Does This Man Deserve Sympathy ?

[paraffin]

Robert "Sean" Hodgson, having spent 27 years in prison, has just been released, having had his life sentence for murder quashed as a result of DNA evidence which has come to light over the past year. But he was convicted in the first place after he actually confessed to the murder, but it turns out he had lied about that. Does he therefore deserve our sympathy, and what does it say about the jury who convicted him in the first place?
And isn't he lucky that the death penalty had been abolished?

[jake-the-peg]

People "confess" for all sorts of reasons - to save others or because they're under extreme pressure or even because they're not all that bright and crave attention.

Unfortunately beople have a bit of a simplistic "He confessed he must be guilty" mindset.

I think in this case he retracted that confession later.

As for juries I think that they can accept scientific evidence with too much faith - the Jill Dando case comes to mind where so much weight was placed on a single particle

Scientific evidence is very attractive as it seems to offer certainty - you'll often hear people on here calling for the death penalty "where it has been proven beyond doubt by DNA evidence" issues like mis-handling of samples or their accdental transferance do not seem to enter their thought processes

That's detail that interferes with fantasies of certainty and retribution.

I'm not sure about that lucky bit.

Sounds a bit like telling a paraplegic to cheer up because you can still use your arms.

But I know what you mean

[R1Geezer]

Yes if he is inocent he does deserve some sympathy, a confession needs to be checked out. There are serial confessors and plod generally weeds them out by doing a sort of inverse detective work. Anyway as far as I can tell they have only shown that they have not found his DNA, perhaps some enlightened soul can tell me why that means he did not do it. Thanks

[daffy654]

Any compensation this man gets will have deductions for board and lodging for the last 27 years.

[bazzyman]

I feel sorry for this bloke for the fact that being released into the world as we now know it might scare the beejasus out of him. How much will have changed 'outside' that will take him time to get used to.
Poor man. but he has my best wishes.

[annie0000]

Apparantly he was one of the longest serving prisoners in the UK - you have to wonder that if someone was sentenced for that crime today, they would probably get about 15 years and be out in a lot less. It was already identified that he had mental health issues at the time of the conviction, after 27 years locked up for a crime he didn't commit, you have to wonder what kind of freedom he will actually have.

Absolutely he deserves sympathy - imagine being locked up for even a week for something you didn't do never mind 27 years.

[jake-the-peg]

Geezer

He was convicted on the basis that the semen samples on the victim were from a blood type A man, that he was in the area and that he confessed (later retracted)

It was possible to compare the DNA and show that although he was the right blood type that it wasn't from him.

In the case of a negative test like this there's obviously no chance that the sample was transfered and I think we have to assume that high profile tests like this after so many years get enough care and expert attention that we can rely on the results.

Incidently he's not mentally well and has been in and out of secure institutions and mental hospitals throughout his sentence

[DrFilth]

there are a few on here that are not mentally well



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Bbbananas]

Of course he deserves sympathy. He may not be 'the full ticket' but the poor s0d's spent almost 3 decades, the best years of his life, behind bars of some sort or other.

[DrFilth]

salla that is good old british justice for you




::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Quinlad]

"Anyway as far as I can tell they have only shown that they have not found his DNA, perhaps some enlightened soul can tell me why that means he did not do it. "

It doesn't. In the same way, that a lack of DNA doesn't prove you haven't been peeping through your neighbour's window.

But it's not up to you to prove you haven't. It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have.

If all that's there for them is a dodgy disputed confession and no firm evidence, that's very reasonable doubt.

[Bbbananas]

It may be flawed, and a lot have lost faith (if they ever had it) - but we probably still have one of the best. That's quite a scary thought?

[R1Geezer]

Thanks jake, that detail seems to have been lost in the whole furore of the case.

Quinny, yes fair point, you're saying that he would (should) not have been convicted without something removing that reasonably doubt.

[annie0000]

There were a lot of facts in his confession that were pertinent to the case that he knew and that swung it. Whether he knew those facts by coincidence or by knowledge from the real killer or from being a witness, we don't know. What we do know, is that he didn't do it. Whether they should have been able to tell that without the benefit of DNA testing at the time of the conviction, I don't know.

I still think that under todays standards he would not serve as long a sentence - regardless of his guilt or not.

[annie0000]

There were a lot of facts in his confession that were pertinent to the case that he knew and that swung it. Whether he knew those facts by coincidence or by knowledge from the real killer or from being a witness, we don't know. What we do know, is that he didn't do it. Whether they should have been able to tell that without the benefit of DNA testing at the time of the conviction, I don't know.

I still think that under todays standards he would not serve as long a sentence - regardless of his guilt or not.

[DrFilth]

quinlad
( But it's not up to you to prove you haven't. It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have. )

i sometimes wonder if you are on the same planet,

take a look at the link

the police knew at the time that stefan was a jaffa but it did not stop them keeping the information from the court. if we still had the death penalty the guy would have been hung


http://www.liverpooltimes.net/2007/11/13/stefa n-kiszko/

the law in this country is the other way round you have to prove you are innocent and if you have not got plenty of money that can be very hard




::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[jake-the-peg]

You'll notice Filth that a lot of these cases are coming up from pre-1984 when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came in and required the Police to do things like test the reliability of witnesses and tape record interviews.

That's not to say things are perfect now, I've already mentioned the Dando Case and Colin Stagg also jumps to mind.

But you can't make a judgement on the Justice sytem in the country today based on evidence of miscarriages in the 70's

It's also worth remembering that a lot of the "Red Tape" that certain people want us to do away with serves to provide evidence and auditable processes that prevent these sorts of miscarriages

[lynbrown]

Dont forget that the real murderer has been out there all these years. Will they ever catch him? Someone somewhere is sweating.

[DrFilth]

well jaky what about the policman who kept the info about his sperm secret so he could get a conviction. should he not have been charged ?

remember a few years back when the americans gave a list of perverts to the english police about people paying for child porn by visa card.
the police prosecuted some but the police detective that they caught was let off because they did not take him to court under a certain length of time.
they mislaid his case file . how convenient ?


lynbrown, if you mean the stefan case , the real killer was caught by dna.

http://www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/519 689_molseed_murder_ashton_link



:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[DrFilth]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/13/ukcri me.uknews4



:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::