Court Update 2: Why the adjournment?

As we reported earlier today, Sabine and Neelu’s plea and case management hearing on charges of witness intimidation, which was expected to be a rather simple procedure, wound up being adjourned to next Friday, 15 April. 

Our court  correspondent has now checked in with us and clarified the issue: it seems that the defendants produced new evidence that the judge was required to review. We understand that the new evidence alleges that the defendants themselves have been subject to harassment, both from the police and online.

We expect, though this has not been confirmed, that this blog was named as a source of ‘harassment’. Given the complaints Sabine has made about us (though she persists in claiming to believe that we are RD) it would not come as a huge surprise.

As for ‘police harassment’, we note that Sabine has wasted no opportunity to howl about having been arrested after midnight—as though this has never happened to anyone before.

So…we’ll be there next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel…for the continuance of the Sabine & Neelu Comedy Hour.

Blackfriars Crown Court

 

21 thoughts on “Court Update 2: Why the adjournment?

  1. According to Angie (on her fb page) it’s to decide whether there should be a jury or not.

    Mmm, as Angie poses for a photo showing a pic of her feet, whilst looking into Belinda’s back garden, on the same fb post.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’d love to discover the relevance of this ‘evidence’. – If you rob a bank and someone nicks your getaway car while you’re doing it – how does that mitigate your having robbed a bank?

    Liked by 2 people

    • While not referring to any court case is particular it would not be defense for someone on say, intimidation charges to claim they were also intimidated by someone else.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Sabine McNeill and others are constantly churning out material attacking innocent people, as well as my religion, how then can she justify she is being harassed when she has been the agency of causing reactions to her posted material. All because she is on witness intimidation charges in court, if she posts anything attacking my religion, she is going to get a challenge from me. As a matter of strategy I challenge most things she puts on Twitter, and the easy answer to dealing with that is for her to stop posting on the internet that type of material.

          Like

    • LOL, that’s a very good point. The fact that we have kept an eagle eye open for their misbehaviour, and reported it publicly, is hardly grounds to dismiss their own charges. Plus, good luck to them in trying to prove that we’re RD–if we were subpoena’d (unlikely, but just as a hypothetical thing) that allegation would be shown up as utterly ludicrous.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Accusing a whole lot of people of being someone who they are not : when a court judgement forbids you from publishing that person’s name and harassing them, is just another form of harassment.

        Liked by 2 people

        • You’re right. Claiming that we are RD, and then alleging that he’s harassing them (even though what we do can hardly be called harassment–more like being a watchdog) constitutes further harassment of RD.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Angie : “leaking of sources of info could put source in danger who has already in the past served jail time for whistle blowing and could also compromise ****** and *****’S court cast so please honour sensitivity of info and especially SOURCES Thanks Angie”. So she posts a Youtube video about it & tells the world. Laugh or cry?

    Liked by 1 person

    • It makes no sense. She does understand how the internet works doesn’t she? Why would she apparently sabotage her associate’s safety (if of course the info really does such a thing anyway) It’s as though Angie has forgotten which character she’s meant to be and which side she’s on. It’s all one long fictional gloopy soup and she’s drowning in her own over-wrought plot twists. Madness.

      Liked by 1 person

      • She lies through her back teeth. Case in point: she talks about conversations she’s had in the comment threads on the three videos of her interview with Jake…but there’s not one single comment posted on any of them! Must have been the voices in her head again😀

        Liked by 1 person

  4. If I remember correctly, April 8th was also the deadline that Drif Loud gave police for the arrest of Pauffley. I wonder how that went and what the consequence are if they did not comply?

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.