Never felt so angry at an article...
Discussion
carreauchompeur said:
Interesting yet upsetting case. BOTH of the know who did it.
I'd like to think the Police will now play the long game with this. Sooner or later one of them will make an unwise disclosure to a third party, then they are screwed.
I'm pretty confident that whoever did it will spill it sooner or later.I'd like to think the Police will now play the long game with this. Sooner or later one of them will make an unwise disclosure to a third party, then they are screwed.
How are they both screwed though if one turns out to be entirely innocent?
JensenA said:
If you committed a driving offense and killed someone, and your wife said it was you driving, and you said it was her driving, do you think the Police would say "OK then, we will let you off" ?
2 adults alone in a house and a child is thrown against a wall and dies, and neither of them is prosecuted?! One, or both of them, is patently responsible for the murder, and I am angry that neither is being prosecuted, angrier than Imwould be if they were prosecuted for murder and were both found innocent. But they aren't even being prosecuted! Prosecute them both for murder, and let the Jury decide if they are guilty or not, and not just let them off because "we're not sure who did it".
There is no evidence. A court can only decide guilt based on evidence presented to it and there is none. Do you not understand that yet?2 adults alone in a house and a child is thrown against a wall and dies, and neither of them is prosecuted?! One, or both of them, is patently responsible for the murder, and I am angry that neither is being prosecuted, angrier than Imwould be if they were prosecuted for murder and were both found innocent. But they aren't even being prosecuted! Prosecute them both for murder, and let the Jury decide if they are guilty or not, and not just let them off because "we're not sure who did it".
As soon as it gets to court and the prosecution says "We have no evidence" the judge will chuck it out.
dudleybloke said:
One did it. One allowed it to happen. Both guilty.
You cannot possibly know that. There is no evidence to show that either of them 'allowed' it to happen.If you know for a fact that one did then you were clearly there at the time as you know more than the police do. We'll just prosecute the three of you.
AJL308 said:
dudleybloke said:
One did it. One allowed it to happen. Both guilty.
You cannot possibly know that. There is no evidence to show that either of them 'allowed' it to happen.If you know for a fact that one did then you were clearly there at the time as you know more than the police do. We'll just prosecute the three of you.
AJL308 said:
dudleybloke said:
One did it. One allowed it to happen. Both guilty.
You cannot possibly know that. There is no evidence to show that either of them 'allowed' it to happen.If you know for a fact that one did then you were clearly there at the time as you know more than the police do. We'll just prosecute the three of you.
JensenA said:
You obviously do not share the indignation that a child has been murdered and no one is being prosecuted because they're not sure who did it. Would you feel the same if it was your son who had murdered?
If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
That's just total toss mate. You do not know at all that they are colluding; one did it and the other says they didn't. The other is telling the truth as far as the facts we have go.If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
If you were in a car and the driver of that car deliberately ran someone down and killed them and he said you were driving does that mean you are colluding with him when you said that he was driving?
JensenA said:
You obviously do not share the indignation that a child has been murdered and no one is being prosecuted because they're not sure who did it. Would you feel the same if it was your son who had murdered?
If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
That's just total toss mate. You do not know at all that they are colluding; one did it and the other says they didn't. The other is telling the truth as far as the facts we have go.If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
If you were in a car and the driver of that car deliberately ran someone down and killed them and he said you were driving does that mean you are colluding with him when you said that he was driving?
The point in your final lines is not related at all. The difference is that they have evidence. There is none in this case.
NicD said:
Personally, I would charge both of them and offer a deal to the first to turn the other one in.
If neither seems convincing, would continue prosecuting both.
I do not subscribe to view that it is better for 10 guilty to go free rather than one innocent to be punished.
Joint eneterprise?If neither seems convincing, would continue prosecuting both.
I do not subscribe to view that it is better for 10 guilty to go free rather than one innocent to be punished.
JensenA said:
You obviously do not share the indignation that a child has been murdered and no one is being prosecuted because they're not sure who did it.
I think it's unfortunate, but it's no different to any other situation where a crime is committed but there is insufficient evidence about who did it. JensenA said:
Would you feel the same if it was your son who had murdered?
Probably not, but fortunately the criminal justice system isn't based on the feelings of any one person. That's a good thing, don't you agree?JensenA said:
If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
Why do you say they are colluding? Nothing in the article supports that conclusion.JensenA said:
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
The decision about whether or not to prosecute is not (only) based on the "importance" of the crime, but on whether there is evidence upon which a conviction could be based. In the case to which you refer, there was; in this case, the CPS thought there wasn't.JensenA said:
You obviously do not share the indignation that a child has been murdered and no one is being prosecuted because they're not sure who did it. Would you feel the same if it was your son who had murdered?
If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
You are obviously letting the indignation get in the way of the relevant facts. Drawing comparisons to less serious prosecutions is irrelevant and a completely invalid line of thinking since they have no impact upon one another. It's got nothing to do with "importance", it's all to do with evidence. If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
I'll explain how it works, and hopefully it'll be more successful then when I explained how joint enterprise wasn't relevant.
The CPS apply two tests, which amounts to 'the full test code'. It's in two parts, the evidential stage and the public interest stage. Now there's no doubt the second is met, the problem is the first, and no matter how strong the public interest, if the evidential stage isn't made out there can be no prosecution:
CPS said:
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
There are lots of guilty people who are never charged, because the evidence isn't there. This is a particularly emotive example, but it sometimes happens even with serious offences. 4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
AJL308 said:
NicD said:
Personally, I would charge both of them and offer a deal to the first to turn the other one in.
Err, isn't that precisely what has happened? Each blames the other so one has already taken your deal. Also its completely ignoring the fact that if you just charged them both then said "one gets a deal", you still don't know if the person you gave it to was the guilty one. Its a non starter, and the people suggesting this stuff are just coming across as somewhere between really naive, and a bit of an idiot...
AJL308 said:
NicD said:
Personally, I would charge both of them and offer a deal to the first to turn the other one in.
Err, isn't that precisely what has happened? Each blames the other so one has already taken your deal. 'If neither seems convincing, would continue prosecuting both.'
NicD said:
AJL308 said:
NicD said:
Personally, I would charge both of them and offer a deal to the first to turn the other one in.
Err, isn't that precisely what has happened? Each blames the other so one has already taken your deal. 'If neither seems convincing, would continue prosecuting both.'
Meoricin said:
If you're going to base your prosecution on how convincing one person is when they have a deal offered, rather than what facts can be established, why bother with the rest of the legal system at all?
convincing in terms of facts that can be established. Isn't that obvious.NicD said:
convincing in terms of facts that can be established. Isn't that obvious.
Isn't it obvious that there is no evidence, and there is nothing either of the two can possibly say now that would make a prosecution viable?If they change their story they are a liar and its just one persons word against another. Its not like one of the two killed someone and both know where the murder weapon is hidden with ones prints all over it.
The only way this likely gets resolved now would be one confessing, or someone close to one of them being wired up and getting them on tape admitting involvement. If the two of them have any sense they're going to avoid talking about it out loud, ever.
If they're both still living together next month then we obviously know they're at best covering for each other, and at worst both actually took part. Still can't prove it though!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff