Did Stone draw inspiration from Slugger’s readers?

Michael Stone’s “It was Art” claim, rightly was thrown out of court. If it was an attempt to emulate those Leeds students, the use of viable devices gave it away as a decidedly non art event. It struck me as strangely familiar when it went big. Well, now I wonder if his defence team got the idea from our commenters on the day of the incident itself…

Here’s Rory at 11.39am (Less than an hour after the incident):

Never mind, cheer up – society’s loss is the art world’s gain. The salons of Europe will wait in keen anticipation the arrival of the latest collection of the prison masterpieces.

And then Yokel at 12.05pm:

This guy has such a penchance for publicity. You can’t help but laugh. I think its art myself….

Either it was art, or someone got a cracking idea for an admittedly implausible defence…

  • Mark McGregor

    Mick,

    What your question would be asking, as Stone was in the clink, is did some members of the legal profession consult Slugger O’Toole before advising their client on his defence.

    And if that’s the case, we now have you, briefs and Stoner hotly contesting the winners spot for biggest nut in this tale. ;0)

  • RepublicanStones

    Mick, i think you’ve double posted this thread. Or else my laptops up the left !

    As regards Stone, lets face it, the clown couldn’t have come up with anything else for a defence. I heard Lionel Hutz was his solicitor.

  • Mark McGregor

    Remember though, some wrote manys an article or even books using this fantisist as an unnamed source – or even worse, hang your head in shame, a named source.

  • Mark McGregor

    ADDS: Does anyone know which journos he addressed the letters to? I’d loved to know who exactly Stone thought would buy and print any old crap.

    Imagine being on Michael Stone’s list of gullible dicks. Bet they are still pumping it out.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    One went to Lindy McDowell, and I believe another to the London Evening Standard. However, you are perhaps mistaken, in that the letters weren’t about the ‘performance art’ excuse and about politics, selling out, who he was going to kill and why and so on. The ‘art’ excuse came later.

  • McGrath

    His ‘art” defense served its purpose by gaining him more publicity.

    Gerard Devlins killer got 11 years, Stone will therefor be out in a fortnight, after all he didn’t really hurt anyone.

    I’m sure he is busy writing his next book as we type.

  • McGrath

    Oh, and in answer to the original question, probably no, his is quite mad enough to have thought it up by himself without any help from the nutters on here.

  • Rory

    If I am to be given any credit (blame?) for Stone’s choice of defence then Mick might well, in this thread, have given him a good idea for appeal – poor legal representation – counsel relied upon the advice of a well known red republican ranter on Slugger O’Toole.

    If however Stone were to prove susceptible to my suggestions the next one would probably involve a millstone and a swift current.

  • Paul McMahon

    Dev´s murderer wasn´t out on licence McG. The prosecution brief will have a field day with this and I´d be very surprised if Stone gets such a leniant sentence.

  • Skintown Lad

    all the above notwithstanding, of course, that officers of the court (solicitors and barristers) do not just think up the factual basis for their clients’ defences. they take the facts as they are told them by the defendant and argue the appropriate application of the law. to suggest to the client a convenient set of facts in the first place would be entirely improper. which is why we’re not seriously suggesting they did. of course.

  • McGrath

    I´d be very surprised if Stone gets such a leniant sentence.

    Posted by Paul McMahon on Nov 26, 2008 @ 12:30 PM

    He is hoping for 50 years himself, so he doesnt have to go back to the Braniel to live in fear.

    I’d chain him to a post in Milltown cemetery myself.