LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

Who's been watching this then? I was gripped by it and couldn't believe the end result?!! At the end where the 'innocent' man had his say in front of the camera, I felt as though it was a 'middle finger up' sort of moment and felt as if they were almost mocking the system. I found the defence extremely hard to believe, especially the conversation about discussing protein shakes between the mobile phones?

Thoughts?

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Must admit I was caught watching this on the small telly in the kitchen while I was tidying up and had to see it through to the end.

The female custody sergeant had a hard day and wanted to punch somebody which didn't look good, neither did some of the plods........but that guy was as guilty as the day I was born. Maybe the Jury should be shown the video of the interviews?

Shaun

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

It's crazy but there's probably thousands of examples like this. I do wonder though how much the 'documentary' has been smartly edited to sway and deceive the viewing audience? You can simply tell from his body language that he was guilty as hell so yes, why can't the jury be shown snippets from the interview to show his extreme change in body language when probed on certain questions?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I wonder if any of the jurors have watched this themselves tonight, and are perhaps questioning their decision.

I know we are seeing an edited programme, but based on what I've watched, there is little doubt in my mind that he was guilty, and generally speaking, I'm a fairly 'benefit of the doubt' kind of person.

Felix.

innocent until proven guilty though - despite how shifty they look

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

I know but come on... If he was really innocent and had all of those 'valid' answers for the questions, then why didn't he say it all when he was interviewed? He answered "no comment" for every single question for gods sake. Surely no innocent man would answer "no comment" to every single question? Only a guilty person would say that!?

This has really bugged me how he's got off free when it is so blatantly obvious that he helped arrange the attempted murder of that man.

donny andi

iTrader: (3)

He was guilty as sin....lucky escape he got

boomer

I gotta agree - it was up to "Mr Vegas" to find credible evidence, and despite spouting "cell site data" or whatever bollox, he could not prove who used the phone or where (within quite a large area) it was at the time (and certainly not in the same room).

And after watching his questioning techniques, i would most certainly be saying "no comment" myself (but with random leg twitches, just to throw him off the scent ).

mb

Felix.

So, would you say Kate McCann was guilty then

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Anyone who has a lawyer by name is used to getting into trouble imo. I've been nicked twice in my younger years. Innocent on both occasions and at no point did I have a friend on speed dial. Was utterly open and honest with answers during questioning. Just saying. Still, the guy in that video clearly benefitted from a close call as he appears to have stopped taking steroids and cleaned his act up a bit. They got convictions on the majority of them, which is better than nothing. Until we devise a system of submerging telepathic, fortune-telling triplets to predict crime, we will have programmes like this and something to debate on the forums.

The Romeo and Juliette line was classic. It's ridiculous. Was a great bit of TV from Channel 4 again. Got a lot of time for their content.

Moley

iTrader: (9)

I would say so.... but that's a whole different topic

forgedmarco

iTrader: (10)

When saying no comment that forces the police to find real evidence to convict, when you give answers they can twist what you say be it honest or dishonest.

dazsti72

No comment...

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

hodgy0_2

I suspect Moazzam Begg would agree


West Midlands assistant chief constable Marcus Beale walked out of the Old Bailey and told journalists that his force accepted that Moazzam Begg was an innocent man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29442623

But at a pre-trial review on Wednesday morning lasting just five minutes prosecution lawyers told the court that the CPS had decided there was insufficient evidence to continue with the prosecution.

five minutes was all it took - under legal scrutiny for it to all turn to dust, five minutes

I would be pretty pissed off if I had spent months in custody - shameful really

Felix.

I don't think the review by CPS took 5 minutes - i think the decision had been reached by CPS prior to the 'pre-trial review' and hence at this meeting they would officially state that they have decided that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter and they would withdraw the case. At that point - meeting over.

The cynical side of me may suggest that in such cases, the accused has gone to 'rent a witness' to act as alibi for his account. His solicitor has obtained statements from them covering the points raised in his interview and submitted them to the CPS

Felix.

'No comment' will usually lead to a charge and a day at court if you have a witness or complaint statement.

i.e - you have the victims side of the story, but the offender has not given an account as he has gone 'no reply'; hence you can only go on what the victim says.

It can sometimes be a case that the the offender will wait to hear what the evidence is in interview (where he goes no reply) then he has time before he goes to court to think of a reason why we found his fingerprints at the scene. But remember the court can draw an inference from this and chose whether to believe him or not.

Police interviews with suspects and solicitors is like a game between the solicitor and the police. Its sometimes more beneficial for the police if the suspect makes a 'no reply' interview - you don't have to disclose everything that way. In fact the less you disclose to the solicitor, the more likely they are to go 'no reply' - that way you can hold your main evidence back in the disclosure.

The solicitor can not (in theory) advise his client to lie in interview. If the suspect tells his solicitor "yeah it was me" the advise will be to either make a full confession or go 'no reply'. If they act in the best interests of their client, by going 'no reply', there is a chance that the victims will later refuse to attend court or the case will be dropped by CPS or there will be a bizarre decision to take no further action or the victim will tie themselves up in knots in the witness box etc etc. Hence his client walks free.

Fabioso

At the end of the day the legal system is this country is to presume a man is innocent until proven guilty. If there wasn't sufficient evidence then he is an innocent man.

I am glad the system works this way, and if you were caught up and wrongly accused of something you didn't do then I am pretty sure you would also be glad the system works this way.

It was a great programme to watch, realy interesting to see the outcomes.

That solicitor's number plate made me laugh, it was so "obvious" for that type of character in that type of profession

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

I noticed that too. He was defiantly "that sort of character" who would have that number plate. He reminded me of that Asian guy on the channel 4 dating program called 'First Dates' (if you watched it you would know who I'm on about). I can imagine him being one of the biggest bullish!tters around too.

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Hahaha. I know who you mean. I realise I totally incriminate myself with having spent too long watching that style of programme. To be fair, I could have gone for a walk, so it was not that bad.

warrenm2

Just watched it. OK so he went no comment at the beginning. In some respects fair enough. But as the evidence started to be revealed, his little prepared statements were obviously attempts to deal with the evidence rather than tell the truth. With the evidence of the phone being in his neighbourhood on the night before did it for me. If I was on that jury, I would have said guilty.

CupraT

Unless you heard all the evidence you can't say you would have found him guilty based on what you saw. That won't have been everything.

Once you go no comment you need to stick to it for all questions otherwise it's going to infer things based on what you answer.

Pretty sure he was guilty though! Would love to play poker with him...imagine he wouldn't be that hard to read with the twitching leg!