Markham Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Not sure about the Philippines but back in US of A. No need to wait for all charged parties to be arrested or in custody. Don't see why they can't go ahead and try her by herself and then him if and when the time comes.Why is it that they have to be tried together at the same time? Is it Philippine law? From what I gather you are saying is that in the Philippines as long as one defendant can stay at large then there will never be a trial. That just does not make any common sense to me. But then again there are a lot of people that would probably say I do not have any sense anyway!Because if there is an extradition hearing and the British Home Secretary decides not to extradite him - and not order his prosecution in an English Court - that decision directly affects the trial in Cebu because if Griffiths has no case to answer then, logically, the same is true for Santos. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Mark could you please post the part of the constitution which say it is not allowed. In fact whenever you make statements such as what the law is, could you please also post the link to said law and a quote from it. Also I am not sure what you are saying, you say the accused has a constitutional right to be faced in court by his accuser(s), so it looks like you are you saying that Griffiths is one of the the accusers? Is that what you are saying?You've misunderstood me, I think Lee! What I said is that the accused (Griffiths) has the right to be faced by his accuser (Renante Pique) at his trial. That is my understanding of the current Philippine Constitution and a lawyer agrees that the Constitution does not specifically allow trials to be held in absentia. I did provide a health warning to this info, in that as he is not a Philippines Citizen, Griffiths may not enjoy the same protections as would a Filipino. All clear now? :) MarkThanks Mark for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Not sure about the Philippines but back in US of A. No need to wait for all charged parties to be arrested or in custody. Don't see why they can't go ahead and try her by herself and then him if and when the time comes.Why is it that they have to be tried together at the same time? Is it Philippine law? From what I gather you are saying is that in the Philippines as long as one defendant can stay at large then there will never be a trial. That just does not make any common sense to me. But then again there are a lot of people that would probably say I do not have any sense anyway!Because if there is an extradition hearing and the British Home Secretary decides not to extradite him - and not order his prosecution in an English Court - that decision directly affects the trial in Cebu because if Griffiths has no case to answer then, logically, the same is true for Santos. Mark Mark, My question is. Why can't they go ahead and try Santos now and then try Griffiths if and when the time comes? I just do not understand why they have to be tried together. I do not know the Philippine criminal justice system but I do know the US criminal justice system and from all that I have seen it appears that the Philippines system to be very close to that of the US. I also know that in the US that the two co defendents cases can be severed and have different trials. Much like what you seen in Italy and the Amanda Knox case in which there was three defendents. One went to trial first and then the other two were tried at a later date. Edited October 10, 2011 by Garpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hounddriver Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Am I understanding the point here: Is Santo being charged as an accomplis to a crime? And if the accused Brit is not found guilty then she cannot be an accomplice to a crime he was no guilty of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So I am guessing that if she had been in custody then it would not be moot and academic? Maybe another reason she should not have run, because it seems the judges will not rule on something that has no meaning at the time. Suspect in Ella Joy case suffers new setback Veloso, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch, said the defense’s motion was moot and academic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 By Bella's statement, I wonder if they can now charge Griffiths with aiding and abetting a fugitive, of course if they have it on tape and she actually said what the papers say she did. Santos, talking to reporters at the NBI regional headquarters last night, said she and Griffiths are still together and that the latter financed her “partying”, as she described her months in Metro Manila. Story HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 By Bella's statement, I wonder if they can now charge Griffiths with aiding and abetting a fugitive, of course if they have it on tape and she actually said what the papers say she did. Santos, talking to reporters at the NBI regional headquarters last night, said she and Griffiths are still together and that the latter financed her “partying”, as she described her months in Metro Manila. Story HERE Lee I am surprised by your comments. None of us actually heard her say those words. All we have to go on is a report in a newspaper known to sensationalise stories to sell newspapers to a prurient and gullible public. I very much doubt there is even a grain of truth in that. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 By Bella's statement, I wonder if they can now charge Griffiths with aiding and abetting a fugitive, of course if they have it on tape and she actually said what the papers say she did. Santos, talking to reporters at the NBI regional headquarters last night, said she and Griffiths are still together and that the latter financed her “partying”, as she described her months in Metro Manila. Story HERE Lee I am surprised by your comments. None of us actually heard her say those words. All we have to go on is a report in a newspaper known to sensationalise stories to sell newspapers to a prurient and gullible public. I very much doubt there is even a grain of truth in that. MarkMark it often seems that I do not communicate well, what part of the bold part above did I not communicate well, that it would surprise you what I wrote? Also, defendants are not always too smart, and many do not realize the implications of opening their mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) This says a lot about her lawyer. Why would her lawyer allow her to ever talk to the media or the police? It still shocks me to no end everytime I watch the news and see arrested people talking to the media from the police station. Maybe her lawyer forgot to tell her not to talk to anybody or maybe she is just to hard headed and stupid and ignored his advice. She had to be gettng money form somebody and all sign point to Griffith who needs to keep on her good side so that she does not decide to cut a deal and testify against him. The way I see it, if her lawyer has any sense at all then he is going to start making her a victim of the rich foreigner that alot of people in the Philippines like to hate and especially the ones that commit crimes against their children. If I was her lawyer then I would start to distance her from Griffiths as much as possible. She may have a chance at trial if she goes it on her own. If she goes to trial side by side with Griffiths then in my opinion she is toast just like him. If I was Griffiths I would be very, very worried. If she does turn on him and he ends up being brought back to the Philippines then I would say his life expectancy would be very short. I say all of this based on the posiblity that the police may actually have the right suspects this time. I am by no means trying to say that I have seen or read of any evidence that Santos and Griffiths are guilty. For the sack of justice I do however hope that they have it right this time. As far as Mark saying that no request has been made for the arrest or extradition of Griffiths. I would also guess that sense he is not in custody anywhere that the Philippine government and also the government in England would not make this information public in fear of Griffiths fleeing. They will make this type of information public after they have him in custody to avoid looking any more stupid than they already have. Edited October 11, 2011 by Garpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 What surprised me, Lee, is that you should mention this. You've been to Cebu enough times to know that the press here aren't exactly accurate with their reporting. That is particularly true of the paper which carried this story. You may remember that I mentioned that one of its commentators - who know Pique quite well - couldn't even get his (Pique's) name correct in his column! In this case, I suggest they have read between the lines: she may have said that Ian Griffiths is sending money to help with her case. Then asked about what she has been doing - and she replies with (basically) 'enjoying myself' - and the journalist writes that Griffiths has been funding her 'holiday'. Forgive me but you seem to point out things about the defendants and draw attention to their "mistakes" but you seem reticent to criticise the prosecution for their many gaffs and shortcomings. For example, the defence has been requesting the results of the DNA test for two months and the prosecution have steadfastly refused to provide them with a copy. Why should that be? It's a matter of disclosure but this is one document they don't want to disclose thus forcing the defence to apply for a subpoena. Of course we know what the result is - there is no match with Ellah Joy - but unless the prosecution do what they should legally do and that is disclose the document, the defence can not use it. Is that fair? I hardly think so. Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts