17 years in prison but innocent of the crime he was charged.

[Peter James]

A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.

Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
that he was "fitted up" by
the police.

Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
not be named and shamed.

Peter
--
The email shown is false. If you need to contact me then try peterATpfjamesDOTcoDOTuk

It seems to me a barren thing this Conservatism - an unhhappy cross breed of politics that engenders nothing.
Benjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881

[Michael Chare]

On 27/07/2023 09:20, Peter James wrote:
> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.
>
> Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
> that he was "fitted up" by
> the police.
>
> Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
> not be named and shamed.
>
> Peter

And maybe prosecuted though it was 17 years and by now they may well
have left the police.

--
Michael Chare

[Colin Bignell]

On 27/07/2023 09:20, Peter James wrote:

> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.
>
> Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
> that he was "fitted up" by
> the police.
>
> Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
> not be named and shamed.

It might prejudice any future proceedings against them.

--
Colin Bignell

[Spike]

Peter James <pfjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.
>
> Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
> that he was "fitted up" by
> the police.
>
> Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
> not be named and shamed.
>
> Peter

A spokesperson was saying on the radio this morning that his organisation
(sorry, can’t recall the names) that was supporting the convicted chap had
to take the police to court twice to get documents that if entered in
evidence at the trial would have proved the accused’s innocence. GMP are
not looking great in this matter.

--
Spike

[Vir Campestris]

On 27/07/2023 09:20, Peter James wrote:

> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.

He was on the Today programme this morning. A little late, because he
overslept - probably his first chance to do so in the last 17 years.

Apparently if he gets compensation for this he'll have to pay some to
the prison for his board and lodging.

I'm of the opinion that he should get enough to put him in the same
financial position he would have been if he'd worked for those 17 years.

And then a lot more as compensation.

Andy

[TTman]

On 27/07/2023 09:20, Peter James wrote:

> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.
>
> Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
> that he was "fitted up" by
> the police.
>
> Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
> not be named and shamed.
>
> Peter

By all accounts, he was IDd in an ID parade by the victim.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-07-27, TTman <kraken...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 09:20, Peter James wrote:
>> A man was released from prison after 17 years being charged with rape. He
>> maintained his innocence for all of that time. DNA proved him innocent.
>>
>> Listening and reading his account leads a person to come to the conclusion
>> that he was "fitted up" by
>> the police.
>>
>> Is there sny reason that the Police Officers responsible for this fiasco can
>> not be named and shamed.
>>
>> Peter
>
> By all accounts, he was IDd in an ID parade by the victim.

But ID evidence is known to be unreliable, and apparently there were
documents that the police refused to disclose until forced to do so
by court orders, that if disclosed at the time of the trial as they
should have been may well have resulted in his acquittal.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnuc58h7.13...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon
Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes

Maybe I mis-heard, but I believe he was the one who suggested the ID
parade.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

[GB]

That is exactly how the system works.


>
> Andy

[Jon Ribbens]

Sounds like the sort of thing an innocent but naive person might do.

[kat]

I assume he had seen the photofit of the attacker, who didn't look much like him
at all, had an unscratched face despite the victim having scratched the
attacker, and heard the description given by the victim which has certain
differences to him, he thought it would solve his problems.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Tikli Chestikov]

On Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 18:00:55 UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> But ID evidence is known to be unreliable, and apparently there were
> documents that the police refused to disclose until forced to do so
> by court orders

Pardon?

A Government state-sponsored outfit acting in such a way?

Is this the UK or North Korea?

[Jon Ribbens]

You thought that such things couldn't happen here? Wake up, sheeple!

[Roger Hayter]

On 28 Jul 2023 at 20:19:08 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

It's only fairly recently that it has explicitly the responsibility of the
lawyers to prevent the withholding of evidence from the other side, isn't it.
The lawyers have more (in the sense of anything at all) to lose by not
cooperating than the police. And this came about because it became apparent
that the police routinely withheld evidence from the defence. Wasn't there a
case where friendly messages from an alleged rape victim to her alleged
attacker before and after the alleged attack had been extracted from her phone
and were not shown to the defence?


--
Roger Hayter

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> But ID evidence is known to be unreliable, and apparently there
>> were documents that the police refused to disclose until forced
>> to do so by court orders
>
> Pardon?
>
> A Government state-sponsored outfit acting in such a way?
>
> Is this the UK or North Korea?

On occasion the police come to the conclusion that a particular person
was guilty of a crime, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
So they ... um ... er ... ah ... massage the evidence to make it seem
more favourable to their case.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Norman Wells]

On 29/07/2023 01:38, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> But ID evidence is known to be unreliable, and apparently there
>>> were documents that the police refused to disclose until forced
>>> to do so by court orders
>>
>> Pardon?
>>
>> A Government state-sponsored outfit acting in such a way?
>>
>> Is this the UK or North Korea?
>
> On occasion the police come to the conclusion that a particular person
> was guilty of a crime, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
> So they ... um ... er ... ah ... massage the evidence to make it seem
> more favourable to their case.

And it's why we don't let them decide, but leave it to a twelve man
jury, who normally have to come to a unanimous verdict, in a due process
trial before an unbiased judge in which the defence is presented by a
qualified barrister.

There are some safeguards.

[The Todal]

But let's not pretend that Andrew Malkinson is the only person who has
been convicted of a crime that he did not commit. He's just lucky that
the DNA evidence was persuasive. The system is certainly capable of
letting guilty people go free and innocent people convicted.

I am amused to read in the Guardian "he always insisted he was
innocent", as if that was a clear indication of his innocence. Jeremy
Bamber has always asserted that he was innocent, too. And I suppose it
is conceivable that he is innocent, but the evidence seems to point to
him being guilty which is why he remains in prison.

It is sometimes argued that Barry George was plainly innocent and that
there was no evidence pointing to his guilt. Which ignores the
substantial weight of evidence that was examined at trial and in the
Court of Appeal before eventually he succeeded in his appeal. That was
because of faulty scientific evidence about non existent gunpowder
residue, and was then found not guilty at a re-trial. The jury could
just as easily have found him guilty again since they are the ultimate
arbiters of fact and are capable of making mistakes. When Barry George
sought compensation for wrongful imprisonment it was refused. In the
High Court the judges said, "There was indeed a case upon which a
reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of
murder" and on the strength of this, denied George compensation for
wrongful incarceration.

[Handsome Jack]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:58:59 +0100
The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> But let's not pretend that Andrew Malkinson is the only person who
> has been convicted of a crime that he did not commit. He's just lucky
> that the DNA evidence was persuasive. The system is certainly capable
> of letting guilty people go free and innocent people convicted.
>
> I am amused to read in the Guardian "he always insisted he was
> innocent", as if that was a clear indication of his innocence. Jeremy
> Bamber has always asserted that he was innocent, too. And I suppose
> it is conceivable that he is innocent, but the evidence seems to
> point to him being guilty which is why he remains in prison.
>
> It is sometimes argued that Barry George was plainly innocent and
> that there was no evidence pointing to his guilt.

More often it is argued that he was plainly fitted up under the "Round
up the usual suspects, one of them won't be able to prove he didn't do
it" method.

> Which ignores the
> substantial weight of evidence that was examined at trial and in the
> Court of Appeal before eventually he succeeded in his appeal.

None of the evidence presented had any substance. It all fell under the
heading of "We've persuaded ourselves that this guy's guilty, so let's
rake up all the bad stuff about him we can, and then make it sound even
worse".

> That
> was because of faulty scientific evidence about non existent
> gunpowder residue, and was then found not guilty at a re-trial. The
> jury could just as easily have found him guilty again since they are
> the ultimate arbiters of fact and are capable of making mistakes.
> When Barry George sought compensation for wrongful imprisonment it
> was refused. In the High Court the judges said, "There was indeed a
> case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have
> convicted the claimant of murder" and on the strength of this, denied
> George compensation for wrongful incarceration.

Yes, they certainly are utter cunts.

[Tikli Chestikov]

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 12:59:17 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>
> It is sometimes argued that Barry George was plainly innocent and that
> there was no evidence pointing to his guilt. Which ignores the
> substantial weight of evidence that was examined at trial and in the
> Court of Appeal before eventually he succeeded in his appeal.

You've been around long enough to remember that the original Barry George verdict was roundly slated at the time on uk.legal (before Russell Broadshaw of MI5, aka Mike Corley, aka Tadeusz Szocik destroyed the group).

And this was at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. Now if a group of educated people on a Usenet forum can see how perverse the verdict was, why was it allowed? Surely somebody, somewhere, in authority must have thought "hang on, this smells fishy".

[JNugent]

On 30/07/2023 02:29 pm, Tikli Chestikov wrote:

> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 12:59:17 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>
>> It is sometimes argued that Barry George was plainly innocent and that
>> there was no evidence pointing to his guilt. Which ignores the
>> substantial weight of evidence that was examined at trial and in the
>> Court of Appeal before eventually he succeeded in his appeal.
>
> You've been around long enough to remember that the original Barry George verdict was roundly slated at the time on uk.legal (before Russell Broadshaw of MI5, aka Mike Corley, aka Tadeusz Szocik destroyed the group).
>
> And this was at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. Now if a group of educated people on a Usenet forum can see how perverse the verdict was, why was it allowed?

So usenet pundits should be allowed to over-ride a jury decision?

Surely somebody, somewhere, in authority must have thought "hang on,
this smells fishy".

But not the jury.

[The Todal]

On 30/07/2023 16:05, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Never underestimate the ability of people not to see things that they
> don't want to.

And of course nobody is under any obligation to read the transcripts of
the Court of Criminal Appeal, which tend to make the issues far more
complicated than most people can deal with.

[The Todal]

On 30/07/2023 14:29, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 12:59:17 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>>
>> It is sometimes argued that Barry George was plainly innocent and that
>> there was no evidence pointing to his guilt. Which ignores the
>> substantial weight of evidence that was examined at trial and in the
>> Court of Appeal before eventually he succeeded in his appeal.
>
> You've been around long enough to remember that the original Barry George verdict was roundly slated at the time on uk.legal (before Russell Broadshaw of MI5, aka Mike Corley, aka Tadeusz Szocik destroyed the group).

No, I don't remember whether the contributors to uk.legal gave their
opinions before or after the campaign to free Barry George had begun.

Nor do I remember whether any of them displayed any familiarity with the
facts of the case. Or whether any of them were conspiracy theorists who
were convinced that it required a well trained hit man to slot Jill Dando.

>
> And this was at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. Now if a group of educated people on a Usenet forum can see how perverse the verdict was, why was it allowed? Surely somebody, somewhere, in authority must have thought "hang on, this smells fishy".

Educated?