Rachel Nickell murder.

[Pavilionaire]

The pro-hanging people appear to be very quiet on this thread.

Stagg was never convicted.

In order to have been anywhere near the noose both the judge and jury would have had to have found him guilty, but the judge threw the case out in 45 minutes flat.

And does anyone REALLY believe if the death penalty was re-introduced the method used would be hanging?? I'd expect lethal injection would be infinitely preferable.

 

[Simster]

Stagg was never convicted.

The point is that he was blatently being fitted up. On another day, the police might have done it properly and he'll have been killed by the state.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The police can bring the case to the courtroom but only the judge and jury can convict. Clearly the police and the judge in this case weren't acting in concert, so where's the problem?

And I expect if the death penalty ever DID return the police might be less inclined to "fit up" a suspect to quite the same extent that they once did.

 

[bhaexpress]

The police can bring the case to the courtroom but only the judge and jury can convict. Clearly the police and the judge in this case weren't acting in concert, so where's the problem?

And I expect if the death penalty ever DID return the police might be less inclined to "fit up" a suspect to quite the same extent that they once did.

You think ? Well it didn't do much for Derek Bentley.

 

[bhaexpress]

It's not the point though is it? so lets say out of a 1000 people convicted,one gets a hefty jail term because the police suspect it was him/her but can't prove it so they tamper with evidence or frame them?
There's been plenty of times down in history where the police have tampered with evidence.The poor fucker who has been convicted wrongly cannot undo all those years banged up.That would send anyone over the edge forever.

You have to accept certain compromises, it's either that or no Police and total anarchy. I know what I'd prefer.

 

[Simster]

The police can bring the case to the courtroom but only the judge and jury can convict. Clearly the police and the judge in this case weren't acting in concert, so where's the problem?

You can't be serious, surely?

And I expect if the death penalty ever DID return the police might be less inclined to "fit up" a suspect to quite the same extent that they once did.

Oh that's alright then. As long as you "suspect" that to be the case.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I'd expect lethal injection would be infinitely preferable.

I'd suggest that not risking the murder of innocent people is more preferable still

 

[Leekbrookgull]

A point i find (think someone has said similiar ?) the use of a profile/profiler. That is not evidence it is just some ones opinion just like anyone else,s. Why the Police proceeded in this way has to be seriously questioned.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

You think ? Well it didn't do much for Derek Bentley.

Er... Derek Bentley was NOT wrongly convicted.

Christopher Craig was under 18 at the time and therefore escaped the death penalty. Derek Bentley was over 18 and was executed.

I'm not saying that was right, I'm just saying that it was the law at the time.

The law at the time was if you were a party to a murder even if you did not fire the gun you were just as guilty as the one who did.

There is no doubt Bentley went knowingly with Craig to commit robbery. Even if he did not know that Craig had a gun, which he may not have known, that was no defence under the law at the time.

I grant you that Bentley's defence could have been better handled with more being made of his learning difficulties but he certainly was not fitted up by the Police.

He was definitely guilty. And he received the punishment proscribed by the law at that time.

 

[algie]

Er... Derek Bentley was NOT wrongly convicted.

Christopher Craig was under 18 at the time and therefore escaped the death penalty. Derek Bentley was over 18 and was executed.

I'm not saying that was right, I'm just saying that it was the law at the time.

The law at the time was if you were a party to a murder even if you did not fire the gun you were just as guilty as the one who did.

There is no doubt Bentley went knowingly with Craig to commit robbery. Even if he did not know that Craig had a gun, which he may not have known, that was no defence under the law at the time.

I grant you that Bentley's defence could have been better handled with more being made of his learning difficulties but he certainly was not fitted up by the Police.

He was definitely guilty. And he received the punishment proscribed by the law at that time.

Yes he was wrongly convicted of murder.He didn't pull the trigger and his words were taken out of the wrong context.The guy was also in the hands of a copper.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Yes he was wrongly convicted of murder.He didn't pull the trigger and his words were taken out of the wrong context.The guy was also in the hands of a copper.

No he wasn't wrongly convicted, not under the law AT THE TIME

The fact that he didn't fire the shot was irrelevant.

The fact that he was in the hands of the Police at the time was irrelevant.

The words "Let him have it, Chris" could have been interpreted either way but it would seem that the Jury did not think he meant "Give him the gun, Chris". Even if they had thought that, and even if he did mean that, he would still be guilty UNDER THE LAW AT THE TIME.

Now, if you are arguing that the law at the time was wrong, then I agree with you 100% but, under the law at the time, he was correctly found guilty.

In the same way that many other people have been correctly found guilty under arcane laws that have since been repealed.

 

[algie]

No he wasn't wrongly convicted, not under the law AT THE TIME

The fact that he didn't fire the shot was irrelevant.

The fact that he was in the hands of the Police at the time was irrelevant.

The words "Let him have it, Chris" could have been interpreted either way but it would seem that the Jury did not think he meant "Give him the gun, Chris". Even if they had thought that, and even if he did mean that, he would still be guilty UNDER THE LAW AT THE TIME.

Now, if you are arguing that the law at the time was wrong, then I agree with you 100% but, under the law at the time, he was correctly found guilty.

In the same way that many other people have been correctly found guilty under arcane laws that have since been repealed.

I know what you are saying but i still disagree.Just because you are with someone,it doesn't mean your guilty.
Lets take this senario.You are out with your mate and some bloke starts on you and takes a swipe at you.You punch him back but your mate decides to carry on rainning blows on him.This ends up killing the culprit.Are you then guilty of murder as well?
The family of Bentley are still pursuing a pardon from the government to this day.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I know what you are saying but i still disagree.Just because you are with someone,it doesn't mean your guilty.
Lets take this senario.You are out with your mate and some bloke starts on you and takes a swipe at you.You punch him back but your mate decides to carry on rainning blows on him.This ends up killing the culprit.Are you then guilty of murder as well?
The family of Bentley are still pursuing a pardon from the government to this day.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the law at the time of the offence did not. It was wrong, but it was the law.

In the same way that deportation to Australia for minor theft was wrong. But it was still the law.

Would Bentley be convicted today? Absolutely not.

Should he have been hung, even when found guilty under the law then? In my view, no.

I find it interesting that the Bentley family are (as far as I am aware) pursuing a pardon for him. They are NOT asking for a change of verdict to Not Guilty. A pardon basically means yes OK he did it but there were special circumstances.

Thank God we live in more enlightened times - at least in this case!

 

[algie]

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the law at the time of the offence did not. It was wrong, but it was the law.

In the same way that deportation to Australia for minor theft was wrong. But it was still the law.

Would Bentley be convicted today? Absolutely not.

Should he have been hung, even when found guilty under the law then? In my view, no.

I find it interesting that the Bentley family are (as far as I am aware) pursuing a pardon for him. They are NOT asking for a change of verdict to Not Guilty. A pardon basically means yes OK he did it but there were special circumstances.

Thank God we live in more enlightened times - at least in this case!

What are your thoughts on the Ruth Ellis case? The last woman to be hanged by Pierpoint i think? We all know she suffered horrendous abuse ,but she still shouldn't have pulled the trigger.To me she is guilty of murder even know there's been a campaign for her defence.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

What are your thoughts on the Ruth Ellis case? The last woman to be hanged by Pierpoint i think? We all know she suffered horrendous abuse ,but she still shouldn't have pulled the trigger.To me she is guilty of murder even know there's been a campaign for her defence.

Again under the law at the time definitely guilty and the punishment for murder was the death penalty.

I would have thought that today she would probably still be found guilty, although more likely of Manslaughter. And would probably get a very low sentence.

Yes she was extremely badly treated but I agree with you she should not have pulled the trigger. You would have hoped that she would have walked away from the guy rather than stay with him and end up facing terrible consequences. I used to feel that women who stuck with a man who was mistreating them (almost) couldn't complain if the abuse got worse. But then I had a girlfriend who was beaten up regularly in her previous relationship so I came to understand, to some extent, why she didn't leave him.

But I guess that the "I love him and he might change" is a strong feeling. But, sadly, he probably won't.

 

[glasfryn]

Believe me I have no argument with you there, I wouldn't dispute what you're saying but I just don't believe that all Police officers are inherintly bent. As I say there are some bad ones but that type of person is everywhere, as the Police have 'The Law on their side' they can do more harm. However, where do you start with that ? Divorce Lawyers ? Social Workers ? MPs ? The list is endless.

believe it or not I have known some very good police officers most did'nt last in there long ,and I know there have been bent prison officers (I mean where can you put them rule 43 I suppose)
where do you start ....................MP's ......IMHO

 

[NMH]

I doubt it.

Police don't get arrested even if they order 9 bullets to be put through the head of innocent guys on the underground, so I can't see this causing much of a commotion.

Sadly, I hope it stands never to be forgotten, what an abject and embarrassing failure the British police made when they decided they'd become judges, jury, and executioners in our supposedly diplomatic and 'civilised' country.
More amplified somehow, by the nationality of their victim - from a country with the perhaps the least aggressive profile in the World.

Most pathetic, was the stupid attempts to still accuse, excuse, and cover up their horrific foolishness.
Overall, the 'British bobby' is now 'the great british booby', tarnishing an international reputation that was, let's face it, pretty-much exaggerated for many a year.
The Bow Street Runners would be turning in their truncheons in shame.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

BBC News - Met rules out compensation for Rachel Nickell family

Interesting that Andre and her son will not receive payment, but they have paid someone like 'Lizzie Jones' £125k - the officer that was used to entrap the original suspect, Colin Stagg.