DANO Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) have followed this case for a few years ,nice to see mr george free,disgracefull behavior of the bbc in his first case should be examined,every time the case was on the news they wheeled out nick ross to tell everybody how guilty he was tw*ts. Edited August 1, 2008 by DANO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 Always dubious of first time posters who sign up and dive in with something as controversial as this, however, I make you right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bignoel Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 the law of this land say's he's right so must be right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 what..? when??? let mejust check the news.!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek.snr Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 some of the evidence was dubious to say the least ,and the way it was reported by the bbc was a disgrace ,one quote was "gun nut with an unhealthy interest in women" half the forum!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bignoel Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 what only half : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 Good LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 ok so another case of false imprisonment but who has to foot the bill,ok so he lost a few years,and yes he should be compensated but its the likes of us tax payers who end up footing the bill due to the incompetance police force,yet again. And now where do they go from here,re-open the case and start there probably poor investigations again.also i do know there are decent police out there me personally thinks that the whole government/police force needs a good ****** shake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death from below Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 You are forgetting the CPS in all of this.....Don't forget its the lawyers that prosecute ....the police gather evidence. The barry George case was always very iffy......and apears to be a full on 'carraige of misjustice'. That term has been branded wrongly in the past but is right in this case by the looks of it. I remember the pressure at the time to bring to justice dando's maurderer. There was an almost 'lady Di' type of mulshy reporting on the woman. It was sad that she lost her life but she was no superhero. Beware the women of Fulham, you never know when the next grope might be coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 really think they are all to blame somewhere along the lines,police for the evidence,the cps for not seeing that b george was just a strange man with a fascination for weapons ,hell thats all of us on here. And then there would of been his appeal ,there has been so many people that was only out to get a result for Jill Dando that the true justice was not done .Any one with an ounce of sense would see that this was a hit end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death from below Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 it's not so much blasting her in the head that smells of a pro job....its the fact that whoever did it disappeared without trace. No CCTV footage ffrom any cameras within a 1/2 mile circumference. maybe it was the invisible man. One thing the police are very good at is trawling evidence from cctv.....yet none whatsoever....conspiracy theory time. Still no sign of Nick Ros though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biffo1262 Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) What I would like to know and it isn't just about this particular case is; time and time again the Police have circumstantial evidence that may convict a person but at the same time they have evidence that proves their innocence. This evidence is time after time supressed and never passed over to the defence. What gives gives these officers the right to play God and break the law. It makes them liars, immoral, and have no place in the legal system but what happens to them. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! It seems to be more about the need for a conviction the relieve the pressure (the BBC played a big part in this case) and not finding the guilty party. My wife says, bless her, the Police must think he's guilty or they wouldn't have charged him. Naive I know, we had the same argument about the Sally Clarke case and her being convicted on a statistic and not evidence (another case where some medical evidence was suppressed). My point is just how many people on a jury think the same way and actually believe all the hype that's put in front of them without reservation (the CSI effect). They interviewed one of the original jurors in the Barry George case last night and she was adamant that the evidence wasn't enough to convict him and stood by her assessment. How right she was and probably the only deep thinker on the Jury. I wonder how the other eleven feel now? I can imagine the scene in the jury room with the eleven thinking she's a trouble making idiot and just wanting get it over and done with and go home. Those eleven are the one's to blame as it all hung on their vastly flawed 'assessment'. On another day Barry George would have been unanimously acquitted. So where do we go from here? The jury system obviously isn't working and the public would mistrust a bench of legal experts due to the fact that they may be subject to undue influence. Any ideas? Juror interviews to assess the individuals capability of making a rational and informed assessment and not just any person on the electoral roll? There are great many people I can think of who are just not capable of sitting on a jury and coming to a rational decision having listened to some of the absolute drivel I've heard them come out with. Edited August 2, 2008 by Biffo1262 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilv Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) You are forgetting the CPS in all of this.....Don\'t forget its the lawyers that prosecute ....the police gather evidence. The barry George case was always very iffy......and apears to be a full on \'carraige of misjustice\'. That term has been branded wrongly in the past but is right in this case by the looks of it. I remember the pressure at the time to bring to justice dando\'s maurderer. There was an almost \'lady Di\' type of mulshy reporting on the woman. It was sad that she lost her life but she was no superhero. Beware the women of Fulham, you never know when the next grope might be coming. What I would like to know and it isn\'t just about this particular case is; time and time again the Police have circumstantial evidence that may convict a person but at the same time they have evidence that proves their innocence. This evidence is time after time supressed and never passed over to the defence. What gives gives these officers the right to play God and break the law. It makes them liars, immoral, and have no place in the legal system but what happens to them. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! It seems to be more about the need for a conviction the relieve the pressure (the BBC played a big part in this case) and not finding the guilty party. My wife says, bless her, the Police must think he\'s guilty or they wouldn\'t have charged him. Naive I know, we had the same argument about the Sally Clarke case and her being convicted on a statistic and not evidence (another case where some medical evidence was suppressed). My point is just how many people on a jury think the same way and actually believe all the hype that\'s put in front of them without reservation (the CSI effect). They interviewed one of the original jurors in the Barry George case last night and she was adamant that the evidence wasn\'t enough to convict him and stood by her assessment. How right she was and probably the only deep thinker on the Jury. I wonder how the other eleven feel now? I can imagine the scene in the jury room with the eleven thinking she\'s a trouble making idiot and just wanting get it over and done with and go home. Those eleven are the one\'s to blame as it all hung on their vastly flawed \'assessment\'. On another day Barry George would have been unanimously acquitted. So where do we go from here? The jury system obviously isn\'t working and the public would mistrust a bench of legal experts due to the fact that they may be subject to undue influence. Any ideas? Juror interviews to assess the individuals capability of making a rational and informed assessment and not just any person on the electoral roll? There are great many people I can think of who are just not capable of sitting on a jury and coming to a rational decision having listened to some of the absolute drivel I\'ve heard them come out with. God knows - we\'d be in trouble without the police and security services - a pretty pickle and no mistake..... But. to paraphrase a remark up top there, the CPS decide to prosecute and at times the police \'fit up\'. The Barry George case is one of the MOST disgraceful travesties EVER, and that is saying something. From the start it was clear that the murder was a professional hit job. No one saw, no physical traces were left. The victim was a high profile crime fighter in a funny way. Her programme and the millions of viewers it got put away many serious villains. So - after a whole year of no hope investigation, the cops chance on a loner half wit with odd social behaviour and difficulties in expressing his interest in women. What happens? Nobody saw him, he has left no physical evidence at the scene at all. No gun is found. He denies ever seeing the lady concerned in the flesh but they pick up one speck of firearms residue on his clothing a year after the event and after firearms officers have searched his house, no doubt hot foot from the gun range, and bingo - he loses his liberty for eight years. That is really disgusting. The guy has an IQ of 75 but ten jurors thought he could pull off a professional hit job. Justice in this country is a lottery and at least half of that is due to cynical and dishonest policemen with the attitude of, \'We can\'t find out who did it, so this nutter will do.\' Time and again this happens to guys like Barry George. Stephan Kishco was another one. He was known by the police to be sterile and the rapist murderer had left live sperm on the poor little girl that was murdered. They knew Kishco couldn't have left that sperm, but they persuaded him to confess and let him go tp jail for sixteen years until DNA advances dragged up Ronald Kastree who was the real killer. Kishko died not long after he was let out and pardoned. The court never heard the evidence about Kishco's sterility, because it was never given to the defence and he was too simple minded poor b*gger to tell anyone. Kishko Edited August 2, 2008 by Evilv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 it's not so much blasting her in the head that smells of a pro job....its the fact that whoever did it disappeared without trace. No CCTV footage ffrom any cameras within a 1/2 mile circumference. maybe it was the invisible man. One thing the police are very good at is trawling evidence from cctv.....yet none whatsoever....conspiracy theory time. Still no sign of Nick Ros though Think there is no reason to believe a cover up (unless you know something we/or i dont) no on that thought, sorry,you could be right .Ido believe there was a prince involved with her at the time,something to do with Jill Dando rejecting his advances so maybe youre right. But my thought is she has really just upset the wrong person on crimewatch,come to think of it that sounds like a pretty lame excuse now starting to sway more with the cover up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 The jurors exactly what happened to there IQ when this case was going on is it possible that these people left them at home except for the one lady who had half a brain and said hey no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 and apears to be a full on 'carraige of misjustice'. Is that like a miscarrage of justice? Glad to see so many expert detectives on the forum. If we have any crime on the forum we should be ok. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 maybe its time for juries to be up of professional people i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists etc . Just a thought ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 and apears to be a full on 'carraige of misjustice'. Is that like a miscarrage of justice? Glad to see so many expert detectives on the forum. If we have any crime on the forum we should be ok. Harry I dont think anybody is making any kind of personal attack on here,we are mainly expressing our opinions. And no you are right we have not got the first idea as to what really happened ,what we are merely getting at is the fact that there have been so many times that someone could of stood up there and said that,Mr George has neither the brains or the reason to commit this crime. In respect to decent police, decent lawers, decent jurors, there are always going to be the bent ones who want the easy street, hell i know dodgy coppers the dodgy coppers know dodgy coppers, magistrates i know most of them are dodgy,i know of one that is as straight as an arrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 maybe its time for juries to be up of professional people i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists etc . Just a thought ?? Duncan i believe that you have firmly hit the nail on the head there,my thoughts exactly. To be a juror i think you must not of been in trouble with the law,mmmm funny that it doesnt say you have to have a brain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 and apears to be a full on 'carraige of misjustice'. Is that like a miscarrage of justice? Glad to see so many expert detectives on the forum. If we have any crime on the forum we should be ok. Harry Not experts just people passing entitled too opinions? even if they don't sit well with some personally,simple as that. And why is it that when it does rankle some! rather than put educated reasoning (very difficult in this particular case) do smart ***** comments surface? Do miscarriages of justice never occur? has there NEVER been such a thing a bent copper, or an unlawful killing of an innocent by the police?are the police perfect? of course not, without a questioning attitude cases like this would never be reviewed, then what do we do? sit and simply take as gospel the word of a few people with a bit of power? whilst the same people lie cheat and manipulate ( as in mendenzes ) rather than admit to doing wrong or being bloody poor at their job? cheers KW cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death from below Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 dirty harry i appreciate your protective stance re the police side.......but this case does and always has stunk. even the police get iot wrong sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 and apears to be a full on 'carraige of misjustice'. Is that like a miscarrage of justice? Glad to see so many expert detectives on the forum. If we have any crime on the forum we should be ok. Harry Not experts just people passing entitled too opinions? even if they don't sit well with some personally,simple as that. And why is it that when it does rankle some! rather than put educated reasoning (very difficult in this particular case) do smart ars*"d comments surface? Do miscarriages of justice never occur? has there NEVER been such a thing a bent copper, or an unlawful killing of an innocent by the police?are the police perfect? of course not, without a questioning attitude cases like this would never be reviewed, then what do we do? sit and simply take as gospel the word of a few people with a bit of power? whilst the same people lie cheat and manipulate ( as in mendenzes ) rather than admit to doing wrong or being bloody poor at their job? cheers KW cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek.snr Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 maybe its time for juries to be up of professional people i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists etc . Just a thought ?? is common sense ,limited to "professional " people then ,i take it you put yourself in this group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejay Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 maybe its time for juries to be up of professional people i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists etc . Just a thought ?? is common sense ,limited to "professional " people then ,i take it you put yourself in this group. nice one never thought of that .But i do think that sometimes it does need someone with some form of intelect to see through the whole system and therefore see the misjustice being done,I for one would not like to be in that situation for love nor money, on my head be-it so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 maybe its time for juries to be up of professional people i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists etc . Just a thought ?? is common sense ,limited to "professional " people then ,i take it you put yourself in this group. No i don`t put myself in this group , but do`es common sense let a murderer go free or an innocent man hang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.