Never felt so angry at an article...
Discussion
KFC said:
What sort of law change could you make? Or would you even want to?
If they're blaming each other, forensics and DNA and so on are going to be absolutely useless (since it was in their own home, and there are no independent witnesses or cctv or anything then its just one of those unfortunate things. Someone really is going to get away with murder here. I'm more comfortable with that than jailing the both of them to make sure they get the person though.
Agree with that.If they're blaming each other, forensics and DNA and so on are going to be absolutely useless (since it was in their own home, and there are no independent witnesses or cctv or anything then its just one of those unfortunate things. Someone really is going to get away with murder here. I'm more comfortable with that than jailing the both of them to make sure they get the person though.
Though without getting all Jeremy Kyle, maybe some sort of lie detection - properly undertaken - would be helpful in this case, even if not evidentially?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain...
HarryW said:
Simples both are equally guilty of murder, one may only be an assistant to the murder but the worse that can come of it is they both get long stretches instead of one long and the other not so long. I can live with that.....
How on earth do you know both equally guilty? One killed him, the other didn't. How in that situation do you know the one who didn't isn't completely innocent of any wrong-doing?BJG1 said:
HarryW said:
Simples both are equally guilty of murder, one may only be an assistant to the murder but the worse that can come of it is they both get long stretches instead of one long and the other not so long. I can live with that.....
How on earth do you know both equally guilty? One killed him, the other didn't. How in that situation do you know the one who didn't isn't completely innocent of any wrong-doing?eccles said:
How do you know they didn't both contribute to his death?
We don't, but this is the exact sort of situation where you need to accept you just don't know who's guilty and it means whoever done it gets away with it to ensure we don't lock up an innocent person.All the people posting just hang them both, I assume that would equally apply to all 3 people if they were upstairs in the house, wearing headphones and watching TV, completely oblivious to what was going on?
Symbolica said:
The ignorance of posters as to how the law works is the main reason that I'm completely against jury trials. Give me a panel of judges any day, at least they'll understand what they're talking about,
You don't need to know how the law works, that gets explained to you in court.heebeegeetee said:
Symbolica said:
The ignorance of posters as to how the law works is the main reason that I'm completely against jury trials. Give me a panel of judges any day, at least they'll understand what they're talking about,
You don't need to know how the law works, that gets explained to you in court.A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
JensenA said:
Exactly right.
A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
Again, how do you propose they proceed with this?A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
There isn't any DNA evidence. There isn't any independent witnesses. There isn't any CCTV.
All you have is two people saying "it wasn't me, therefore it must have been them". Would you like the jury to just guess? Or convict the pair of them to be sure?
KFC said:
eccles said:
Surely the common purpose/joint enterprise law would be applicable in this case?
Why? One of them might not know a thing about it. Fortunately we need proof of a conspiracy to go after someone for joint enterprise 
I thought that law was designed for things like this where more than one person was involved, but didn't do anything to stop it, so they get lumped in together.
I may or may not know much about this at all!
KFC said:
JensenA said:
Exactly right.
A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
Again, how do you propose they proceed with this?A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
There isn't any DNA evidence. There isn't any independent witnesses. There isn't any CCTV.
All you have is two people saying "it wasn't me, therefore it must have been them". Would you like the jury to just guess? Or convict the pair of them to be sure?
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".
JensenA said:
Exactly right.
A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
It appears that the CPS believed that there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably convict. If the CPS had chosen to prosecute anyway, the defendants could have asked the judge to stop the trial for the same reason.A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
JensenA said:
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
What relevance do phone hacking prosecutions have? Even accepting for the sake of argument that some or all of those prosecutions should not have been brought, what does that have to do with whether a prosecution should have been brought in this case?JensenA said:
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
Yes, but only where there is evidence upon which a jury could reasonably convict. Here, the CPS thought that there wasn't. It would be crazy to try cases where you know that the only reasonable verdict is "not guilty".Edited by SamHH on Sunday 28th June 09:06
JensenA said:
heebeegeetee said:
Symbolica said:
The ignorance of posters as to how the law works is the main reason that I'm completely against jury trials. Give me a panel of judges any day, at least they'll understand what they're talking about,
You don't need to know how the law works, that gets explained to you in court.A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
king point of holding a trial when there is no reasonable chance of anyone being convicted?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" ?
I wouldn't expect them to just let me off with it no, I'd expect them to investigate it and prove who actually done it. With a car crash there would be far more chances to convict - cctv of who was driving, dna on the airbag, injuries from seatbelts which would show which side you were sitting, etc etc. If they somehow still couldn't prove who was driving, then yes I'd expect to get away with it. With the flip side of this being if you really did try and blame your wife then they found proof it was you, you're going to get absolutely hammered by the sentencing judge.
JensenA said:
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".
Again, do you think the CPS are just choosing to let them off for no real reason? Its quite clear that there is no evidence to put in front of a jury. Try them now and the case will fall apart and it'll be extremely difficult to prosecute them again later for the same offence. At least now if they don't charge them at all, it may all come out in the wash later and we can then prosecute, better late than never.dudleybloke said:
One did it. One allowed it to happen. Both guilty.
What do you mean by "allowed it to happen"? Read literally as "failed to prevent the death", your suggestion would make us all guilty, but I realise you didn't mean that. So what special reasons are there that Buffham and Bate should be guilty?SamHH said:
JensenA said:
Exactly right.
A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
It appears that the CPS believed that there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably convict. If the CPS had chosen to prosecute anyway, the defendants could have asked the judge to stop the trial for the same reason.A young child is murdered, 2 people were alone in the house at the time of the 'incident'. One, or more likely both of them is to blame. Prosecute them, take them to court and let the Jury decide based on the evidence presented to them in court.
JensenA said:
The authorities are willing to spend Millions prosecuting Journalists for alleged phone hacking trial, people,are prosecuted for posting something on Twitter. Yet because the authorities aren't 'quite sure who is to blame', no further action is taken!
What relevance do phone hacking prosecutions have? Even accepting for the sake of argument that some or all of those prosecutions should not have been brought, what does that have to do with whether a prosecution should have been brought in this case?JensenA said:
Isn't that the same for every single trial that takes place? Innocent until proven guilty, so an accused is taken to court to be tried on the evidence available, the facts are presented to the jury, and the jury decide wether they are guilty or not.
Yes, but only where there is evidence upon which a jury could reasonably convict. Here, the CPS thought that there wasn't. It would be crazy to try cases where you know that the only reasonable verdict is "not guilty".Edited by SamHH on Sunday 28th June 09:06
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff