Now that he has been convicted and sentenced Sky news are running a 
lengthy piece on the case in which they feature incriminating e-mails 
and voice mails between the canoe man and wife, which they say are 
"exclusive" to sky news. Presumably these would have been "uncovered" 
legally?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:08:50 +0100, Fred  wrote:

>Now that he has been convicted and sentenced Sky news are running a 
>lengthy piece on the case in which they feature incriminating e-mails 
>and voice mails between the canoe man and wife, which they say are 
>"exclusive" to sky news. Presumably these would have been "uncovered" 
>legally?


You can pesume what you like - they be a isp

NOSPAMNOSPAMnet@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:08:50 +0100, Fred  wrote:
> 
>> Now that he has been convicted and sentenced Sky news are running a 
>> lengthy piece on the case in which they feature incriminating e-mails 
>> and voice mails between the canoe man and wife, which they say are 
>> "exclusive" to sky news. Presumably these would have been "uncovered" 
>> legally?
> 
> 
> You can pesume what you like - they be a isp
> 
> 
> 

   Thank you for letting me presume what I like then.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:08:50 +0100, Fred  wrote:

>Now that he has been convicted and sentenced Sky news are running a 
>lengthy piece on the case in which they feature incriminating e-mails 
>and voice mails between the canoe man and wife, which they say are 
>"exclusive" to sky news. Presumably these would have been "uncovered" 
>legally?

Presumably yes, and used in the trial, I suspect. "Exclusive" (where
the media is concerned) is a meaningless  marketing term. Hence the
not uncommon sight of several newspapers on display together in a shop
all trumpeting the same "Exclusive" story,

Cheers,

John