Jean Charles De Menez had traces of cocaine in his blood.
- Thread starter Chester Copperpot
- Start date
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
TAE said:More detail about the 'standard procedure' not about his personal life.
yeh! I thought that much was obvious.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
The Doctor said:
The news said in his urine, but not his blood, and provided no explanations as to how that could be possible.
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
That's taking the piss out of a dead man.invisibleplanet said:
You're not. It was reported ages ago. I said "So what?" then.The Doctor said:
No. It is what is known as a "fact".Dillinger4 said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Possible to be both, of course. When one smears somebody's reputation, one may do so by circulating stories which are irrelevant even while true.detective-boy said:
No, it isn't.chymaera said:
A toxicology test is a standard part of any special post-mortem examination (special post mortem examinations are carried out by the most experienced pathologists in cases where homicide, etc. is suspected).
Once it exists it is disclosed to the prosecution and defence in any criminal proceedings (due to the laws of disclosure). Either side MAY, or may not, make use of the evidence if it appears relevant to their case.
I have to say that if I was relying on the trace indications of cocaine which were found, knowing (presumably) that the expert would say it was not clear whether they would still be giving any physiological effect, I'd probably not bother even trying.
Like the Court and / or the police control that?The Doctor said:
So what's stopping you then?haylz said:
Door ----->
Do you want help packing? Lift to the station?
I suspect the Court haven't heard all the relevant evidence yet (but counsel knows what witnesses have said in their statements and so knows what to expect).Spymaster said:
The surveillance officers have already said they got the impression he was nervous / jumpy. People are alleging they just made that up. So it would be pertinent to adduce evidence which would explain why he was possibly nervous / jumpy. I suspect similar evidence relates to the actual moment of challenge on the tube.
(But, as I have said, the weakness of the evidence is such that I really think they must be clutching at straws cos I don't think I'd have thought it worth using)
It is not "leaked" to the public. It is evidence given in Court. No explanation of evidence given in Court is ever provided to the public.Dillinger4 said:
You can't. The evidence is given by each witness in turn. Sometimes bits given by one witness only fit when taken with bits given by other witnesses giving evidence before or after. The whole thing only comes together when closing speeches are made, linking all the bits in the way each side thinks the jury should link them.Dillinger4 said:
At the moment the prosecution are calling witnesses. This fact was important to the defence. They have to cross-examine on it when the witness is giving evidence, something they have little influence over the timing of.
You really are making a conspiracy theory out of something which does not exist and which only betrays your lack of understanding of the criminal trial process.
There IS only one answer.TAE said:
One or other side's lawyers think it is relevant. The judge obviously agrees with their argument for that or they would not have allowed it.
It is evidence given by a prosecution witness, so I suspect some or all of their evidence was considered of relevance by the prosecution but it may be that the defence said they wanted the witness called and if the prosecution did not, they would, and so the prosecution decided to call them themselves.
It is evidence given in open Court durig a criminal trial.Dillinger4 said:
Do you think we should have all criminal trials conducted in camera ...
That's because the media don't report the detail of anything - they are interested in headline factoids and hardly ever report context or nuances.invisibleplanet said:
Cocaine is removed from the body by a process which means that it leaves the blood and the urine at different rates. I think I read somewhere that breakdown products of cocaine were found in the blood. The evidence taken together suggests that he ingested cocaine some hours earlier (timing is not a precise science as it depends on a lot of unknown variables but the previous evening is most likely if he had slept overnight).
cockneyrebel
New Member
Exactly.
Clutching at straws? Surely not.
I agree with you there.detective-boy said:
Take a typical fight at a football match. Do the media EVER investigate/report why it kicked off, what the history was, what the exact sequence of events was ? No, they just report that a number of fans clashed, with so and so many arrests and injuries, mostly taking the details directly from the police or even just making stuff up.
(a) This isn't an inquest. It is a criminal trial.chymaera said:
(b) No, it isn't anyway. It would only be used in any judicial proceedings if relevant. I have been to dozens of inquests where the issue of drink or drugs is irrelevant, where toxicology has confirmed there was none and where there has been no mention of a toxicology report at all.
Usually emotion or speculation. Rarely, if ever, detail. But is does usually contain clues as to what the context of the evidence was ... if anyone looks for them, understands them or listens to posters who recognise them.Yossarian said:
Sweaty Betty
Hemo rising!
detective-boy said:
jesus
.... all them little words say a fucking huge lot about you......
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
DB - I do not have much knowledge of the criminal justice system, and I saying it was leaked was pure ignorance on my part.
My point is basically I don't understand how a toxicology report and the information that he used cocaine can possibly be relevant to this case.
But obviously it is. I still thing it is wrong though.
My point is basically I don't understand how a toxicology report and the information that he used cocaine can possibly be relevant to this case.
But obviously it is. I still thing it is wrong though.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
the implication i get from yesterday's metro is that the pathologist was questioned on the cocaine by the defence QC, with particular reference to how recently it was used and could it cause irrational behaviour. it seems fairly obvious that the tactic was to imply that his behaviour was irrational, and thus the shooting was justified. fucking ridiculous tactic designed to smear, IMO.
I don't understand why at a post-mortem of a man with six bullets in the back of the neck it would be thought necessary to look for any other cause of death. Were they perhaps testing his body fluids to establish that perhaps seconds before he was shot he had already died of something else and so the bullets had no relevance? It might be a routine test but not exactly apposite to the case.
Similar threads
