Donate SIGN UP

Why Has It Took So Long To Get The Alleged Killer Of Pc Blakelock To Stand Trial?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 14:53 Tue 04th Mar 2014 | News
26 Answers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10672536/Pc-Keith-Blakelock-attacked-without-mercy-during-Broadwater-Farm-riots-court-hears.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462994/Man-accused-of-murdering-PC-Blakelock-in-Broadwater-Farm-riots-was-nutter-court-hears

/// Members of the gang that attacked Pc Keith Blakelock have been paid by the police and granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the man accused of his murder, the Old Bailey was told on Monday. ///

This is disgusting, what would have been said if some of the gang who killed Stephen Lawrence had been paid and also granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the pair who were later convicted of his murder?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Perhaps people would say that "this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time".

Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.

But other than that, it seems incredible that the police would pay witnesses. I've never heard of that before.

Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid?

How does that even work?
Paying informants is a well established Police practice. If they subsequently go on to give evidence they earn more reward.
According to reports, "some were given 'some degree of financial assistance' by the police, the court was told."

Because the police fitted up the wrong man and let the real killer go free. Until now.
NJ

Anything over and above expenses to get to and from court should be explained. If not, the defence could easily say, "These witnesses were paid to say what they're saying...their evidence is tainted".
Question Author
sp1814

/// Perhaps people would say that "this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time". ///

And the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference?

/// Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder. ///

Ditto the Stephen Lawrence murder 21 years ago.

/// Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid? ///

What would be your slant on that if some of the killers of Stephen Lawrence had been given the same?
Question Author
Gromit

/// Because the police fitted up the wrong man and let the real killer go free. Until now. ///

From what I understand there was more than one or even two involved in the killing of PC Blakelock, it was a gang.
AOG

That is exactly what you said about the Stephen Lawrence case.

However, that's not my position.

Regarding the question of immunity...it all depends on how much evidence the CPS have against those who could possibly be charged. If, say, there were five suspects, and one was willing to give evidence against the other four, making it a water-tight case, then I would lean towards granting immunity from prosecution.

However, if there was a 80/20 chance of convicting them all, then I'd probably take the risk.

Difficult to say though, unless you were in that position.

A little bit too 'Sophie's Choice'.
AOG

Would you agree with this statement in the Keith Blakelock case:

"this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time".

And this:

Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.

Seeing as you said the same for Stephen Lawrence?
as Gromit says - because the police spent their time framing Winston Silcott, which saved them the effort of going out and finding the real killer (somewhat disrespectful to Blakelock's memory to leave his murderer loose, I would have thought).

Anyway, now, 30 years later, they're trying again. You might think that the Roache and DLT trials had shown how hard it is to make these historic charges stick, but the police will probably come up with something.
I quite agree, sp.

The level of "support" provided and the reasons for its provision should be fully explained. Hopefully Mr Jacobs' barrister will get to the bottom of it.
I remember the picture of Winston Silcott ( a very unflattering one used , of course ) prominently splashed across the front of a newspaper ( cant remember which newspaper ) at the time ; with some not very nice comments .

When it turned out that he had not committed the murder , i was waiting to see a equally prominent piece on the front page to that effect .
But that's not what sells newspapers
Aaah , how young and naive i was then .



ANOTHEOLDGIT, as soon as I seen SP's original comment, I wondered if they were related to something you had said about the Lawrence case. If I twigged that, how come you didn't?
AOG

So...would you say the same about this case?

After all, you said earlier that "the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference".

So would you agree that in this case, this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time?

...or not?

I'd be interested to hear what you think the differences are in the case.
ow ! for chrissakes AOG

why did it take .... or
why has it taken ....

and yes I think it is far too long and the accused man cannot get a fair trial.
Question Author
THECORBYLOON

/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, as soon as I seen SP's original comment, I wondered if they were related to something you had said about the Lawrence case. If I twigged that, how come you didn't? ///

Because I never said anything, I was only making a comparison between the two cases. because sp was prepared to toss the PC Blakelock into the 'long grass' because of this murder had taken up enough time with an inquiry and the huge costs in resources and police time after nearly 30 years since the murder., yet he didn't agree the same regarding the 30 year Stephen Lawrence case, which has still not seen closure even after two being sent to prison over it.

I wonder why?
taken far too long, a policeman was brutally hacked to death, should they just let the matter lie.
AOG

No...no...no.

I was quoting from you.

See my post. I wrote, "Perhaps people would say that..."

Then I put the next bit in quotes. I was quoting directly from a couple of your Stephen Lawrence threads.

So. Seeing as you think that the Stephen Lawrence murder "has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time", and he was murdered in 1993, do feel the same about PC Keith Blakelock, who was murdered even longer ago?
I will repeat - it's not my view that the murder of PC Blakelock "has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time". That's what YOU said about the Stephen Lawrence case.

Basically, I was seeing whether you would be consistent.

I don't think you have been.
I think most of us understood what you were saying from the first post...

Double standards!

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Why Has It Took So Long To Get The Alleged Killer Of Pc Blakelock To Stand Trial?

Answer Question >>

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.