Cell phones

It is an ongoing alleged Miscarriage of Justice case, PECS.
I have only just worked out which one it is, a high profile case from 1985.

Thanks Jalima

Why are these recent posts in code and secretive? If the case in not current then it is in the public domain so no need for secrecy.
There is absolutely no need for secrecy, the case has been in the public domain for years and there have been books on the matter.

I don't know why either, but I was respecting the fact that EllanVannin had mentioned this case several times but without being explicit about which one it is.

Me too. Though I am sure it can be discussed openly if
EllanVannin so wished.

No, there is no need for secrecy. But I would certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing a woman who died in the most tragic circumstances imaginable undergoing trial by Gransnet. As Jalima has rightly pointed out, the allegations being made are unproven, and she should not be described on here as the perpetrator.

As EV obviously knows more than the police or anyone else about the Bamber case, despite living almost 200 miles away, I reckon she should preside over any forthcoming appeals in place of 3 judges and a jury.
That...or certain people make it their business to follow trials (as evinced by posts and rather like the women who used to sit knitting whilst waiting for the guillotine to fall) and act as barrack-room lawyers in their own minds.

GabriellaG54 A rather negative and judgemental post adding no substance to the thread. In this technological age where you live has no bearing on what knowledge you can glean from the web and other sources.

I wouldn't expect anything else from Gabriella, hotmt. Where ignorance is bliss-----

Thanks Gabriella, I was as confused as PECS but at least now I can follow any further discussion. It seems unfair to refer to one of the victims as the perpetrator, especially as the case has been reviewed, hasn't it?.

Iam64, you have to read the case from beginning to end as well as the history of the family and relatives to form an opinion.

I'm certainly no " armchair detective with a penchant for knitting ". I've studied the case inside out for the past 6+ years and have numerous books which are both for and against his conviction .

The first DCI at the scene had stated that it was a domestic. Then another report was submitted by a DI stating that it was the young female who'd been responsible, ( murder/suicide ) but that letter has been withheld for 33 years, only the draft was available.

I think anybody reading about the case would think that the investigation was bungled and that the one witness who put him in the box was a "scorned" woman. I don't know if he is guilty or not but I'm amazed that any jury could have found him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. However, I do remember being convinced of James Hanratty's innocence but DNA evidence years later put him at the scene so I guess it's difficult to tell from all the written, skewed evidence.

You're tight Ican. It wasn't even " beyond reasonable doubt " nor was the verdict unanimous as 2 jurors didn't opt for guilty.
The woman's evidence was dodgy as even some of the police had to admit that when lies emerged so a rifle moderator then came into play which allegedly contained the blood of the deceased shooter which incidentally matched that of a relative as it contained a substance known as AK1 enzyme. The shooter was no relation to this relative because she was adopted.

#right---not tight.

The original sentence being reverted to whole of life probably has more to do with politics than justice.
If he was guilty throw away the key, but you will never beat the establishment, guilty or not guilty.

EllanVannin, I could be tight too ?

Jalima, sadly the perpetrator's " pedigree " would be a giveaway in todays courtroom in that she was capable of sudden violence----was on drugs and was very very sick according to the consultant psychiatrist who'd been treating her.
That is hearsay and expert opinion on her mental state only - it is not evidence that this person committed the crime.

Jalima no, it's not hearsay judging by her psychiatric report. She'd told the psychiatrist that she was scared that she might harm her children and that because her children were " the devil's children " they might even harm her etc etc , you would have to read the report for further information as the subject is delicate considering that these were two small children in question and what she'd further said isn't appropriate in someone who's of normal thinking.
Nobody within the family ever realised that her illness was as acute as it had been with bizarre delusions about the devil and her being possessed by it.

There's even less evidence that the chap committed the crime ! It was a trial by media who'd been whipped up into a frenzy by those who had a vested interest.

Wait a moment. Without going into the detail of this case, anyone who has worked with children and families, will have met or known of a number of women who expressed fear they'd hurt their children. Women who suffered various mental health problems but responded to drug and talking therapies and never did hurt their children.

Iam64 Every woman?

I didn't say that was hearsay, I did say expert opinion ie evidence given (or not in this case) by an expert witness.

However, that would not constitute evidence enough to convict.

I am not saying that there was sufficient evidence to convict him either.

Going back to the original question, I don't think there is any doubt that in their current state our prisons are not fit for purpose if their purpose is both the deprivation of liberty and the rehabilitation of the offender.

The prisons in Norway demonstrate that rehabilitation is achievable - they have one of the lowest rates of recidivism in the world and are also renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world.

Expert Witnesses can be bought. Both defence and Prosecution can provide an expert witness.
If they are that expert why do their conclusions differ?
All they are doing is offering an opinion on behalf who is paying them.

Further to my last, Expert Witnesses aren’t all that they seem.
Here’s a link to when a Police trusted Expert Witness was exposed.

amp.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law

EllanVannin Some years ago I looked into the Expert Witness organisation.
I can’t remember the name of the organisation but I didn’t have to provide proof of whatever I claimed to be an expert on
Just pay my subscription fee and I would have been on the register.

The above should read a Expert Witness...... not the Expert Witness.
I have just clicked on the link I read it.
Very surprising reading.
A quote
The expertise of such witnesses is something on which the court decides. However, whether or not they are witnesses of truth is a matter for us all