David Lock

B2z,

I can see what you are saying but it doesn't answer my point. If the evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt then the jury shouldn't convict. Legally you are either found guilty or not guilty. End of. dl

Felix.

The original case would have gone before a jury and they found her guilty on the evidence put before them; that evidence would have been based on lots of things that the press article does not cover. The media seems to pick on a few minor things and blows them out of all proportion – like the DNA or obtaining statements from the surgeons (which you would not do).

Who’s to say the little boy did not have an injury to his head with markings identical to the section of banister. If that injury is judged that it may not have been the fatal blow after all, then the marks would be classed as having ‘no forensic link to his death’. However if the original pathologist stated that it was a contributory factor, then the police (and jury) would see the link between the two and use that as weight to prosecute/convict.

The original pathologist also said that “.......Kyle's brain was essentially normal.....”. I have known people who suffer from water on the brain, abnormal swellings, brain injuries and can live a normal life – so their brain would be classed as “.....essentially.....” normal.

Bare in mind that none of the doctors current can say how he died – so foul play cannot be ruled out. And because his death is still a mystery his death can only be classed as suspicious due to his injuries and a conviction can’t be proved based on the current evidence. If the facts are that the child was alive when the mother left him with the babysitter and he dies in her care – there is an injury consistent with a blow to the head and the original pathologist ruled that this may have been a contributory factor – what did you expect the police/CPS to do, NFA it or put to a jury. It’s the courts and jury’s decision to convict or not, the police & CPS merely make intimations of evidence to the court.

By the way – I am not linked to Cleveland Police

Felix.

There is all sorts of other evidence to consider - thats why it is put to a jury. Since someone mentioned Crimewatch the other night - the conviction of the male accused of murder of the old lady (leaving her body for months in the house) was not based on any of the above.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Define proof? This is real life, not CSI or Perry Mason (to quote the two best-known "effects"). There is almost never conclusive proof of any crime, just a load of individual pieces of evidence building up a complete picture. Each may not be that unusual in itself, but together add up to a case. It how real court cases work. What do you want? Even confessions aren't reliable, and all forensic evidence does is link two things - for which there may be a perfectly innocent explanation.



M

Stainy

You have this wrong mate. The whole point of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is that, having heard all the evidence, the jury decide whether the person is guilty. If we always had conclusive and undeniable proof that they were guilty, what would we need a jury for?

I think you've got the wording slightly wrong. I would certainly bring the Death Penalty back for certain offences, but for that I think you mean 'beyond all doubt' as the test?

Felix.

No - that was apparently enough for the jury.

DNA is not conclusive, individual witnesses will see different things. As above, its up to the court, magistrates, jury to listen to all the evidence for and against and make a judgement as to weather there is sufficent for the case to be proven.

No evidence is 'non-denialbe' and it has to be considered with the rest of the case.

mrtheedge2u2

So, what was the overwhelming evidence they convicted her on?

Felix.

Its sill not conclusive - that's why it is given as a probabliy score.

Its pretty daming evidnce - but still not classed as fully conclusive

Felix.

thats the point - there probably was not one piece of overwhelming evidence, but lots of small evidence that when put together became enough for the jury

Felix.

The case would still have gone before a court to decide on remand and further remands - so there must have been something in the original evidence

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

She's dead so can't testify. He says they had consensual sex and then he left her. She was still alive according to him. Nothing in your suggested scenario would refute his story. So no, even then DNA alone won't secure a conviction.


M

nsld

What most people dont realise is that the evidence that is put before the jury (and even more so in the magistrates) is not always all the evidence that has been collected.

At the magistrates court level the CPS decide what is disclosable to the defence and its standard practise to mark all but the damning evidence as clearly not disclosable so that the defence has to fight to have it disclosed. Even though the CPIA rules on disclosure compel the prosecution to hand over all the evidence that has relevance usually they don't.

Many cases that are overturned years later are due to the police/cps withholding key defence evidence.

If you have ever wondered why there is a 97% conviction rate in the magistrates court its down to the way the prosecution can tell the defence how to run there own case.

Add to that the fact that police officers are allowed to study the case file when making statements and its easy to see why our justice system is about as fair and balanced as the one in Zimbabwe.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Does your diatribe take into account the fact that most people in front the bench plead guilty - about 94% of them in fact? And of the ones found guilty, only 7% appeal? The actual conviction rate is thus lower than the figure you give, and mainly down to the fact that the ******* concerned are guilty as charged.


M

skid11

iTrader: (1)

I understand your other points but surely the bannister should have been forensically examined . You are just guessing that the childs DNA could have been on it. If its blood thats a different slant to the evidence than saliva for example.
Should the childs DNA not be there then this again is part of the evidence
DNA isnt conclusive but its normally a very good pointer towards the truth

nsld

Given that Her Majesty's inspectorate of CPS (HMICPS) has rated some areas as getting first stage disclosure wrong in 25% of all cases I would humbly suggest that its not a diatribe.

Perhaps you might want to go and read up on the rules on disclosure, or maybe you want to try going through 4 failed trials and 37 pre trial review hearings to get a handle on how its done!

The system at a magistrates court level is inherently corrupt for the simple reason that if your a defendant you are not allowed to have all the material yet if it goes to the crown court you are (even though you dont always get it)

You might find this link useful its to the last set of CPS reports to 2005 -2006

You might want to avail yourself of the stats on guilty pleas which run at around 62% year on year:

The Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report 2005 - Annex A: Casework Statistics

Not sure where you got 94% from, can only assume you made it up to try and add some substance to your miso soup like offering!

Felix.

Whether there was DNA on it or not. it doesn't prove anything. It will not differentiate between blood or saliva - so all it would say is that he has been in contact with it at some point.

Marks from the banister around an injury would suggest that it was caused by the banister itself

hodgy0_2

it has always both amazed and alarmed me how little evidence the state need to convict someone -- or indeed bring it to court in the first place

i,m surprised no one has mentioned the case of Barry George (who I always maintained would be freed on an appeal) -- not entirley because he is innocent (although i think he is) -- who knows for sure

but just because the evidence was so flimsy -- all the prosecution proved (as in the case of Stagg) was that he was the local wierdo/nutter

absolutley no evidence forensic/witness etc etc -- just a load if "if's buts and maybe's" -- so when, what evidence the police had was shown to be bollx the case just disintergrated like the wet bog roll it was

even the presecution barrister was surprised when he was convicted!!!

scary

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

Just to assist some of the misinformed posters on here who obviously have no idea where the various criminal justice agencies obligations lie....

The Police investigate and gather evidence. When the evidence is gathered Police take the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The CPS then decide on a charging decision.This is based on several factors, including: Is there evidence that this person has committed this offence. Is it in the public interest to prosecute this offence and is there a realistic prospect of securing a conviction?
If the answer to all those and more questions is yes then the matter may progress to court.
The offender , if charged, will appear at Magistrates Court and offer a plea.If, God forbid, they have committed an offence and been caught, they may wish to plead guilty. If the magistrates feel appropriate,they can sentence and deal with the matter. Alternatively, they can refer the matter to the Crown Court.
If the matter goes to Crown Court, then a jury of 12 (good men and true) will hear the evidence presented before them. If they believe, beyond all REASONABLE doubt, that the person standing before them is guilty, then a conviction follows.
If not then the defendant will be found not guilty, and aquitted.
That is what statute states, however there are many experts on Scoobynet who know better.
Micarriages of justice are unfortunate. However, in response to the original poster. To blame just the police shows utter ignorance to the workings of the criminal justice system.

hodgy0_2

I think "the police" are just, to most people the visible manifestation of the rather esoteric term "the criminal justice system"

So give the OP the benefit of the doubt and attack the sentiments of the post -- don’t nit pick on semantics

Felix.

Unless you are involved in the case or have been in the public gallery, you won’t know exactly what all the evidence is. All the evidence (big or small) is passed to the CPS for a charging decision. If a charge is granted, then ultimately a judge & jury will decide if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt

hodgy0_2

granted -- but with the barry george and the colin stagg case all the evidence i read about - pre, during and post trial was absolutley rubbish, zilch bollx - nothing

and surly even the police accept now that ALL the evidence againts colin stagg amounted to nothing, even the stuff us mere mortals never got to see was a waste of space -- self evidently as it turns out

Felix.

Then it was a small amount of evidence then. But what should the police do - ignore it and risk another murder, or pass it to the CPS for a decision on charge and a court for a decision of guilt.

How else would you do it

hodgy0_2

funny as its generally accepted that the police's dogged persuit of Colin Stagg
allowed Rachel Nickel's killer to kill again

i'm not saying its the police's fault entirely, the media, the CPS, the baying nature of the population at large, all lead, especially in high profile cases to a heady cocktail of emotions and pressures that often lead to very bad decissions being taken by all concerned