Chek??

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:47 am

Hi all
I havent read the document, but for what its worth I think the phrase did not carry a chek refers to the fact that he did not carry a weapon/stick hence to use to "check" the victim ie hit/immobolise.

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:38 am

Hello Stewie,

It’ll be a tragedy if the yet-to-be-read Trial Papers don’t reveal the meaning of this troublesome word. We’ll be left in suspense forever.

Alan

Post by **Jean Jeanie** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:12 pm

Hi All

I have read the trial papers from beginning to end and the chek/stick is never mentioned again

Why it was ever mentioned in the first place is a mystery.

The more I look at it I see "stick", so for the time being I am "sticking" with this

It is the only word in the whole set of papers that poses a problem, so, all in all, I'm pretty pleased.

Best wishes
Jean

Post by **SarahND** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:20 pm

Hi Jean,
So all the other people's evidence points towards him using his fists only?
I can see that poor Alan is going to lose some sleep on this one

-- quick! Someone find him a new puzzle to take his mind off the "chek"!

Regards,
Sarah

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:51 am

You’re not wrong Sarah,

Although I’ll probably have to just let it remain as one of life’s little mysteries.

Unless it was .…………….ummm…………..…..

Alan