WAAAAAAAAY off topic; Court documents.

You'll need a few details for a query but I think you should be able to get what you require.

What goes on in these idiots' minds that they think that vandalism is the answer to anything?

Pat

Not my point Pat. In the code of law, started in 1215, anyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. These people did not commit any crime, now that they have been acquitted, so there was no "vandalism". You think this is wrong; I think this is wrong. Which means, in our minds, somebody screwed up. And that must have been the prosecution. What I want to find out is precisely HOW did the prosecution screw up so badly. And that is why I am looking for the court transcripts to know precisely what happened. I think Bruce may have solved my problem.

You might look at Slashdot. This sounds like the kind of story they'd be following.

Louisa

Do you want summary or actual trial transcript?

I've just offlist given Jim exact directions how to get exactly what he wants right from the court, though it may cost him a bit.

However, if anyone knows of a free source online, I'd be interested in reading it, too.

May I add, to the one I sent in private, a very public word of thanks to Karen. I am afraid my knowledge of what happens in a court of law, I have acquired by watching TV shows like Law and Order; hardly a valid source of information. It was one of those occasions that, when I read what Karen had sent me, I knew she was absolutely right. I would never have thought of it myself. In this world, who you know is usually much more important to what you know. Isn't RCTN wonderful as an almost infinite source of wisdom? Again, many thanks indeed, Karen. Jim.

You're right. It is a great group of people that carry a wealth of knowledge in all sorts of things you would never think of until you needed to know. Glad you got some answers.

Dianne

F.James Cripwell wrote: > In this world, who you know is usually much more important

And who they know is even better. :)

I've just put Jim in touch with my business partner, who has done courthouse work in Ireland, and she's going to put him in touch with a friend who has done courthouse work in England. Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon later, we should find ourselves connected to the person who actually took down the testimony and is able to provide what Jim wants.

Maybe not your point, but in general my point is still valid. Vandals ARE complete idiots whatever the cause. Still, they go back to before the Romans, so I`m afraid they`ll still be with us in anotherseveral hundred years.

Pat

There's some 12th century Viking graffiti inside the Maeshowe prehistoric cairn on mainland Orkney. Photograph at

Even once the lawyers take their cut?

Just curious...

Joan

Depends on the lawyer. Some take 25%, some take 33%, some take 40% and then there's Sam Scumbag, who was disbarred for taking 100% (nominally, he was entitled to a percentage "plus costs", but he inflated the costs to be sure he got to keep the whole settlement).

And then there's the guy who picked up the pieces after Sam Scumbag. There were two named defendants, Sam settled with one, took the whole check. The plaintiff went to Mr. Wonderful to ask "can he do that?!" and when he called to tell me he was now handling the case, mentioned that he was not taking any fee at all, in order to restore her faith in attorneys.