Monday, October 04, 2010

 

BC Rail Political Corruption Trial: expected to continue, without jury, on Tueday morning, Oct. 5, 2010

.
Thank you to Anonymous who wrote (very helpfully):

Tomorrow morning, at 10:00am precisely, the double doors to Court Room #54 will be open. Publication Ban is in place.

Who's invited: The Public
Who has to attend: Lawyers
Who is not required to Attend: The Jury
Who is not required to Attend: Representatives for future Witnesses.
The topic: You have to attend to find out, and then zip your lips.




[Then Anonymous begins to look for problems ... ]

(continued) And there's the problem, the last two items. How can the Court ensure that there is a fair trial going on here, in Court Room #54, for the Defendants, when there's no check at the double doors of whether or not information is being filtered back to other Witnesses, before they testify.

# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 4 October, 2010

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

BC Mary comment:  Thanks for the clarification (in Part 1, above). Just to be on the safe side ... it might be wise for  people to check the left margin here ... click on "BC Criminal Courts" schedule ... Vancouver Law Court ...  just to make sure that the sheriff actually does open the double doors to the BC Rail Political Corruption Trial in BCSCourtroom #54 on Tues., Oct. 5.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Comments:
Who is not required to Attend: Representatives for future Witnesses.

Does this mean the jury could attend if they WANTED to?

Unlikely, but the wording is provocative.
 
Representatives for future Witnesses

Could this be it Skookum1?

From Bill Tieleman's blog:

"Bennett also made a ruling that Kinsella’s lawyer James Sullivan had obtained transcripts of earlier hearings in the case in violation of a court order that they not be given to potential witnesses, but blamed the transcription company for the error, not Sullivan.

Bennett ordered production of a list of people who gained access to the transcripts be released to the defence.

Bolton called the transcript decision “very important” to the defence. Sullivan was not in court to comment."

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Do you think the people who's names appeared on the list have been banned from attending the trial?????, before their client takes the stand?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home