Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
And some people think reinstating the death sentence is a good idea
Here is another example of why killing people based on police evidence is a very bad idea.
<<Diaries that could have helped clear a man convicted of murdering his wife were kept by police for at least 17 years, it has been claimed.
Eddie Gilfoyle was sentenced to life in 1993 for killing wife Paula, found hanged while heavily pregnant in the garage of their home in Upton, Wirral.
He served 18 years in jail and was released on parole in 2010.
It has emerged that police held two of Mrs Gilfoyle's diaries which allegedly show she had suicidal thoughts.>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-merseyside-16447836
<<Diaries that could have helped clear a man convicted of murdering his wife were kept by police for at least 17 years, it has been claimed.
Eddie Gilfoyle was sentenced to life in 1993 for killing wife Paula, found hanged while heavily pregnant in the garage of their home in Upton, Wirral.
He served 18 years in jail and was released on parole in 2010.
It has emerged that police held two of Mrs Gilfoyle's diaries which allegedly show she had suicidal thoughts.>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-merseyside-16447836
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zeuhl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have seen enough in the last couple of years of how corrupt some of the police are to know we should never have the death penalty. You cant trust them.
Look at how many police were involved in these "Facebook" related criminal activities.
http://www.guardian.c...sacked-facebook-posts
Look at how many police were involved in these "Facebook" related criminal activities.
http://www.guardian.c...sacked-facebook-posts
Old Geezer - indeed.
I have never understood how one can abhor murder because killing another person is wrong; and then think that an appropriate reaction is to 'officially kill' someone. All too 'old testament' for my liking.
Killing someone (other than in self defence) is either wrong or it's not.
The numerous miscarriages of justice simply underline that fact.
It is disturbing that any jury could be persuaded 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone can coerce another into a credible suicide without any directly corroborating evidence.
I have never understood how one can abhor murder because killing another person is wrong; and then think that an appropriate reaction is to 'officially kill' someone. All too 'old testament' for my liking.
Killing someone (other than in self defence) is either wrong or it's not.
The numerous miscarriages of justice simply underline that fact.
It is disturbing that any jury could be persuaded 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone can coerce another into a credible suicide without any directly corroborating evidence.
Try having your ignorance enlightened, why don't you? The attached article for a start is full of hearsay and allegations only.
Plus, in this country, it is a jury which convicts on the basis of evidence put in front of it by the Crown Prosecution Service. Thus, stupid comments like "based on police evidence" is not only erroneous but ridiculous in the extreme.
What a silly and misguided post.
Plus, in this country, it is a jury which convicts on the basis of evidence put in front of it by the Crown Prosecution Service. Thus, stupid comments like "based on police evidence" is not only erroneous but ridiculous in the extreme.
What a silly and misguided post.
Eyethenkyew,
How are a jury or defence supposed to get the answer correct if important evidence is witheld? It is possible that in the case in the link the husband was guilty. But if the case hinged on whether it was murder or suicide and they had a diary by the 'victim' detailing other suicide attempts, then witholding, losing, hiding or suppressing its contents greatly hads to the probability of a miscarrage of justice.
How are a jury or defence supposed to get the answer correct if important evidence is witheld? It is possible that in the case in the link the husband was guilty. But if the case hinged on whether it was murder or suicide and they had a diary by the 'victim' detailing other suicide attempts, then witholding, losing, hiding or suppressing its contents greatly hads to the probability of a miscarrage of justice.
murder goes way beyond law and rights etc. just because its done in an "offcial" and "legal" way doesnt make it any more acceptable than done in anger or emotion in a back alley ... murder is murder.
the law is just laws to run towns and people and keep things in check... it should not have powers of life and death ...
the only person who has the right to kill a person is themselves...that is the only body or life they own and have control over...
the law is just laws to run towns and people and keep things in check... it should not have powers of life and death ...
the only person who has the right to kill a person is themselves...that is the only body or life they own and have control over...
stefan ivan kiszko
>> After hearing the new evidence, Lord Chief Justice Lane said: "It has been shown that this man cannot produce sperm. This man cannot have been the person responsible for ejaculating over the girl's knickers and skirt, and consequently cannot have been the murderer". Kiszko was cleared and Lane ordered his immediate release from prison custody. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, a Conservative MP said, "This must be the worst miscarriage of justice of all time" and, like many others, demanded a full, independent and wide ranging inquiry into the conviction.
The 1976 trial judge Sir Hugh Park, who had praised the police and the 13-year-old girls at the original trial for bringing Kiszko to justice, apologised for what had happened to Kiszko but said he wasn't sorry for how he had handled the court case. The Molseed family, who were convinced of Kiszko guilt up to the very moment of him being cleared, also publicly apologised for the things they had said after his conviction such as demanding that he be hanged in public. In 1976 Lesley Molseed's father, Fred Anderson, had hurled a volley of verbal abuse at Charlotte Kiszko outside the court after her son was convicted. Anderson had also told the media that he would be outside the prison gates waiting for Kiszko should he be ever released. In February 1992, Kiszko's mother said that it was David Waddington who ought to be "strung up" for his pro-capital punishment views and for the way he had handled her son's defence at the 1976 trial. <<
>> After hearing the new evidence, Lord Chief Justice Lane said: "It has been shown that this man cannot produce sperm. This man cannot have been the person responsible for ejaculating over the girl's knickers and skirt, and consequently cannot have been the murderer". Kiszko was cleared and Lane ordered his immediate release from prison custody. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, a Conservative MP said, "This must be the worst miscarriage of justice of all time" and, like many others, demanded a full, independent and wide ranging inquiry into the conviction.
The 1976 trial judge Sir Hugh Park, who had praised the police and the 13-year-old girls at the original trial for bringing Kiszko to justice, apologised for what had happened to Kiszko but said he wasn't sorry for how he had handled the court case. The Molseed family, who were convinced of Kiszko guilt up to the very moment of him being cleared, also publicly apologised for the things they had said after his conviction such as demanding that he be hanged in public. In 1976 Lesley Molseed's father, Fred Anderson, had hurled a volley of verbal abuse at Charlotte Kiszko outside the court after her son was convicted. Anderson had also told the media that he would be outside the prison gates waiting for Kiszko should he be ever released. In February 1992, Kiszko's mother said that it was David Waddington who ought to be "strung up" for his pro-capital punishment views and for the way he had handled her son's defence at the 1976 trial. <<
For those unfamiliar with the Stefan Kiszko case, here is a link.
http://menmedia.co.uk...rime_with_two_victims
Apart from the anger of apparent miscarriages of Justice, I often wonder what the Police were playing at.
Were the police lazy? Incompetent? Evil? Blind? Under pressure?
http://menmedia.co.uk...rime_with_two_victims
Apart from the anger of apparent miscarriages of Justice, I often wonder what the Police were playing at.
Were the police lazy? Incompetent? Evil? Blind? Under pressure?
-- answer removed --
If redvanman doesn't believe in human rights what is he doing expressing a view on the justice system?
And as he has no rights himself he won't mind having it pointed out that his post is illiterate, unintelligent and 'shouting'.
DNA is just the latest 'forensics' capable, like its predecessors of being distorted, abused and misrepresented to a court.
And as he has no rights himself he won't mind having it pointed out that his post is illiterate, unintelligent and 'shouting'.
DNA is just the latest 'forensics' capable, like its predecessors of being distorted, abused and misrepresented to a court.
no mistakes with dna ?
Barry Michael George (born 15 April 1960, also known as Barry Bulsara)[1] is a British man who was wrongly convicted on 2 July 2001 of the murder of British television presenter Jill Dando. His murder conviction was judged unsafe by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and was quashed on 15 November 2007. His retrial began on 9 June 2008;[2][3] he was acquitted on 1 August 2008.[
Barry Michael George (born 15 April 1960, also known as Barry Bulsara)[1] is a British man who was wrongly convicted on 2 July 2001 of the murder of British television presenter Jill Dando. His murder conviction was judged unsafe by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and was quashed on 15 November 2007. His retrial began on 9 June 2008;[2][3] he was acquitted on 1 August 2008.[
1: Police gather evidence from all kinds of sources which is then submitted to CPS solicitors. The latter decide if the strength and weight of the evidence would reasonably support a prosecution. NOT the Police.
2: The laws concerning disclosure of evidence are complex and are utilised by both defence and prosecution in order to enhance their respective case(s), as a result of which not all evidence is submitted at Court. i.e. Laws concerning disclosure of a defendant's previous convictions etc.
3: The CPS is bound by many regulations, including: A) The available evidence must be considered strong enough before the decision to prosecute is taken.
B) The CPS is constrained by the cost to the public purse which funds all its prosecutions.
C) The CPS has to show that its decisions to prosecute are in the public interest.
99% of Police Officers are honest, but human nature dictates that one or two rotten apples will always slip through the net. The vast majority of Officers serve their communities selflessly and many put their lives on the line whilst doing so. We all should be thankful that we have the best Police Forces - bar none - in the UK.
2: The laws concerning disclosure of evidence are complex and are utilised by both defence and prosecution in order to enhance their respective case(s), as a result of which not all evidence is submitted at Court. i.e. Laws concerning disclosure of a defendant's previous convictions etc.
3: The CPS is bound by many regulations, including: A) The available evidence must be considered strong enough before the decision to prosecute is taken.
B) The CPS is constrained by the cost to the public purse which funds all its prosecutions.
C) The CPS has to show that its decisions to prosecute are in the public interest.
99% of Police Officers are honest, but human nature dictates that one or two rotten apples will always slip through the net. The vast majority of Officers serve their communities selflessly and many put their lives on the line whilst doing so. We all should be thankful that we have the best Police Forces - bar none - in the UK.
It may be worth remembering that - although there have certainly been instances of travesties of justice - there are also cases were there is not a shred of doubt but that the accused is guilty.
A year or so ago, a teenage girl was attacked as she and lots of other pupils were coming out of the school gate; parents, too, were in attendance. Her attacker, if memory serves me well, was an ex-boyfriend with one of these lunatic notions of "If I can't have her, nobody can." Consequently, he stabbed her multiple times before bystanders dragged him off her and sat on him until the police came to arrest him.
As luck would have it, the girl survived but - had she not - there would not have been the remotest chance that the accused was innocent, his act having been witnessed by so many. Police "evidence" would scarcely have come into it.
I can tell you that, if she had been my daughter and died, I'd willingly have strung him up myself. It may well be, therefore, that a life for a life is not so beyond the pale in ALL cases.
A year or so ago, a teenage girl was attacked as she and lots of other pupils were coming out of the school gate; parents, too, were in attendance. Her attacker, if memory serves me well, was an ex-boyfriend with one of these lunatic notions of "If I can't have her, nobody can." Consequently, he stabbed her multiple times before bystanders dragged him off her and sat on him until the police came to arrest him.
As luck would have it, the girl survived but - had she not - there would not have been the remotest chance that the accused was innocent, his act having been witnessed by so many. Police "evidence" would scarcely have come into it.
I can tell you that, if she had been my daughter and died, I'd willingly have strung him up myself. It may well be, therefore, that a life for a life is not so beyond the pale in ALL cases.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.