Aero Leather Clothing trial update

[Smithy]

Kids, nicking stuff which isn't yours is never a good idea. Apart from being highly immoral you'll eventually end up getting a bloody good kick up the backside (literally and/or metaphorically)

Shame the sale is only at the factory - I totally understand - but it would've been fun for those outside of Scotland to have the chance to snap up a bargain. Oh well, as I opined in another thread I've probably got enough jackets to last me several decades at the very least!

 

[tropicalbob]

Reading through the judge's summary, I was surprised (as I always am when I'm familiar with a case) by the way in which the whole case was squeezed down into this question of whether or not there was an agreement about the stealing. There's no mention at all of the complete betrayal of trust: the copying of the patterns (on company time) and their being given to the competitor that WL was going to work for, Wl's intentional disaffection of the workers in the Aero plant, and the emotional strain put on the family. Courtrooms, necessarily, I suppose, tend to winnow cases down to a few provable facts, but it's always a little shocking.

 

[Worf]

See what happens when you git old. I totally missed the whole Butte self-flagellation posts. Hey man don't stop beatin' yerself up... some of us'n missed it first time round! LOL. Nah Butte you're one of my nearest and dearest here.... You'd have to do a whole lot worse to sour us on ya.

Worf

 

[jacketjunkie]

Reading through the judge's summary, I was surprised (as I always am when I'm familiar with a case) by the way in which the whole case was squeezed down into this question of whether or not there was an agreement about the stealing. There's no mention at all of the complete betrayal of trust: the copying of the patterns (on company time) and their being given to the competitor that WL was going to work for, Wl's intentional disaffection of the workers in the Aero plant, and the emotional strain put on the family. Courtrooms, necessarily, I suppose, tend to winnow cases down to a few provable facts, but it's always a little shocking.

That is because all these questions have no relevance for the question of theft, which was the subject of this criminal trial. All these things might be relevant for a civil trial if the Calders decide to sue for compensation/damages. You're mixing up criminal charges and civil ones, that's why you are irritated.

 

[Sloan1874]

The judge's decision came down to the grounds of Lauder's appeal - namely the definition of stealing and whether the judge moved to stop inadmissible evidence being given.
In Scots Law, you can't appeal the jury's verdict only procedural stuff: how the judge directed the jury, the way evidence was presented or, occasionally, the length of sentence, but it always comes down to how the law was applied.
That's why the case was compressed in the way it was - the judge's report is, by all accounts, a pretty short one.

 

[Superfluous]

^ Sloan is spot on. The appellate court opinion did not address whether the verdict was correct or adequately supported by the evidence. Rather, the opinion focuses on the specific procedural errors alleged by Lauder as the basis for his appeal; and, upon determining that the trial court did not commit the errors alleged by Lauder, the appellate court upheld the conviction.

 

[ButteMT61]

But but they had an understanding - Will could work 30 minutes late and he could then grab a few jackets in return.
Seems more than fair. I can't believe that story didn't work. You Limey's are a crazy lot!