Innocent victim: Joseph O'Reilly

Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.

Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.

First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)

After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.

Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.

The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.

Judge Martin Steiger

Criminals' friend: Judge Martin Steiger

But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.

Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”

Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.

The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.

Chaprovski celebrates beating justice

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence.  He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.

The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.

23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.

But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.

Thomas Lane shows his attitude to the law

Thomas Lane shows his attitude to the law

The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.

I wonder who.


25 Responses to Daniel Chrapkowski, Thomas Lane and Oliver O’Neill are scum of the earth – and so are the people responsible for their upbringing

  • H says:

    Steady on Davey, not everything I say is targeted at you; you’re not that important here. The details of the valuations are for a level-headed poster further up the page, asking what the newspapers stood to gain in describing a persons accommodation. They were unable to find the article, I provided the details. I’m nice like that =)

    Parenting does affect a child, of course, its pretty much the job description. But if a persons offspring goes astray once in a while, they can hardly be blamed for it immediately. Repeated criminality? Maybe it’s something to look at, but a one-off offence? Hardly.

    As for the ‘significant public interest’? The interest is dying, and rather quickly. These things happen with news quite often; there’s an immediate outcry once journalists and reporters have decided what facts to publish to sell the most papers. Then just as quickly, the story fizzles out. The media tries to keep it going, printing photo’s of people behaving perfectly normally, but adding unsavoury captions in the hope that someone, somewhere is dumb enough to think ‘yeah, this picture clearly shows a man on the way to becoming a thug’. Eventually, all that’s left is a mass of middle-aged balding men crying about ‘Broken Britain’ and how it wasn’t like this in their day. Rather sad, really.

    I’ll repeat again my view, as it seems to have been missed: I do not condone anything that has happened, but I do have the common-sense to look into the case and understand the severity of the sentences. I also suggested maybe their sentences were lenient; but far be it from me to tell the judge he got it wrong. Also missed was my belief about their actions after the sentencing, Dan opting for joy at not going to jail, and Tom showing resentment towards the persistent press. I don’t believe either reaction was to show what they think of the law, or the victim, or anyone else. They’re human reactions of both relief and disdain, but nothing more.

    As for the feeble and unsuccessful attempts to find errors in the blog, I’ve tried to concentrate on what you’ve written, but its so full of knee-jerk red mist that its hard to take you seriously. But I’ll make one last ‘attempt’ to see if you get it yet. Some of the basic facts are there, congratulations; the sentences and lawyers quotes lifted from the press reports seem to be there. But the rest just seems to be mindless assumptions and blind ranting about being ‘spineless’ and ‘remorseless’. With the exception of the sentences and quotes, its fair to say everything else in the blog can be safely ignored as the furious mumblings of a bored individual. With the imagination you have, have you considered taking up a career as a novelist?

    • dkessler says:

      “These things happen with news quite often; there’s an immediate outcry once journalists and reporters have decided what facts to publish to sell the most papers. Then just as quickly, the story fizzles out.”

      That must be why it’s called news.

      “Eventually, all that’s left is a mass of middle-aged balding men crying about ‘Broken Britain’ and how it wasn’t like this in their day. Rather sad, really.”

      And old people who decide to spend their 40th wedding anniversary indoors because if they go out, they’ll have to take that dreaded night bus home and walk past the yobs on the corner and risk getting hassled (if they’re lucky) and mugged (if they aren’t). But hey, who cares? They won’t be around much longer – and the yobs have the vote (even in prison).

      The “mindless assumptions” are the logical conclusions based on the facts that you don’t dispute. So Lane resents the persistent press? How does it compare to being beaten up by yobs? Has he no sense of proportion? Chrapkowski is happy not to go to jail? I don’t doubt that. But to celebrate openly before the cameras, effectively taunting his victim? Does he have no sense of propriety?

      If we agree on the facts, then that’s all that matters. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the opinions. Feel free to ignore it “as the furious mumblings of a bored individual” if you please – but you have a very vociferous way of ignoring things. And perhaps you could tell your friends that next time they get bored, they should also try blogging.

      • gts says:

        David, I just want to say that I fell in love with you when I saw your handsome wikipedia photograph.

        Despite the poor quality of the photograph, your natural good looks shone through.

        You are of course entirely correct in your informative and accurate reporting and also in your assessment of the characters involved. Please ignore the bitter protests of the friends of the yobs who viciously beat up an innocent man. They are dumb idiots and inciters of hate, spitting out their aggressive tirades based on their bias in favour of their criminal friends and they treat their own garbage as certainty. Then when you correct them they come back with smart-arse responses that are full of nonsense.

  • H says:

    Wonderful to see that there are others who take the same view here. The newspaper comments, while largely filled up by the mad rantings of spoon-fed sheep and small-minded bigots, does have the odd rare gem of insight. A lot of the discussions have moved on from the silver-suited celebrations, and onto whether or not tattoos and crime are partners. Hooray for tangents.

    I did indeed see the article detailing the value of the houses; they estimated £100,000 for Mr Chrapkowski’s residence and £230,000 for Mr Lane’s. Of course, these valuations are likely to have been given by either reporter, a photographer or a passer-by. Or possibly by guessing a figure and shaking a Magic 8-Ball for agreement. I’ll say for certain that estate-agents haven’t been round assessing the buildings for themselves, so we can safely say they’ve underestimated the values of both… Heaven forbid these men come from good households; we simply must assume they are bottom-of-the-barrel working class. ‘Thugs’ don’t come from nice areas with loving parents, right?

    Regardless, accurate or inaccurate, the valuations are completely unnecessary. As are the stolen photographs so aptly displayed on the following days’ pages, one of which has been lovingly re-displayed above. What exactly do the pictures show? Do they show loutish behaviour? Thugs behaving like thugs? I’m afraid to let you down here, but they simply don’t. Look again carefully; you might just see pictures of a group of lads, having good times. They depict parties. They’re hanging out at each others houses. They’re chatting outdoors, or dressing up in costumes. I’m afraid the only things these pictures show is that these are average men, having a good time and enjoying life. The tattoo’s, the drinking, the whole lot only serves to show them as normal people. Disappointing, hey? Sorry if you were expecting more.

    One last note, regarding the issue of photographers. As you stated, being photographed outside a courtroom is hardly being hounded. This I agree with. However I would expect you agree with the idea that being chased by photographers through the streets to your car probably does count as being hounded, at least to some degree. Also, posting a photographer to sit outside the residence of someone for 5 consecutive days might count as being hounded to some degree too. You’ve probably figured out that, yes, I do know the three men in question. Hence why I’m a little vocal regarding the blind assumptions that have been made regarding the lifestyle, upbringing and personalities of the three men convicted.

    I did make an attempt to eliminate all inaccuracies from your initial blog, including any false assumptions and wild, angry, foaming-at-the-mouth guesses. Unfortunately having never seen somebody make so many errors in a single piece of text, I swiftly gave up.

    • dkessler says:

      I don’t see that what others said about the value of the houses in which the yobs live has anything to do with me. I made no comments about the value of houses. I was simply curious after another comment mentioned that it had been reported in the press. I thought those same articles might also contain some reference to the parents as people. Obviously the value of their houses has no bearing on the behaviour of their offspring – although having said that, the behaviour of their offspring might have an affect on the value of the neighbours’ houses!

      Thugs come from all manner of housing, just as decent people do. I grew up in a council flat and did not become a thug. However, parenting DOES have an awful lot to do with it.

      Where do I say that the picture that I showed of Chrapowski and O’Neil together showed loutish behaviour? I said that the picture of Lane making a rude gesture showed that. And the picture of Chrapowski celebrating showed a lack of remorse. Once again you seem to be reading into my blog something that I never wrote. This is all growing really tiresome. Perhaps you will stop arguing about things that appeared in the tabloids and concentrate on what I actually wrote – if you have anything to say on that subject.

      No I do NOT agree that being chased from a court building to a car is being hounded, not if there is a legitimate interest in the case in which one has been convicted of a violent crime – and that includes affray. Even posting some one outside the house is not excessive if there is a significant public interest in the case. And yes, for the record I do distinguish between the victim and the criminal as to what is reasonable press behaviour.

      If you know the three men in question, then perhaps you’d like to nail your colours to the mast and say where YOU stand on their behaviour, what YOU think of their actions, how they (and you) feel about their victim and whether they really ARE remorseful – and if so, how you/they account for the behaviour of the two outside the court. Also if you know Oliver O’Neill, perhaops you could offer some insight into why some one who is already in trouble for a vicious assault would proceed to commit another while on bail?

      If you could helping the rest of us to understand these things, that would be a far more useful contribution to the debate than your feeble and unsuccessful attempts to find errors of fact in what I wrote.

  • Hall says:

    If we look back through our lives we have all been victims at some point.

  • Hall says:

    I don’t have a link but I remember it referred to both sets of parents homes.
    When will this ever be allowed to rest?

    • dkessler says:

      It’s not like it’s ancient history. I’m sure it all blow over in time. But who really has a legitimate right to ask that it be allowed to rest? As far as I’m concerned, only the victim.

  • Ward says:

    My point about Milly Dowler was that she was not a celebrity in response to your point “That might be true of celebrity paparazzi, but not news photographers”.

    I am not qualified to correct you on the “victim impact statement” and have never been in a courtroom.

    I am a parent however, and I think we should recognise that Thomas Lane did not celebrate afterwards

    • dkessler says:

      We were talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about photographers – and specifically those outside the court. I wasn’t suggesting that all journalists are angels.

      Thomas Lane didn’t celebrate. He did however make a rude gesture. Was that gesture aimed only the photographer? Or at the photograph? In other words was it intended for those who would see the photograph – i.e. the public?

  • Hall says:

    You can only guide your children so far in life. Once they reach their majority you can only advise, you can’t choose their friends for them. One news article commented on the value of his parents home, what difference does this make?

    • dkessler says:

      “You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.” (Kahlil Gibran)

      I suppose that the further they fly from the bow, the more the cross-winds and laws of physics take over.

      BTW what was the article that mentioned the parents?

      • Hall says:

        I read on one of the articles written on the internet after a google search.

        • dkessler says:

          Do you have a link for it? Or can you tell me the search terms. I’d like to take a look at it. BTW, to which of them (and whose parents) did it refer?

  • Ward says:

    I have never read one of your books, but I find this article quite surprising. You mention the way in which lawyers use language, but I find that your use of language is quite childlike. The name calling is reminiscent of the playground, for example “cowardly, yellow-belied (spelling?), lily-livered little Mama’s Boy” and “spineless, sissy-boy”. This kind of language usually implies anger that is felt personally, and I see from one of your replies that you have had the misfortune to have been a victim of crime yourself.
    As a society we must never condone violence, so again I find it surprising that you regard it as cowardly that Thomas Lane “feigned punches against Mr. O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw”.
    It is really shocking that someone in the position of Daniel Chrapkowski should show such disrespect emerging from the courtroom, but we should be careful not to tar Mr. Lane or his parents with the same brush. Would this not indicate prejudice?
    We have all been disgusted with the behaviour of the press recently, most notably with the phone tapping of Milly Dowler, a murder victim not a “celebrity”. It is not acceptable to chase someone who has left the courtroom in a non-celebratory manner. Section 4 of the Press Complaints Commission Code of practice states;
    i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
    ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
    I hope that you can take these points on board, they are not intended to detract in any way from the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. Surely it is not too much to ask to be able to read a balanced version of events in the media? Prejudice and bias is a very dangerous thing, and will lead us all astray.

    • dkessler says:

      It is true that I feel deep anger at this miscarriage of justice – just as I feel anger at miscarriages of justice in which innocent people are convicted, such as Michael Stone in the Lin and Megan Russell case on the basis of an alleged confession made to a criminal of dubious probity.

      I stand by my conclusions that Lane’s behaviour indicated that he wanted to commit violence against Mr O’Reilly, but lacked the courage. Did he do anything to stop the violence? This would suggest that either he didn’t want to stop it – in which case he was complicit in mind if not in deed – or that he did want to stop intervene to stop it but was afraid to do so. Either way it would imply cowardice.

      I do not know who was responsible for Lane’s upbringing, but whoever it was must share a significant measure of responsibility for the way that he turned out. He is only 24: that means his upbringing is in the recent past.

      If we are to avoid sweeping generalizations about criminals who act in a joint enterprise, then should we not be equally careful about generalizing about the press. The Milly Dowler analogy is misleading because the yobs convicted in this case were not victims. They were criminals in a case that was the legitimate subject of public interest. I agree that harassment by the press is wrong. (I am familiar with it indirectly, as a result of having co-written a book with Colin Stagg.) But I do not see how following the convicted criminals from the court to their car constitutes harassment, intimidation or even persistent pursuit. It was a one off, between court building and car. Hardly persistent. Even knocking on their door afterwards in the hope of a comment (such as an apology) is not altogether unreasonable.

      I am a firm belief in accurate – not necessarily balanced – reporting. But there are not two sides to everything. Moreover, it is the victim who is unrepresented in a criminal court. Even the so-called “victim impact statement” is more a get-it-off-your-chest exercise and as far as I know judges are not even allowed to consider its content when imposing sentence. (I am open to correction on this point.)

  • Hall says:

    Has anyone considered that these young men are probably feeling very remorseful now. I don’t agree with the gestures that were made outside court or the actions of those involved on the day in question. But if you are hounded by the press who do not put the whole story across to the public instead chosing to publish only what will sell their papers more than their rivals then you are going to react. It is very noticable that the high class tabolid newspaper hasn’t published anything until today. There are always tow sides to a story.

    • dkessler says:

      The behaviour of the two who got non-custodial sentences, outside the court, doesn’t suggest remorse. I don’t know what they are feeling now, but I suspect that it is more akin to self-pity. Being photographed outside a courtroom is hardly being hounded. And it is not as if there isn’t a legitimate public interest in these yobs.

      Yes there are two sides to this story: the judge’s and the victim’s.

  • H says:

    I am fully aware Mr O’Neill was given 27 months; I knew this before the vast majority of the press knew about it. Unfortunately a good portion of the press has taken it upon themselves to announce he got over three years. I rather expected most of the half-minded ranters to assume the reporters always know best, relying on their ‘superior knowledge’ to spoon-feed them all the information they need. Hence why I assumed the safest route here was to say ‘over three years’.

    The main press interest in the case was aroused by the behaviour of one of the men outside of court. One of the men was cheering at the sentence he was given. One of the men was photographed doing so outside the court. One of the men appeared like this on numerous newspapers, including the Sun’s front page.

    And yet newspapers have taken it upon themselves to accuse both Mr Chrapkowski and Mr Lane of celebrating wildly outside the court, when only one image has been published showing one man showing his relief at the sentence. Are we to assume there are pictures of both men dancing on the courts doorstep, cheering and waving in the air, but that these have simply gotten lost? Or do they not exist because that just did not happen.

    Consider this: Perhaps Mr Chrapkowski was expecting a sentence similar to that of Mr O’Neill. However his involvement was deemed less severe, and his sentence reflects that. Perhaps he is relieved. Perhaps Mr Lane, having been granted a non-custodial sentence for being found not-guilty of physical violence, is relieved. Yet maybe he doesn’t appreciate the ambush of photographers outside? Imagine, if you can, being chased by photographers and reporters after you have left a building, and them doing so all the way to your car. Would you not feel some degree of resentment towards those parasites?

    I do not condone anything that has happened, but I do have the common-sense to look into the case and understand the severity of the sentences.

    • dkessler says:

      You wrote “What the press has so conveniently glossed over, is that the man responsible for almost every punch or kick thrown has been jailed for over 3 years.” I don’t follow your convoluted logic. I had already written “27 months” in my blog and you say you were aware of this sentence too. So why say “over three years” – it makes no sense.

      I did not say that they both celebrated. I didn’t even say that Chrapkowski did. I merely stated that they showed their “arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court” – letting the pictures speak for themselves. One of them celebrated; the other simply made a rude gesture.

      I’m sure that Chrapkowski was expecting a higher sentence and was happy (or at least relieved) not to get it. But that does not justify his celebration outside the court – and it is clear that he is well aware of the camera and is posing for it. As for Lane not appreciating the “ambush of photographers” outside – since when does the world exist to fulfill his appreciation? Did he not know that his actions and their consequences are matters of legitimate public interest?

      How would I feel if I were in Lane’s position? First of all I cannot imagine myself choosing the course of action that Lane chose, but if I did, then I would hang my head in shame not only in court but also when I left the court. And if I got off with a lighter sentence than I expected, I would gush my profuse thanks to the court, apologize to my victim and walk quietly away, showing not defiance, but the same remorse outside the court that I had claimed to feel inside the court. I do not regard photographers taking pictures of criminals leaving court as parasites. That might be true of celebrity paparazzi, but not news photographers. They perform a useful service – far more useful than yobs who overturn rubbish bins and assault people.

      Furthermore, I do not know what you mean by “the severity of the sentences” – leniency would be a more accurate word. You may consider this ranting, but as some one who has been beaten up by three yobs myself, I recognize the inherent injustice of imposing non-custodial sentences on those who participate in acts of group violence. Judges who drive home (or are driven) to safe middle-class neighbourhoods, do not easily relate to the person who has to take the night bus home and then walk past that gang of yobs hanging out on the street corner making – what do their lawyers call it? – mischief.

  • H says:

    You seem to have got caught up in the whole ‘story’ that all three were equally responsible, and dealt equal damage to Mr O’Reilly. Unfortunately, if anyone had enough intelligence to read what actually happened, they’d know that Mr Chrapkowski dealt a blow. That much he confessed to. Mr Lane didn’t in fact harm the victim in any way. You can class his actions as threatening, but the reason he was not charged with GBH is because you actually have to harm the person. The ‘shadow-boxing’ he admitted to, doesn’t really fall into this category.

    What the press has so conveniently glossed over, is that the man responsible for almost every punch or kick thrown has been jailed for over 3 years. Mr O’Neill had been convicted once before, and this went against him, hence why maybe Mr Chrapkowski didn’t get a custodial sentence.

    Were the sentences light? Maybe. Maybe Mr O’Neill should have got a longer sentence. Maybe Mr Chrapkowski should have a custodial sentence for his confession of GBH. Maybe Mr Lane should have got more time added to his non-custodial sentence. But did they all have an equal share of the damage dealt? No, and their sentences reflect that.

    You would think that for someone who writes fiction involving legal battles, police investigations and the like would have paid some degree of attention to the actual details of this case. Instead you’ve bitten the bait dangled so temptingly in front of you by the press. Now swim on little fishy, swim on.

    • dkessler says:

      If you had read what I wrote, you would have noted that I stated that Lane “feigned punches” (or “shadow boxing” as he and his lawyer disingenuously described it). You say that Lane “didn’t in fact harm the victim in any way” by which I presume you mean that he struck no blows that made contact. However, as I pointed out, the feigning of punches towards Mr O’Reilly was the first event, from which the violence forseeably followed. Accordingly, I stated my conclusion that Lane’s action “triggered the violence.” You may disagree with this conclusion, but I stand by it. I certainly did not gloss over the fact that Lane merely feigned mock punches – indicating the gulf between what he wanted to do and what he had the courage to do.

      I also argued that in the context of a joint enterprise – such as this clearly was – Lane’s actions could not be dismissed as mere “tomfoolery” or “mischief” but constituted thuggery. Again you may disagree, but I did not gloss over the facts. I presented the facts and then stated my conclusions.

      O’Neil was sentenced to 27 months, which is just over two years – not three as you, with your self-styled attention to detail, erroneously stated. Of that 27 months, he will probably serve half, so even our mutual use of the term “jailed for” could be misleading. I also stated that O’Neil had committed similar violent offences before. So this detail too was present in what I wrote.

      The press interest in the case was aroused not only by the leniency of the sentences, but also by the arrogant behaviour of the two criminals who avoided custody – behaviour which called into question the very basis for that leniency. I noticed in your diatribe against me and the press, you glossed over this fact.

      Finally, I never stated that the respective contributions of the three yobs were equal in magnitude, or that they should all have received equal sentences. But I did make it clear that the magnitude of their crime was such as to merit custodial sentences in all three cases. You are free to differ and welcome to write a blog of your own, in which you can bring your formidable knowledge and erudition to bear on situation – including any direct knowledge you may have about the participants in this horrendous act of thuggery.

    • zach roberts says:

      I couldnt agree more, finally, somebody talking sense about this story. the media have blown it so much out of proportion, the public has lost sight of the true events

  • I say this as shouldn’t (being a lawyer myself), but there’s a reason that the practice of law has been called “the second oldest profession”…;-)