the IC. They can't be unaware of the media's 'certainty' of our guilt and the public's expectation of a guilty verdict and severe sanctions.

Hope to fuck I'm wrong.

 

[dadnlad]

There are cigars lighting and smoking themselves as he speaks.

hi Martin

 

[halfcenturyup]

Was the bolt called Bernie by any chance?

Left a little, right a little .....

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

True. One small aspect still causes me a touch of concern. CAS did clear us, great, but as those still circling snidely point out some of that was because some issues became time expired. Unlike in this open ended prem witch hunt. Am happy to be corrected.

We provided evidence for the time barred items, but it was still time barred and as such not required. The media will have you believe we didn't provide anything and got off on the technicality, that simple isn't true.