COURT 3 PATRICK MORLEY FROM DEFENCE SPEECH:
COURT 3 PATRICK MORLEY
FROM DEFENCE SPEECH:
“WERE THESE PERSONS DECEIVED OR NOT? THERE ARE CURIOUS COMMON
DENOMINATORS.
“FIRST, NONE OF THOSE PERSONS (WITNESSES) ACTUALLY MADE ANY
INQUIRIES.
THEY MUST BE AMONG THE LEAST CURIOUS YOU EVER HEARD OF.
“EITHER THEY DID AND ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH BECAUSE THE
RECEIVED ANSERS ABOUT THE PAST HISTORY OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS IN THE
STORY.
OR THEY TURNED A BLIND EYE.
WHY? UNLESS THEY WERE SUSPICIOUS
OF WHAT AN INQUIRY WOULD BRING FORTH.
RE MCHENDRY:
CALLED HIM “A YOUNG MAN IN A HURRY BUT TOO CLEVER BY HALF”.
SAID HE WAS “CLEVER AND EVASIVE” IN THE WITNESS BOX.
“THE ATTRACTION OF OBTAINING MONEY OF THAT KIND MAYBE ADVERSLY
AFFECTS THE JUDGEMENT OF SO MANY PEOPLE.
“HE (MCHENDRY) DOES NOTHING
– HE TURNS A BLIND EYE.
“MCHENDRY IS NO NOVICE.
” DEFENSE SAYS IT IS ONLY AT THE VERY
END THAT HE GOES TO THE POLICE.
READS FROM STATMENT OF MCHENDRY
“ULTIMATELY I KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH PATRICK MORLEY’S
FATHER.
I KNEW THIS BEFORE SEEING PATRICK MORLEY THE FIRST TIME.
”
DEFENCE: “ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT THIS MAN’S INTENTIONS WERE
HONOURABLE AND THAT HE WAS TAKEN IN OR DO YOU THINK HE WAS GOING
ALLONG WITH THE QUEST FOR GOLD LIKE THE OTHERS AND IGNORING THE SCAM?”
“MAYBE HE COULD SEE THING GOING AWAY.
MAYBE HE COULD SEE THE
HAND OF MORLEY SR,( AND OTHERS) AND THOUGHT THE SOONER HE PULLED OUT
THE BETTER.
”
RE MORLEY: “HE HAS ADMITTED DISHONESTY IN RELATIONSHIP TO
MIRREL LYNCH.
THAT IS ONE THING.
”
REGARDING THE INDICTMENT: “THAT THOSE PERSONS WERE DECEIVED
– WE CONTEND THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN NOT BE CONVINCED OF IN ONE
THOUSAND YEARS.
”
ENDS.
