The Murder Trial
Discussion
Very good programme. Think it was his (Frasers) last appeal, as the escorting people are still current and are employed by G4s, as opposed to Reliance. I think he is taking his appeal to Brussels now as he has used up all his chances in this country. I believe he is guilty and is now playing the system.
I watched this instead of Luther or the Piper Alpha doc. I was unsure until the appropriately named Hector Dick took to the stand and was still there five or six day later. The way he casually explained how he burned Fraser other car started to convince me. Given some of the questionable explanations Dick gave and the fact he has the perfect way to make a body disappear (the rendering plant) I'm astounded that only a perverting the course of justice was brought against him.
I agree that Fraser seems to be playing the system, not wanting to take to the stand seems like a good way to do that while minimising the risk of having a longer sentence.
I agree that Fraser seems to be playing the system, not wanting to take to the stand seems like a good way to do that while minimising the risk of having a longer sentence.
entropy said:
I was thinking that until someone had a some history at the end.
Well, it was more about the assertions the prosecution made about getting someone to do the feed, organise it, arrange it, and so n, all with utterly zero evidence. The Dick chap seemed to be unreliable as to whether he was telling the truth or not.So what evidence did the prosecution actually have?
TheHeretic said:
entropy said:
I was thinking that until someone had a some history at the end.
Well, it was more about the assertions the prosecution made about getting someone to do the feed, organise it, arrange it, and so n, all with utterly zero evidence. The Dick chap seemed to be unreliable as to whether he was telling the truth or not.So what evidence did the prosecution actually have?
Dibble said:
You do know this wasn't the whole trial, don't you? Just 90 or so minutes edited down from several weeks, numerous witnesses, phone enquiries, financial checks, forensics, suspect interviews...
Yup. It said at the beginning 70+ witnesses, but as I never got to see those I cannot comment on what they said, I can only comment with regards to what I saw. Dibble said:
So in true PH fashion, you're basing your opinion on a snapshot rather than the full story. Righto.
I'm basing it on what I saw in the program, nothing more. It was on TV, I stated I had just finished watching it, and gave my opinion based on the show I saw. I note you ignored my question about what evidence they actually had. No need to be a smarmy prick about it.
TheHeretic said:
Dibble said:
You do know this wasn't the whole trial, don't you? Just 90 or so minutes edited down from several weeks, numerous witnesses, phone enquiries, financial checks, forensics, suspect interviews...
Yup. It said at the beginning 70+ witnesses, but as I never got to see those I cannot comment on what they said, I can only comment with regards to what I saw. And I don't see a question there asking me what evidence there was. I guess the jury were satisfied with it though.
Dibble said:
I may be a "smarmy prick", but at least I've not resorted to insults.
And I don't see a question there asking me what evidence there was. I guess the jury were satisfied with it though.
No, you just stuff like thisAnd I don't see a question there asking me what evidence there was. I guess the jury were satisfied with it though.
Dibble said:
So in true PH fashion, you're basing your opinion on a snapshot rather than the full story. Righto.
If you don't want to be labelled a smarmy prick, don't label others as other things.The question was not aimed at you, but you seemed to miss it when you made your inference.
I've not labelled anyone as anything, it's you that's doing that. I merely pointed out you'd based your opinion on a 90 minute snapshot rather than the entirety of the evidence. There are plenty on SP&L who do the same thing with every reported job, when most of the BIB say they can't give an opinion that has any real meaning without being in possession of the full facts, rather than just those reported/broadcast.
The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
Dibble said:
I've not labelled anyone as anything, it's you that's doing that. I merely pointed out you'd based your opinion on a 90 minute snapshot rather than the entirety of the evidence. There are plenty on SP&L who do the same thing with every reported job, when most of the BIB say they can't give an opinion that has any real meaning without being in possession of the full facts, rather than just those reported/broadcast.
The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
Please go back and read where I wrote about the assertions that seemed to have no evidence. I then asked what evidence there was. The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
What on earth have I done wrong? Do tell me.
PS, you aren't in S,P & L, this is the TV sub forum, about a TV program that was just broadcast.
TheHeretic said:
Dibble said:
I've not labelled anyone as anything, it's you that's doing that. I merely pointed out you'd based your opinion on a 90 minute snapshot rather than the entirety of the evidence. There are plenty on SP&L who do the same thing with every reported job, when most of the BIB say they can't give an opinion that has any real meaning without being in possession of the full facts, rather than just those reported/broadcast.
The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
Please go back and read where I wrote about the assertions that seemed to have no evidence. I then asked what evidence there was. The jury heard all the evidence and must have been satisfied with it to convict. The defence counsel was very clear making the point about "beyond all reasonable doubt" in his closing address.
What on earth have I done wrong? Do tell me.
PS, you aren't in S,P & L, this is the TV sub forum, about a TV program that was just broadcast.
I'm well aware this isn't SP&L. I'm merely drawing a parallel that there are plenty of posters in there that make "decisions" based on such snapshots about other cases or incidents.
Dibble said:
If you can't grasp that there must have been more evidence than was broadcast, that's your issue I'm afraid. I've no idea what the other (several weeks' worth) of evidence was, and frankly it's irrelevant because the only thing that matters is that the jury heard it and based their verdict on it.
I'm well aware this isn't SP&L. I'm merely drawing a parallel that there are plenty of posters in there that make "decisions" based on such snapshots about other cases or incidents.
Jeez, the fact you are police worries me. Again, can I point out to you the part of my post where I ask what evidence they did had. It was not a statement, it was a question. Do you know what a question is? I'm well aware this isn't SP&L. I'm merely drawing a parallel that there are plenty of posters in there that make "decisions" based on such snapshots about other cases or incidents.
Yes, I realise there was more to it than was broadcast, hence the question. I even remembered that the text mentioned 70+ witnesses, experts, etc.
So basically you ignored what I wrote, and decided to make your decision based on what?
TheHeretic said:
Dibble said:
If you can't grasp that there must have been more evidence than was broadcast, that's your issue I'm afraid. I've no idea what the other (several weeks' worth) of evidence was, and frankly it's irrelevant because the only thing that matters is that the jury heard it and based their verdict on it.
I'm well aware this isn't SP&L. I'm merely drawing a parallel that there are plenty of posters in there that make "decisions" based on such snapshots about other cases or incidents.
Jeez, the fact you are police worries me. Again, can I point out to you the part of my post where I ask what evidence they did had. It was not a statement, it was a question. Do you know what a question is? I'm well aware this isn't SP&L. I'm merely drawing a parallel that there are plenty of posters in there that make "decisions" based on such snapshots about other cases or incidents.
Yes, I realise there was more to it than was broadcast, hence the question. I even remembered that the text mentioned 70+ witnesses, experts, etc.
So basically you ignored what I wrote, and decided to make your decision based on what?
Dibble said:
See above. I've already said I've no idea what the other evidence was. The jury did though, and they didn't think there was reasonable doubt, so they convicted. You haven't heard all the evidence, but you think there is reasonable doubt.
Based on what I saw in the show... Jeez, you really are hard work. So you ignore the fact I was asking a question about the evidence they did have, and went straight to 'typical PH response, gotcha' replies? Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff