Barry George loses Dando murder compensation bid.
Discussion
Wanted £500,000 for wrongful conviction.
Got nothing.
http://news.sky.com/story/1113385/barry-george-los...
Got nothing.
http://news.sky.com/story/1113385/barry-george-los...
First comment on there:
"Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
"Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
Centurion07 said:
First comment on there:
"Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
I would agree."Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
What was the evidence against him? One speck of 'gunpowder' residue? Or was there more?
His clothes, where the one speck of residue was found, had been possibly contaminated during photography and there were witnesses who saw armed police in his apartment after the arrest, despite the police saying this was not so.
As his local bike shop said, he didn't have the technical knowledge to repair a bicycle tyre. But we're to believe he had the nous to make a gun and his own ammunition and then carry out a high-profile 'hit'.
Stinkier than a fishmarket at closing time...
His clothes, where the one speck of residue was found, had been possibly contaminated during photography and there were witnesses who saw armed police in his apartment after the arrest, despite the police saying this was not so.
As his local bike shop said, he didn't have the technical knowledge to repair a bicycle tyre. But we're to believe he had the nous to make a gun and his own ammunition and then carry out a high-profile 'hit'.
Stinkier than a fishmarket at closing time...
BOR said:
jshell said:
As his local bike shop said, he didn't have the technical knowledge to repair a bicycle tyre. But we're to believe he had the nous to make a gun and his own ammunition and then carry out a high-profile 'hit'..
That's the back story he planted in advance. What a pro.
Hadn't he been previously arrested/charged/found guilty of bunch of other wierdo creepy s
t* though?
More importantly I have been hearing for years that he was a Rollerskate Stuntman who once jumped over a bus or two. Of all the details surrounding this mentalist over the last 14 odd years this has always resonated.
I have, however, never seen any footage or details of this. I would be greatly indebted if anyone can direct me towards footage of 'Barry George - Rollerskate Stuntman'
t* though?More importantly I have been hearing for years that he was a Rollerskate Stuntman who once jumped over a bus or two. Of all the details surrounding this mentalist over the last 14 odd years this has always resonated.
I have, however, never seen any footage or details of this. I would be greatly indebted if anyone can direct me towards footage of 'Barry George - Rollerskate Stuntman'
Mr Gearchange said:
Hadn't he been previously arrested/charged/found guilty of bunch of other wierdo creepy st* though?
According to Wikipedia:t* though?Convicted of:
Impersonating a Police officer.
Attempted rape.
Indecent assault.
He was also charged but not convicted of multiple other sexual assaults and attacks on women, including his then wife who described the ordeal as "terrifying and violent" but wouldn't testify as she had returned to Japan.
He was also arrested in the grounds of Kensington palace wearing a balaclava and carrying a 12" hunting knife, climbing rope and a poem about Princess Diana.
I imagine that if this were a civil matter he would be found guilty on a balance of probability and the conviction would have been upheld.
Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
Centurion07 said:
First comment on there:
"Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
That's bonkers. How can you be conclusively proven innocent? Our whole legal system is based on the reverse of that. "Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
And frankly the character assassination regarding possible previous convictions and eccentricities starts to sound cheap in that light.
I cant understand that hes a nutter. But shirely it has to be black and white, Guilty or not? Didnt think there was any middle ground when it came to convicting somebody. If they say hes 'maybe' guilty but we dont have all the evidence, then that must mean hes not guilty.
7 years is a long time, He may be a fruitcake with a soldier of fortune fetish, but hes done the time but not the crime!
7 years is a long time, He may be a fruitcake with a soldier of fortune fetish, but hes done the time but not the crime!
Mr Gearchange said:
I imagine that if this were a civil matter he would be found guilty on a balance of probability and the conviction would have been upheld.
Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
Is that really a sensible or sound or just way of considering the concept of compensation for a wrongful conviction? In this specific case the evidence used to convict him is gobsmacking and it saddens me that in such recent times the criminal justice system in this country behaved in such a manner.Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
Honestly, we find billions to give to nuclear powers in aid every year yet access to justice for an ordinary man is becoming harder and harder due to the tightening of rules surrounding access to legal aid - and here a man spends seven years in prison for a heinous crime, the public (fed propoganda by the popular press) somehow even after the conviction was quashed seem to think they "know he done it" and he is compensated only his bus fare home. It doesn't sound very just to me.
Centurion07 said:
First comment on there:
"Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
Really?? His conviction has been overturned therefore he is surely innocent as far as the legal system is concerned and should not have to prove anything - it's up to the state to do that and they have failed. He should be offered compensation - the fact he is a bit odd or has previous (for which he has no doubt paid the price) is immaterial."Whilst not necessarily right..
Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been 'shown conclusively to be innocent' before compensation is considered.
It is an acquittal, but does not prove him innocent, more of a not really enough evidence to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Sounds about right to me.
Mr Gearchange said:
I imagine that if this were a civil matter he would be found guilty on a balance of probability and the conviction would have been upheld.
Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
Are you on drugs?Mainly because he is a total and utter hatstand with a recrord of violence against women and a celebrity fixation.
However when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is enough doubt to set him free. But not so much as to pay him, because even if he wasn't guilty of this - there is probably a bunch of other things he is guilty of.
In a strange way it's almost like the system works.
The conviction is based on the proof needing to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
The threshold for the civil claim is the "balance of probabilities".
In the judge's view, whilst there may be reasonable doubt as to whether he was guilty of the crime, his civil claim is not sufficiently strong for liability to be established.
They are different measures and are not mutually exclusive.
The threshold for the civil claim is the "balance of probabilities".
In the judge's view, whilst there may be reasonable doubt as to whether he was guilty of the crime, his civil claim is not sufficiently strong for liability to be established.
They are different measures and are not mutually exclusive.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff