blonde poker forum

A truly shocking story of how an innocent man could get fitted up for a murder by the police who decided he was guilty without any evidence except for the fact he was a bit of loner with oddball beliefs.

A few things that came to mind after watching this programme:

1. The tabloid press are scum. To print Staggs picture next to the headline "No Girl is Safe" AFTER he was found not guilty was totally reprehensible.

2. Who are these people who turn up at trials to boo and shout catcalls at defendants in high profile cases? Have they really got nothing better to do with their miserable lives?

3. How long is going to take before defendants are given anonymity before a trial? The reporting of the Nickell case led the public to believe Stagg was guilty before the trial even began. Look at the footballers who have been arrested but not charged with rape. Everyone knows them and their names have been tarnished with virtually no reason.

4. Lastly, wouldn't have been ironic if Stagg had gone to the police to tell them "Lizzie James" had murdered a woman and child in a Satanic ritual killing?

All in all a very disturbing programme. I can hope Stagg and Rachels family can find peace now.

 :goodpost:

society adheres to such disposable ideology these days

I urge you to watch...."In The Name Of The Father"

If that doesn't blow your mind, you ain't human

Have done.

It did.

so many mistakes made

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7697876.stm

totally mate

The changing of people beliefs throughout the film, is remarkable.....it is an amazing film

The last scene is amazing ("Im walking out the front door with Gerry!!!"), it wouldn't have been the same if Danial Day Lewis didn't play Gerry Conlon, it wouln't have been the same movie

More of the same no film though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm

which paper printed the 'No Girl is Safe' headline next to Stagg's picture?

let me ask a hypothetical question,

if it could be proved that police procedures resulted in a higher cleanup rate of crime (the majority in safe convictions), but this invariably meant the odd miscarriage of justice, would you consider this a price worth paying ?

lol, fuck no!!!!!!

I wonder if the guy doing life and his family's life is ruined would take solace in the fact that, well atleast theres a "higher clan up rate"

...and another reason why the death penalty isn't a good option.

but surely it is naive to expect total infalibility.

They went out of their way to stitch Stagg up, the police knew he hadn't done it. Same as the Jill Dando suspect who went down for a few years, anyone with some mental health problems and a record is likely to be accused of it.

Ok the Police investigation had all the hallmarks of an episode of Cagney and Lacey..........but how on earth did the CPS consider there was enough(ANY) evidence to proceed to the Old Bailey for such a high profile case ???!!!

there will be miscaraiges of justice i agree, they shouldnt be accepted though, especially not with the justification you're suggesting.

You're going further away from rule or law with this idea and it can get dangerous because all of a sudden the police, as opposed to carrying out their duties in enforcing the law and protecting the public, start to work on their own volition and the autonomy it promotes leaves us with a police force that are corrupt and content to deviate from the perameters of legislation, very much like it was in the 1980's but they brought in the police and criminals evidence act to stop all that shit and we dont want to go back to it.

I'm not so sure "the police knew he hadn't done it". The media hype and resulting public pressure meant they were desperate for a result.

Stagg fitted the bill as a very likely suspect.

So they tried to make sure he fitted the bill.

None of it surprises me in the slightest. http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html (http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html) A case I was involved in during my brief legal career. What astonished me in that case was that not only did the police suppress evidence and change people's witness statements but a jury managed to find someone guilty of murdering someone despite the fact that people who knew the deceased saw him alive & well AFTER the date of the "murder". I'll never forget the few members of the jury who disagreed looking at me & shaking their heads as the verdict was read out. He got out eventually after 10 years so yes it is just as well we don't have the death penalty. Seems to me that the higher profile a case is, the more pressure is on the police to get "a result", and the less likely they are to get the right result.
Rant over.


Despite all this I still have respect for the police, they have a tough job to do & it's only a small minority who are corrupt. They just make the job even harder for the decent ones.

I'm not sure. It just showed the cut out.

But if I was a betting man, I would be 1-25 The Sun and 33-1 bar one.

(http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/SNN1407Y-180_554414a-792222.jpg)

I've always thought being in prison for a crime I didn't commit would be the worst form of hell.

I would rather 10 guilty men went free than to imprison 1 innocent man.

There's a shocker! not.

The bookies always win.

Thanks for the find Booder.

this

Wouldn't even wipe my arse with that sorry excuse for a paper.

What's more disgusting is the petty way HMG acts towards the victims of miscarriges of justice. They get compensation but are CHARGED for the cost of their 'upkeep' while incarcerated!!!

There's NO councelling, help with restarting their lives, nothing - just a fecking BILL!

Are you sure this is right?

I am absolutely gobsmacked. (and that doesn't happen too often)

Absolutely - there was a programme in Scotland about it - there's a guy who was released years after a wrongful conviction. He's pretty much a recluse but has invited others who've been in the same boat to stay with him till they've got things straight in their own heads - can't remember the guy's name though.

Can't comment on the counselling but i remember hearing that a guy who had been locked up for around 20 years got paid £1mil+ in compensation but was then charged 20 years bed and board.

wow rod, that is fucking appalling. do you know if that's a scottish thing or uk wide?

You missed 1 point Keith,

5. Thank god theres no longer a death penalty in the UK.

theres something in place i'm sure, you get a certain amount per day, i think it's £60 a day or something if you were on remand for 6 months then found not guilty, not sure if that's a similar thing they have for if you have a conviction overturned, as well as that basic structure of payment i'd imagine you can pursue a legal action for compensation.

Yes you can apply for compensation but it takes years to come through. There's no other support as such for the innocent, only for those who are guilty and have repented their sins & served their time.

No, England too, first I heard of it was when the Birmingham 6 were billed for being held unjustly.

The petulant behaviour by the legal system is a disgrace to us all in these situations.

If a criminal needs support when being released how much more does an innocent person?

so sick

so are guilty people charged for their keep too or do you only have to pay if you're innocent?

Guilty people leave with their (meagre) earnings from prison jobs AFAIK.

The Establishment is very huffy when proved wrong sadly.

No I didn't watch the program but knew about it's contents. I have kept an eye on this case since the early days as a brief in South London and even living in Wimbledon at the time of the offence. So many things I want to comment upon in this thread.

This was a high profile case and the police felt under pressure to get a result, they were weak and buckled under to the pressure. A "Senior Officer" saw the prime suspect and persuaded himself as to his guilt, didn't bother with Judge and Jury, and went ahead to try to prove his guilt by the most amazing means. That officer was not supported by all his staff I understand.

Sadly this is in the public eye because of the horrible nature of the offence itself. However what about the lower profile cases where you don't find out that the same happened time after time, i.e. and officer has decided as to guilt and tailored the evidence to fit his theories, it happens more than you think. Don't, of course, ask me for examples.

Just to make sure you don't sleep happily in your beds tonight I will also point out that since the Stagg case there has been legislation making it harder to check police actions. Furthermore Governments, especially this one, has passed more and more anti defence laws to ensure that the CPS have the upper hand in cases and they know that some innocent people will be convicted in an effort to keep as many baddies in custody as possible. A few years back we had a shortage of prison beds and new prisons were built and, guess what, they are now also full.

Regarding successful appellants having to pay for their keep from compensation, that is, I believe nationwide. However compensation is rare as there are many hoops to jump through to get this. A person who simply appeals a Guilty finding at trial and wins his appeal is not entitled to compensation, he has to rely on an appeal "out of time" and based on new evidence found after the trial, bearing in mind the law on disclosure has also been stiffened up against a defendant this is a rare event.

Thanks for that post Robert.

Is there a legal reason why suspects are named even before they are charged?

Some guy was charged or at least named in the Suffolk prostitutes murder case before they found the killer. Footballers Jonny Evans, Robin Van Persie, Steve Moran and I'm sure a couple of others have been named in rape cases but never reached court. It just seems ridiculously unfair.

It's always been the case that suspects, defendants and complainants can be mentioned by the press, however this freedom is fettered by legislation. For instance rape complainants can't be mentioned (doesn't extend to defendants) nor can juveniles be identified either as defendant, complainant or witness etc. The latter has been the case since at least 1933 but now the press are finding it easier to get courts to lift reporting restrictions so they can report on little Jimmy's ASBO. Courts also have jurisdiction to restrict press reporting on cases for various reasons.

So if the press want to name someone outside of the exceptions, and it sells papers, they will. It's great for papers to report on someone being arrested for rape or similar, it's a fact and they are immune from defamation actions. Stinks, doesn't it?

I recently had a debate with our local press as to how they enjoy reporting on people charged or just arrested but never happen to find enough space to report acquittals. In the past newspapers used to be transitory and the next day were fit only to be salt and vinegar soaked rags with which to wrap your chips, not now as the internet keeps reports up for search engines to find for an indefinite period. My local paper is also allowing reports to be commented upon, this allows the ill-informed to react to biased reporting and further influence other ill-informed sensation seekers.  (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews)

LOL @ the peeping tom story ... this comment was genius !

I'm sorry but the absurdity of this story does make it comical. How do you 'become aware' that something was wrong? Presumably you see five hundred quid's-worth of Nikon sticking through your bathroom wall. You know, like yo do; happens all the time. I also see that the 'woman' in the opening paragraph defies the aging process by becoming a 'girl' by the fourth. As for those comedy names, Julius Capon? Are you sure? Is he by any chance related to Giles Guinea-Fowl (that'll be the Surrey Guinea-Fowls), Tarquin Arbuthnot-Blackfeatherturkey or Charles Farquharson-Capercaillie? Presumably the defendant is now Wailing Wall. What you might call a Wall to wall carpeting.
Max Wall, Wallsend

didnt the guy they thought was responsible for maddeline mcanns dissapearence get a settlement from several different papers?

A big settlement. Over a million in total I think.

Yes, they reported far more than the facts. One reporter referred to the whole episode as a "feeding frenzy", editors simply ignored defamation law and circulations were hitting new levels. I wonder if the papers made more in advertising income than they paid out in damages, I hazard a guess they did ok for themselves.

Thanks, I didn't see that before, I know Julius and you can expect he'll see this soon :)