Pilley again

Matesrates said:
Lancashire police have reopened the investigation into claims the jury was bribed.
Click to expand...
I just can’t see how the police threw it out last time it was looked at.

I mean irrespective of who it is it’s a very serious allegation someone on the jury saying they were offered money for a verdict.
 
Last edited:
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I just can’t see how the police threw it out last time it was looked at.

I mean irrespective of who it is it’s a very serious allegation someone on the jury saying they were offered money for a verdict.
Click to expand...
Would you like to buy some magic beans.....just £200......did I mention they are magic!!!!
 
So if there was a jury member found out to be having been got to. Surely a miss trial would be declared. not sure but surely a wrongful conviction wouldnt stand.
 
i maybe being thick here but you mean bribed to what?, a guilty verdict? I can’t see that personally but as i say i may have got the wrong end of things ??
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
So if there was a jury member found out to be having been got to. Surely a miss trial would be declared. not sure but surely a wrongful conviction wouldnt stand.
Click to expand...
Apparently not - maybe someone else could explain the detail - I have had it explained to me but not confident enough to repeat!
 
SpionKop said:
i maybe being thick here but you mean bribed to what?, a guilty verdict? I can’t see that personally but as i say i may have got the wrong end of things ??
Click to expand...
That’s what I don’t get… I can understand why someone (out of desperation) might try to bribe for a Not-Guilty, but this makes no sense.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That’s what I don’t get… I can understand why someone (out of desperation) might try to bribe for a Not-Guilty, but this makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Maybe because the defence was confident of getting him off with counter evidence that they had on Cheshire County Council at the time?
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
So if there was a jury member found out to be having been got to. Surely a miss trial would be declared. not sure but surely a wrongful conviction wouldnt stand.
Click to expand...
No, because it came out before the verdict and the jury member was replaced.
 
Martonmosser said:
Maybe because the defence was confident of getting him off with counter evidence that they had on Cheshire County Council at the time?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would really matter either way.. it’s more about motivation.

Who as an individual would be motivated to take a risk like that which a) might scupper the case b) might result in prison time for themselves ?

I’m not saying someone hasn’t, but it’s a really strange and unusual thing to have happened.

It’s normally the sort of thing you’d see in a major organised crime type of case and is the defence making the threats / inducements.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t think it would really matter either way.. it’s more about motivation.

Who as an individual would be motivated to take a risk like that which a) might scupper the case b) might result in prison time for themselves ?

I’m not saying someone hasn’t, but it’s a really strange and unusual thing to have happened.

It’s normally the sort of thing you’d see in a major organised crime type of case and is the defence making the threats / inducements.
Click to expand...
Organised crime, Hmmm 🤔 There was a death threat wasn’t there 👍🏼
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t think it would really matter either way.. it’s more about motivation.

Who as an individual would be motivated to take a risk like that which a) might scupper the case b) might result in prison time for themselves ?

I’m not saying someone hasn’t, but it’s a really strange and unusual thing to have happened.

It’s normally the sort of thing you’d see in a major organised crime type of case and is the defence making the threats / inducements.
Click to expand...

The person who could benefit from this is Pilley.
 
Martonmosser said:
Organised crime, Hmmm 🤔 There was a death threat wasn’t there 👍🏼
Click to expand...
I thought that was related to a bit of an off the cuff comment from a council person and was thrown out ?

It sounded like some nerd in an office as opposed to Al Capone…

Plus anyone criminally minded ain’t going to hang around waiting for a legitimate criminal trial to exact revenge… They’d have long since bundled him into the back of a van etc.. not the way they work.
 
As I recall, the allegatio was someone was offered a bribe and threatened, to him him guilty, which is bizarre. Unless this is reverse psychology to get a retrial.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I thought that was related to a bit of an off the cuff comment from a council person and was thrown out ?

It sounded like some nerd in an office as opposed to Al Capone…

Plus anyone criminally minded ain’t going to hang around waiting for a legitimate criminal trial to exact revenge… They’d have long since bundled him into the back of a van etc.. not the way they work.
Click to expand...
A reference to someone asking someone else within the same organisation to killing someone off can surely be seen as a death threat I would have thought
 
Martonmosser said:
A reference to someone asking someone else within the same organisation to killing someone off can surely be seen as a death threat I would have thought
Click to expand...
I dunno mate, I think you could spin it that way I suppose, but it’s not something I would have viewed as a serious threat if I’m being totally honest about it.

You probably know more about it all than I do really.

My comments had more to do with the fact that this jury threat thing seemed illogical.

Also what use is it to have only one juror in your pocket (assuming that’s the case)…?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
It's a statement not an accusation
Click to expand...
Apologies ESBN, it’s early morning and I’m not firing on all cylinders just yet… I actually read your comment as ‘The only person who could benefit from this is Pilley’ and I was meaning that there obviously could be other explanations 👍👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Apologies ESBN, it’s early morning and I’m not firing on all cylinders just yet… I actually read your comment as ‘The only person who could benefit from this is Pilley’ and I was meaning that there obviously could be other explanations 👍👍
Click to expand...
I don't want to libel anyone - but if you look at it logically and ask 'who does stand to benefit from this?'
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I don't want to libel anyone - but if you look at it logically and ask 'who does stand to benefit from this?'
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that fully…

There’s a whole series of things (at the moment) that might lead you to draw that conclusion. For example (it would only take a bribe attempt on one juror to potentially undermine the trial), but several to influence a verdict … It happened at the outset and so has the feel of an ‘insurance policy’…. The motivation .. As I said if you’re minded to go down than road, then why wait until a criminal trial, rather than going down the baseball bat route.

By contrast though, the crime has impacted an awful lot of businesses and individuals, so I suppose it’s not beyond the realms that one of those people did it…. It’s just a really odd thing to do.
 
The death threat has to be put in context , it was two workers over an email joking about it who mistakenly copied Pilley in on it. Hardly Al Capone stuff.
The judge was harsh because of Pilleys attitude from when the investigation began to how he was in court. It was scathing.
Remind you of anyone ?
 
Hold On.....Seems some are looking to the left, when all the evidence, testimony and witnesses are openly on the right.

Maybe The Bifster would be the best placed to comment on this type of business practice and if (in the industry) Pilley was regarded as.

1.) A businessman who openly knew and encouraged his staff to put customers on long term contracts that hid massive price hikes after a short period of time and were impossible to get out of without major damage to that customers business.
He set up his own wholesale energy business and stipulated that BES staff place customers on contracts with this provider, when they knew, in the life of the contract, the customer would pay twice or three times the amount they would on any other available contracts.

2.) Misunderstood business man who just had his fair share of industry 'customer complaints'.

And with OFCOM, Police and trading standards all pushing to convict, due to the massive amount of evidence that this was all an orchestrated con
How stupid do you have to be to bribe a juror to convict, when you were 100% guaranteed to get the outcome you wanted.
It was only Pilley's attitude and lack of remorse that got him the maximum sentence on all 3 counts....
 
PNENIL said:
The death threat has to be put in context , it was two workers over an email joking about it who mistakenly copied Pilley in on it. Hardly Al Capone stuff.
The judge was harsh because of Pilleys attitude from when the investigation began to how he was in court. It was scathing.
Remind you of anyone ?
Click to expand...
imagine what the employees felt like when they realised they had copied in their boss/owner by mistake! You can imagine the panic 🤪
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top