FRIIDDAAYYY!! (IM SURE I HAVE ABOUT 9 ARTICLES ALL WITH THAT NAME) so I will add stuff to this title to make it really long so there arent so many.

hi people! It has been a busy and ultimatley tiring week and also the week, I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks so, has gone quickly. Updates: hmm.. I have got a new case for the mock trials, and that will be in about six weeks when I am going to coventry to defend either the case I have already done or the new case, so in the week leading up to that, I doubt very very very much I will be writing here. But until then, the crazy confused ramblings of Sam, are here to stay! The case, is about a vehicle theft, and I am defending. This is a fairly balanced case, unlike the Jack Johnson case, which was tilted in a slightly favourable manor, towards the defence winning the case. There are strong points for each argument. In every case I defend, even if the evidence is telling me the absolute opposite, I beleive that my client is innocent, and even if as an un-biased person I would condemn as guilty, I still get stuck into a biased mind frame. So I want to ask you all (wow, onto questions already) What you think, and why, if the person is guilty or not; I won't give you the entire details, just the likley arguments to be put forward by defence and then prosecution:
The owner of the car, and the owner's friend are the people claiming they saw the defendant in the car driving. They have admitted they only saw the back of the driver's head. The lighting was poor and there are endless amount of factors suggesting that an accurate identification was almost impossible to make. Therefore, the I will be arguing that in The defendants case.
The prosecution, I presume, will be enquiring into the following; The fact that the defendant had the car keys in his pocket when he was arrested, the fact he ran away from the car when he collected the keys. He has said that he knew the owner of the car (from the number-plate, which was personalised.) to which there is no dispute, and he wished to return the car key's to the owner (even after it was crashed??). Then he ran because he was feeling ill and he wanted to get home (which his friends have agreed, he was feeling ill, without collaborating. Also he was sick in the police car).
Do you think he's guilty? Onto your questions (yay, I can stop with all that fancy writing)
Blood donar? Yes. Do I need go any further (Damn! I had to stop myself from saying 'elaborate' instead of 'go any further', 'restrain' instead of stop and 'as oppose to' instead of 'instead'. Scince this lawyer thing, my head has litterally become a theasorus. STOP BRAIN, I COMMAND YOU!) Anyway, yes. yes. and yes, If it means they give me biscuits at the end then sign me up. I suppose the prosepect of perhaps helping someone is a plus, too.
What is my favorite thing to purchase? Books. books, books and more books. Ok, this time I will go further, otherwise I will have gotten by my entire article by just giving a one word answer over and over again.
I think I've already asked a question, but I just want some feedback: We need to start looking for some other people to fill in the massive gaps in our blog.. anybody?? We need to get together at some point and talk, provided that stickam isn't the un-reliable.. thing it is, and that messenger doesn't do that stupid thing which means Chris Emma and I can't all be in the same conversation without it breaking.
Boi!