Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Guilty?


D.Boon

Recommended Posts

As you say, it's the kind of thing that happens at gigs all the time.

 

I'm sure he didn't mean the fan to come to serious harm but he did throw him off the stage quite forcefully. He should have let the security guards handle it.

 

It's a tragic accident. He shouldn't serve a long sentence but shouldn't be let off either and should definitely be made to pay compensation to the kids family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cor, here's a turn up for the books!

 

 

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/07/10/shafilea-ahmed-s-mother-admits-she-saw-husband-attacking-daughter-100252-31360134/

 

A MOTHER accused of murdering her teenage daughter has changed her defence case in what a judge described as a “significant development”, a court has heard.

 

Shafilea Ahmed’s parents, Iftikhar, 52, and Farzana, 49, of Liverpool Road, Warrington, have been on trial at Chester Crown Court for the past eight weeks.

 

They stand accused of murdering the 17-year-old at their Cheshire home in September 2003.

 

Mrs Ahmed has always denied murder, but yesterday the jury of seven men and five women were told she had changed her account.

 

Mr Justice Roderick Evans said Mrs Ahmed’s barrister had indicated that “Mrs Ahmed’s account, her defence, has changed”.

 

He added: “That is a significant development in the case and needs some thought.”

 

Mr and Mrs Ahmed both deny murder.

 

Shafilea disappeared in September 2003 and her body was found on the bank of the River Kent in Cumbria the following February.

 

The prosecution claims she was killed by her parents because she brought shame on the family by her desire to lead a “westernised” lifestyle.

 

Henry Riding, prosecuting, told the jury the new defence case statement contained an admission from Mrs Ahmed that an “incident of violence” towards Shafilea did occur in the family home on September 11, 2003 – a fact she had previously denied.

 

The new statement alleges Mrs Ahmed came downstairs to discover her husband attacking Shafilea.

 

Mrs Ahmed claims she tried to intervene but was “punched with a clenched fist”. She says she went upstairs with the other children as she was “scared”, and when she went back downstairs 20 minutes later Shafilea and her husband were gone.

 

When he returned she claims she asked him where Shafilea was, and he responded: “If you care for your dear life and that of your children don’t ever ask me this question again.”

 

The jury were sent home and will return on Wednesday when the prosecution is due to finish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, she's surely had ample opportunity to give them the nod before now.

 

Hopefully it'll help convict the old man, and the judge will wallop her in the summing up as well. That's often how it works. It's a bit late to be playing the 'I was scared of my husband' card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully it'll help convict the old man, and the judge will wallop her in the summing up as well. That's often how it works. It's a bit late to be playing the 'I was scared of my husband' card.

 

Would it be surprising to find a woman scared of the man that murdered her daughter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be surprising to find a woman scared of the man that murdered her daughter?

 

Not at all, but the court/system tends to look pretty severely on someone lying to the court (which she has been doing) and changing their plea half way through. I'd have thought that the prosecution will tear into her on this. I'd have thought when being interviewed and give legal advice she'd have been offered protection etc to tell the truth.

 

I wouldn't have thought they've been living together since they were charged have they? Might be a bit different if they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, but the court/system tends to look pretty severely on someone lying to the court (which she has been doing) and changing their plea half way through. I'd have thought that the prosecution will tear into her on this. I'd have thought when being interviewed and give legal advice she'd have been offered protection etc to tell the truth.

 

I wouldn't have thought they've been living together since they were charged have they? Might be a bit different if they have.

 

 

It has been back and forth to court for years this though hasn't it? The daughter had already changed her statement to bring this case I think, but the ma has waited even longer than that, not sure why she didnt wade in and back her daughter up til now when it looks like her and her husband are both in for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been back and forth to court for years this though hasn't it? The daughter had already changed her statement to bring this case I think, but the ma has waited even longer than that, not sure why she didnt wade in and back her daughter up til now when it looks like her and her husband are both in for it.

 

It's a weird one, we might never know. Fear almost definitely a factor. I think they're both in for it, regardless of the change of evidence. She might get a slightly more lenient sentence for playing the fear card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, but the court/system tends to look pretty severely on someone lying to the court (which she has been doing) and changing their plea half way through. I'd have thought that the prosecution will tear into her on this. I'd have thought when being interviewed and give legal advice she'd have been offered protection etc to tell the truth.

 

I wouldn't have thought they've been living together since they were charged have they? Might be a bit different if they have.

 

I'm not saying she was innocent or that the accusations she's now making are true but I'd hope a judge tries to determine the truth before walloping her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying she was innocent or that the accusations she's now making are true but I'd hope a judge tries to determine the truth before walloping her

 

Certainly, my point was that 'the law' takes a really harsh stance on any perceived breach of process or contempt. If the judge decided that's what she's been playing at, he'll make it clear in his summing up and in guidance for sentencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, my point was that 'the law' takes a really harsh stance on any perceived breach of process or contempt. If the judge decided that's what she's been playing at, he'll make it clear in his summing up and in guidance for sentencing.

 

I thought your point was she was lying and hoped the judge would wallop her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought your point was she was lying and hoped the judge would wallop her

 

Ah no, although I probably didn't explain what I was thinking. Although yes, I do think she's been lying, and yes I do hope she gets walloped as a result. There is a difference, it just so happens here the hoped for outcome is the same!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I understand that. I don't think she's lying thought I'm not convinced she's telling the truth. My original point was that it's understandable that fear prevented her from coming forward and I don't know we should be inferring guilt from that.

 

If she's guilty I hope she gets walloped if she really was that scared of her husband and he is guilty then I hope he gets walloped for both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...