Russell Bishop, on trial for double murder

[Derek Smith]

Russell Bishop, convicted for attempted murder of a child in 1990, reported to be the longest serving offender for the offence in the UK, has appeared in court by video link charged with the murder of Karen Hadaway and Nicola Fellows in 1983.

He was charged and tried for the double murder and was found not guilty.

Given that Bishop has served 28 years for att murder I wonder what the likely penalty would be. Anyone able to help with that.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

found not guilty.

I wonder what the likely penalty would be. Anyone able to help with that.

Zero.

HTH

[ElectricPics]

Derek Smith said:

Russell Bishop, convicted for attempted murder of a child in 1990, reported to be the longest serving offender for the offence in the UK, has appeared in court by video link charged with the murder of Karen Hadaway and Nicola Fellows in 1983.

He was charged and tried for the double murder and was found not guilty.

Given that Bishop has served 28 years for att murder I wonder what the likely penalty would be. Anyone able to help with that.

He was found not guilty in 1987 but new evidence means he can be tried again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-429193...

The only sentence if he's found guilty of murder is life imprisonment. The judge will likely hand him a whole life sentence or stipulate a minimum term. As he's already serving a life sentence and still hasn't been released after the minimum 14 years which would have been 2004, he's unlikely to ever be released.

[Rovinghawk]

ElectricPics said:

if he's found guilty

Unlike many, you understand the concept of innocence until proven guilty. Fair play to you.

[Rude-boy]

Rovinghawk said:

ElectricPics said:

if he's found guilty

Unlike many, you understand the concept of innocence until proven guilty. Fair play to you.

This is one of the saddest posts i have ever read on PH.

The fact that it is so unusual for someone to assume innocence before the court has made it's mind up that they are to be credited for doing so.

The court of Social Media might think that it is king today, I suspect that there are a lot of hang um high types who are going to regret it in the future when the court of Social Media turns against them, as it will.

[Derek Smith]

ElectricPics said:

He was found not guilty in 1987 but new evidence means he can be tried again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-429193...

The only sentence if he's found guilty of murder is life imprisonment. The judge will likely hand him a whole life sentence or stipulate a minimum term. As he's already serving a life sentence and still hasn't been released after the minimum 14 years which would have been 2004, he's unlikely to ever be released.

What would have been the minimum term had he been found guilty in the first trial? There were hopes that he'd not get released even if he pleaded to it, but others were not so sure. All pie in the sky as it turned out. But would it have been 30 years? Even where a whole life sentence is given for multiple murders there's normally a chance of parole., Brady notwithstanding.

He was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years. He's remained in custody, rumour has it, because of his refusal to accept his guilt. That's 28 years as near as damn it.

Is it reasonable to suggest that if he pleads to the double murder and 'accepts' his guilt for the att murder, remember all offences against children, that it is possible he could be released on parole? The nearest to him is Black. Although he murdered more children and abducted more, that's just numbers. The offences are very similar.

I'm not normally vindictive but I'd not like to see him outside again. His original case had a degree of trickery in it that was offensive. Those won't be used again of course and let's hope others aren't tried. Let's just have the decision on the evidence.

All the above on the questionable presumption that Bishop is guilty of the offences of murder.

[Randy Winkman]

Rude-boy said:

Rovinghawk said:

ElectricPics said:

if he's found guilty

Unlike many, you understand the concept of innocence until proven guilty. Fair play to you.

This is one of the saddest posts i have ever read on PH.

The fact that it is so unusual for someone to assume innocence before the court has made it's mind up that they are to be credited for doing so.

The court of Social Media might think that it is king today, I suspect that there are a lot of hang um high types who are going to regret it in the future when the court of Social Media turns against them, as it will.

Whilst many of us assume that the question about sentence is only on the basis that he actually is found guilty. Clearly he hasn't been found guilty yet and it's theoretical. What's wrong with that?

[Derek Smith]

Rude-boy said:

This is one of the saddest posts i have ever read on PH.

The fact that it is so unusual for someone to assume innocence before the court has made it's mind up that they are to be credited for doing so.

The court of Social Media might think that it is king today, I suspect that there are a lot of hang um high types who are going to regret it in the future when the court of Social Media turns against them, as it will.

It is sometimes extremely difficult to think that way when one has seen the full disclosure. This is especially so when one is not influenced by trickery in the court.

As I said before, subject to him being found guilty.

[handpaper]

Derek Smith said:

He's remained in custody, rumour has it, because of his refusal to accept his guilt.

Not saying that this is the case here, but what's an innocent man to do to get released if sentenced to 'life'? Lie about his guilt?

[Derek Smith]

handpaper said:

Derek Smith said:

He's remained in custody, rumour has it, because of his refusal to accept his guilt.

Not saying that this is the case here, but what's an innocent man to do to get released if sentenced to 'life'? Lie about his guilt?

As you can see above, he is not innocent. He is guilty, having been found guilty by his peers. What we are talking about is him not agreeing with the verdict.

It is hackneyed of course, but the prisons are full of people who say they are innocent.

However, I take your point. What normally happens is that once all appeals are exhausted the offender has a change of heart and confesses his crimes. This can, and often is, ignored later. They say the only reason they said they were guilty was to get time off.

In this specific case, look at the evidence with regards his crime. It was overwhelming. The circumstantial evidence alone was rather startling. Not to be daunted by the amount of evidence, part of the defence was that the enquiry made up its mind that Bishop was guilty early on. This ignored the inbuilt systems in the processes, but there was a certain truth. The initial evidence, all unexplained, was remarkable. As the enquiry went on, the evidence increased.

In normal circumstances there's contrary evidence, perhaps suggesting a defence That has to be overcome, but in this case there was very little.

The victim, just a young kid, picked him out on the parade despite him trying to disguise himself. She was something special. I've seen the video of the parade and it would choke up anyone. The defence tried to exclude the video I believe. I don't know if they managed it.

As in most cases where the evidence is overwhelming, the defence attacked the police personally. The SIO spent ages in the box and handled himself brilliantly. He received a commendation from the judge at the conclusion of the trial. The defence picked the wrong bloke. The SIO was impeccable in everything he did. He was an impressive officer and one wonders why they went for him. His abilities were well known locally.

The team - and everyone else - guessed that the defence would be that the police had decided to fit up Bishop as they believed he had got off the double murder charge. From the start, the police enquiry ensured it was impeccable, more so than normal. It was a text-book enquiry.

One fact that made me worried was that the SIO told off two detectives to arrest Bishop as one of the first actions in the case because the MO was very similar to the double murder,. It was a big risk and took amazing bottle. Indeed, I phoned the SIO after charging to congratulate him. However, it secured significant and compelling evidence. Bishop was hosing out the boot of his car - despite being rather thick he'd obviously picked up a few things with regards DNA at his first trial - in which he had imprisoned the child.

The kid had found a hammer and had pounded on the boot, leaving dents in it. As I said, she was something special.

Bishop is guilty. There are few cases where the evidence is so strong.

[Magog]

Seems the ongoing trial is taking some bizarre and unsettling turns with these allegations from a defence witness that one of the girls fathers was involved in her sexual abuse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46362...