Put girl in mincer.... get payout
Discussion
I'm surprised the case of Charlene Downes hasn't had more attention. After the two suspects were acquitted because the police screwed up the surveillance, I'm shocked to read they received £300,000 in compensation, EACH, despite the police having them on tape talking about putting her in the mincer!
Now they're claiming they're being harassed by the police so they'll probably be looking for further compensation. Worse yet, one of them is apparently allowed to foster children. WTF!?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/court...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220815/Po...
Now they're claiming they're being harassed by the police so they'll probably be looking for further compensation. Worse yet, one of them is apparently allowed to foster children. WTF!?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/court...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220815/Po...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sorry, I disagree, it's like they've been rewarded for what they did. It's not a piddly amount either. Those two are set for life. Most criminals in the underworld wouldn't get £300k for disposing of someone! It's sickening. I know they were acquitted but that's only because of the police incompetence regarding the surveillance evidence. It goes on all the time. The BBC were guilty of covering up the large-scale organised grooming and molesting of underage (white) girls by groups of older Pakistani men in certain English cities. The government also does a pretty good job of covering these things up, remember the stick Jack Straw got?
A couple of quick comments:
The best situation is where we use their information and our enquiries fully back up and verify their claims - to the extent that we then no longer need to use them or rely on them. Doesn't often happen, sadly.
It's far easier to Defend than Prosecute in this situation.
Of course, whether this DS really knew as much as the Defence are saying is questionable. He may have simply worked in the same department and therefore been aware of the investigation, rather than being involved in the investigation itself. From the quote above this sounds quite likely. For big crimes it can be difficult to find people who DON'T know about the investigation.
KK
Daily Mail said:
Police started a murder inquiry when David Cassidy, a former friend of Mr Albattikhi, said the accused's brother had told him the schoolgirl had been strangled and chopped up.
Ian Goldrein QC, representing Mr Albattikhi, accused Mr Cassidy of telling a pack of lies and that his evidence was unreliable because he had a lengthy criminal record for dishonesty.
Sadly, confidential sources "come as they are". We can't pick them, or pick what they tell us. Quite often the information they provide is enormously useful, but difficult to rely on at Court because of their "bad character".Ian Goldrein QC, representing Mr Albattikhi, accused Mr Cassidy of telling a pack of lies and that his evidence was unreliable because he had a lengthy criminal record for dishonesty.
The best situation is where we use their information and our enquiries fully back up and verify their claims - to the extent that we then no longer need to use them or rely on them. Doesn't often happen, sadly.
Daily Mail said:
Detectives later bugged both Mr Raveshi's home and car with secret listening devices and claimed the defendants could be heard on the tapes discussing her murder, with references to eating her body and a burial place.
Det Sgt Jan Beasant spent two years and around 2,500 hours listening to the contents of the tapes but such was the poor sound quality that much of the content was hard to decipher at the trial with sound experts and police disagreeing over what was actually said.
This is another very common problem. Covert recordings are often poor quality and difficult to understand. The arguments in Court over a particular word can be intense, since if the Defence can discredit just a few key words they can throw the whole case into jeopardy.Det Sgt Jan Beasant spent two years and around 2,500 hours listening to the contents of the tapes but such was the poor sound quality that much of the content was hard to decipher at the trial with sound experts and police disagreeing over what was actually said.
It's far easier to Defend than Prosecute in this situation.
Daily Mail said:
John Bromley-Davenport QC, defending Mr Raveshi, claimed Det Sgt Beasant was totally unqualified for the task of listening to the tapes and already knew a huge amount about the case.
This would seem to be a significant error. The transcriber should know, and be given, as little as possible about the job before they listen to the tapes. Otherwise human nature tends to help fill in the blanks and interpret things to fit the facts you know.Of course, whether this DS really knew as much as the Defence are saying is questionable. He may have simply worked in the same department and therefore been aware of the investigation, rather than being involved in the investigation itself. From the quote above this sounds quite likely. For big crimes it can be difficult to find people who DON'T know about the investigation.
Daily Mail said:
The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for 49 hours before they conceded they could not reach a verdict on either defendant.
Interestingly, this suggests that it was still a close run thing for the Defendants. In my experience a long deliberation means that the Jury was initially fairly evenly split between Guilty and Not Guilty, and that even after a long time they still couldn't reach a unanimous decision.KK
renrut said:
Why cover it up? to what end?
Because the BBC is an inherantly racist anti-white organisation which supports the multicultural hellhole that is much of modern Britain and will ALWAYS distance itself from news that reflects immigrants/muslims badly. It is a FACT that immigrants commit an overwhelming proportion of crime in this country yet to report this is "racist", "intolerant" or even "bigotted". Fair enough. I don't tend to listen to what the BBC say these days unless its an international thing as they do tend to bend the truth and miss things out.
Interestingly the OH (works in the courts) once gave me her experience of types of crimes by minority group and that certain stereotypes were actually quite accurate and deserved, certainly in the realms of driving offences where the numbers are quite large so you can get overall averages. I'd list them but then I'd be an intolerant racist bigot
Interestingly the OH (works in the courts) once gave me her experience of types of crimes by minority group and that certain stereotypes were actually quite accurate and deserved, certainly in the realms of driving offences where the numbers are quite large so you can get overall averages. I'd list them but then I'd be an intolerant racist bigot
renrut said:
Fair enough. I don't tend to listen to what the BBC say these days unless its an international thing as they do tend to bend the truth and miss things out.
Interestingly the OH (works in the courts) once gave me her experience of types of crimes by minority group and that certain stereotypes were actually quite accurate and deserved, certainly in the realms of driving offences where the numbers are quite large so you can get overall averages. I'd list them but then I'd be an intolerant racist bigot
Oh go on list them out! Interestingly the OH (works in the courts) once gave me her experience of types of crimes by minority group and that certain stereotypes were actually quite accurate and deserved, certainly in the realms of driving offences where the numbers are quite large so you can get overall averages. I'd list them but then I'd be an intolerant racist bigot
Having been a juror on 4 separate occasions on a range of cases, I can confirm KK's last point.
When the jury is divided, people find it much easier to aquiesce to 'not guilty' rather than 'guilty'.
Much easier for the 'nots' to argue round the 'guiltys', than the other way round.
Some people also struggle with the issue of 'reasonable doubt' (now replaced by the phrase 'sure' - make of that what you will) and will take it as meaning they have to be 100% sure - impossible, unless you can look into the minds of the defendants.
On my last case, where I was the foreman, I pointed out that there will be an element of doubt in everything (I said that locked alone in a dark room for long enough, one may doubt one's own existence).
Ultimately, the jury are charged with finding a verdict. A trial cannot go on for ever, so where doubt is cast, there's more chance of a 'not guilty'.
I'm not passing comment on the system by the way, just giving my insight.
When the jury is divided, people find it much easier to aquiesce to 'not guilty' rather than 'guilty'.
Much easier for the 'nots' to argue round the 'guiltys', than the other way round.
Some people also struggle with the issue of 'reasonable doubt' (now replaced by the phrase 'sure' - make of that what you will) and will take it as meaning they have to be 100% sure - impossible, unless you can look into the minds of the defendants.
On my last case, where I was the foreman, I pointed out that there will be an element of doubt in everything (I said that locked alone in a dark room for long enough, one may doubt one's own existence).
Ultimately, the jury are charged with finding a verdict. A trial cannot go on for ever, so where doubt is cast, there's more chance of a 'not guilty'.
I'm not passing comment on the system by the way, just giving my insight.
HonestIago said:
Oh go on list them out!
Nah more fun if people can guess them. This was a while ago but here's 2 motoring ones I can remember for you to have a guess at:Drink driving with no other offences.
No Tax/Insurance.
I've never been on a jury but I know a few people who have and they've all said some of the other people on juries can be very very naive about things and take reasonable doubt to mean absolute certainty.
Back on topic - surely you shouldn't give someone a payout if it went to trial? Surely that sort of thing would bring law enforcement to its knees at the potential cost of any slight error in even charging someone?
rpguk said:
The legal system is so expensive. Perhaps someone could suggest to Cameron and co that we undertake trial by Pistonheads to save money?
Legal Aid budget is £2.1 billion this year. We could probably save a lot of that with your idea.The problem may come with the £4 billion prison budget - I suspect that might double with your idea.
KK
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff