Discussion
In the news today it has emerged that he is not getting any compensation for his 6 years in prison which appears to be a case of false imprisonment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922487
Quoting the article on the beeb website "The Ministry of Justice said it would not comment on individual cases but that damages for wrongful imprisonment were paid only when a person was shown to be "clearly innocent."
I thought that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country? If he is guilty then he should be inside, if he is innocent then give him the money!
Discuss....
Quoting the article on the beeb website "The Ministry of Justice said it would not comment on individual cases but that damages for wrongful imprisonment were paid only when a person was shown to be "clearly innocent."
I thought that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country? If he is guilty then he should be inside, if he is innocent then give him the money!
Discuss....
Jackleman said:
I thought that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country? If he is guilty then he should be inside, if he is innocent then give him the money!
I heard about that on the way in this morning, and thats exactly what I thought.As in the re-trials he hasn''t been found guilty, surely that effectively means he's innocent? Its an absolute joke, and makes a mockery of our legal system.
Well, if he is guilty then surely he should still be in jail, but if innocent then released. But if released, then it follows that he was not guilty (which is "innocent" in it's terms) and therefore ought to be due recompense.
The only thing I can think of is that they are going to try again with some other evidence!?!?
The only thing I can think of is that they are going to try again with some other evidence!?!?
Eh?
Its blatently obvious that the powers that be consider the bloke guilty as hell. In his various trials the jury has always returned hung, never a clear resounding Not Guilty. I the Scottish 3rd verdict is the accurate outcome here, not so much as Not Guilty, but Not Prooven.
No, Im afraid someone thinks chap is guilty as sin, but he cant be nailed down. Either way nothing about Mr Jenkins convinces me is innocent in all this.
Its blatently obvious that the powers that be consider the bloke guilty as hell. In his various trials the jury has always returned hung, never a clear resounding Not Guilty. I the Scottish 3rd verdict is the accurate outcome here, not so much as Not Guilty, but Not Prooven.
No, Im afraid someone thinks chap is guilty as sin, but he cant be nailed down. Either way nothing about Mr Jenkins convinces me is innocent in all this.
Mmm, history of domestic violence. Frequent attacks on ex-wife, children and known to have a temper and could fly off the handle at anyone. Lied to get his job as a deputy head and had a catalogue of lies behind him, to cover his tracked. Add to that the death of a foster child under his care and no evidence of someone entering the garden where he claimed a 'stranger' got in an beat the child to death. Mmmm, all a little suspicious if you ask me. No evidence found to support or coroborate his story, yet gets off on a technicality on the original charge. Subsequent trials fail to come to a definate conclusion....
Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
off_again said:
Mmm, history of domestic violence. Frequent attacks on ex-wife, children and known to have a temper and could fly off the handle at anyone. Lied to get his job as a deputy head and had a catalogue of lies behind him, to cover his tracked. Add to that the death of a foster child under his care and no evidence of someone entering the garden where he claimed a 'stranger' got in an beat the child to death. Mmmm, all a little suspicious if you ask me. No evidence found to support or coroborate his story, yet gets off on a technicality on the original charge. Subsequent trials fail to come to a definate conclusion....
Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
Agree with you on many of the points - but at the end of the day none of this matters.... either he's guilty - and its provable - so he goes to jail and stays there. Or he's not sent to jail as it cannot be proved that he did it. Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
If thats the case then he gets the money.
Dan_1981 said:
off_again said:
Mmm, history of domestic violence. Frequent attacks on ex-wife, children and known to have a temper and could fly off the handle at anyone. Lied to get his job as a deputy head and had a catalogue of lies behind him, to cover his tracked. Add to that the death of a foster child under his care and no evidence of someone entering the garden where he claimed a 'stranger' got in an beat the child to death. Mmmm, all a little suspicious if you ask me. No evidence found to support or coroborate his story, yet gets off on a technicality on the original charge. Subsequent trials fail to come to a definate conclusion....
Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
Agree with you on many of the points - but at the end of the day none of this matters.... either he's guilty - and its provable - so he goes to jail and stays there. Or he's not sent to jail as it cannot be proved that he did it. Mmmm, yeah, somewhat leads to the descision that he probably did commit the murder, but cannot be pinned on him. So it seems fair that he doesnt get any compensation - sorry.
If thats the case then he gets the money.
To me that means someone being 'fitted up' by the police, or someone found to have been giving false evidence. Its not given for the jury making a genuine mistake in find guilty on original trial and then finding someone not guilty on appeal.
Personally I'm rather glad, as I dont for a minute beleive this guys story.
Poor lass.
I am not sure whether the man is guilty or not, it certainly is not my place or the police or anyone other than the courts to decide that.
So in my view either he is guilt or not guilt, to have something in between black and white is totally wrong when you are talking about either someone having 6 years of their life taken away for no reason, or a girls life be taken all together. I have seen how sometime the police get it wrong in this country and also how the press also behave so this is why I am not formulating any judgement on the man.
I think the situation is wrong.
So in my view either he is guilt or not guilt, to have something in between black and white is totally wrong when you are talking about either someone having 6 years of their life taken away for no reason, or a girls life be taken all together. I have seen how sometime the police get it wrong in this country and also how the press also behave so this is why I am not formulating any judgement on the man.
I think the situation is wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff