Nicole-b could be right .. but good questions, Blue.
"denied the opportunity to represent herself." doubtful (unless nicole is right) - since Dubai prides itself on being open and cosmopolitan. The statement implies that it was purposely done. It could be simply procedural - that the summons was not served on her (but deemed served according to applicable laws) and she didn't know the hearing date and thus did not turn up and judgment was entered against her in default thereof. (Eg. service of summons could be at her last known address and if she wasn't in, a few attempts sufficient to satisfy court that the summons is deemed properly served, etc. I dunno. Maybe or maybe not but ... insufficient details).
As for the report - one sided focus (even though the husband was questioned by the reporters), slant allowed by the editors because of policy of criticizing Dubai maybe. Attempt to garner public support to foster change to, say ... protection of freedoms like sex on the beach?
DNA testing - good but may come up with (an)other suspect(s). She alleges being framed, so she has to prove it. The husband has already proved a pf case against her - having tea with a man alone, used condoms, underpants and jacket. So the burden shifts to her but proving her side might be an uphill task - depending ...
/But having said all the above, to be fair to the newspapers - it is understandable that they would not want to publish too many details as then it would be a "trial by the press and public" when rightly, it is tried by the courts. It's just that that article/report should make fair comment for both parties instead of the one sided story it ended up publishing.
//One concise paragraph with husband's side of the story cf the several paragraphs of the wife's side of the story is a bit glaring, don't you think? Stating facts, yeah.. but could have condensed the several paragraphs into just 1 or 2.
*****************************************
Don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama
Nicole-b could be right .. but good questions, Blue.
"denied the opportunity to represent herself." doubtful (unless nicole is right) - since Dubai prides itself on being open and cosmopolitan. The statement implies that it was purposely done. It could be simply procedural - that the summons was not served on her (but deemed served according to applicable laws) and she didn't know the hearing date and thus did not turn up and judgment was entered against her in default thereof. (Eg. service of summons could be at her last known address and if she wasn't in, a few attempts sufficient to satisfy court that the summons is deemed properly served, etc. I dunno. Maybe or maybe not but ... insufficient details).
As for the report - one sided focus (even though the husband was questioned by the reporters), slant allowed by the editors because of policy of criticizing Dubai maybe. Attempt to garner public support to foster change to, say ... protection of freedoms like sex on the beach?
DNA testing - good but may come up with (an)other suspect(s). She alleges being framed, so she has to prove it. The husband has already proved a pf case against her - having tea with a man alone, used condoms, underpants and jacket. So the burden shifts to her but proving her side might be an uphill task - depending ...
/But having said all the above, to be fair to the newspapers - it is understandable that they would not want to publish too many details as then it would be a "trial by the press and public" when rightly, it is tried by the courts. It's just that that article/report should make fair comment for both parties instead of the one sided story it ended up publishing.
//One concise paragraph with husband's side of the story cf the several paragraphs of the wife's side of the story is a bit glaring, don't you think? Stating facts, yeah.. but could have condensed the several paragraphs into just 1 or 2.
*****************************************
Don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama