[News] Accused of Murder?

[Winker]

I'm pretty sure the claim was presented on here as a rumour once. It's where I remember first hearing it.

There were various rumours doing the rounds at the time suggesting there was more to it than meets the eye.

 

[Gwylan]

the problem with that is, if the Arsegas has put up something that's defamatory, then repeating it here *could* have ramifications. Best just to stick to the requests not to mention it until the case is over.

As pointed out in post #11, it's not defamatory. In this instance, we're perfectly safe speculating and mentioning names

However, that doesn't mean that we can write things like "I knew Mr X was a wrong un, some bloke told me in The Dog and Bollocks on Saturday night" You can only talk about what was said in court NOT anything else connected to the case.

 

[clapham_gull]

Perhaps the law should be changed so that ALL defendants on any charge are not named until a guilty verdict is recorded

Somewhat undermines the Police when they are trying to find someone on the run.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Mr X is already dead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_(The_X-Files)

 

[Gwylan]

Somewhat undermines the Police when they are trying to find someone on the run.

It would also stop other victims coming forward. One of the reasons that there were some successful prosecutions for historic sexual assault instances is that the accuseds' names have been in the public domain. If it were reported that Mr X was being charged with sexual assault, it would mean nothing to the people who had also been assaulted by Mr X but who have told their stories to no-one.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Out of interest, were Mr Y to be found guilty and jailed (or indeed be found innocent, but nevertheless still go to jail to complete a sentence for another similar offence), and were he then to become the victim of an unfortunate accident in his cell / the shower / etc., resulting in his early demise... would you, if asked, accept the job of dealing respectfully with whatever pieces of his body remained?

There isn't enough money for me to look after Mr Y, as it would be an insult to every other family I've ever looked after. How could I have him use the same Chapels of Rest as everyone we've cared for in the past and the future for that matter?

The death of Moors Murderer Ian Brady actually set a precedent, not only could they not find a funeral director to take on the arrangements but all the crematoriums in his locality and beyond refused to cremate him, and all the grave diggers would have been of the same mind.

As I understand it Brady was cremated on a government site and his ashes scattered out at sea, I would imagine in time it will be the same for the likes of Ian Huntley, Peter Suttcliffe, Levi Belfield, Roy Whiting, Mr Y and a few others.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

There were various rumours doing the rounds at the time suggesting there was more to it than meets the eye.

Correct. Some of them have resurfaced in court, as reported in the Argus today.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Surely the Judge should have made the Defence barrister withdraw the remark and imposed reporting restrictions ?

Mr X is not on trial Mr Y is.

Just a hunch here, Harty, but I'm going to take a punt that a vastly experienced court judge sitting on a high profile murder trial is going to be pretty clued up on what is and is not permissible within a murder trial.

Look at the Milly Dowler case. Levi Bellfield's QC spent a considerable amount of time trying to suggest that Bob Dowler was somehow linked to his daughter's disappearance, and the trial ended up being a horrific experience for her family, even with Bellfield's conviction. It's just the defence trying to cast any element of doubt they possibly can into the jury's minds. That tiny "but what if..?" could be enough to tip a juror or two into thinking they cannot be sure of a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Just a hunch here, Harty, but I'm going to take a punt that a vastly experienced court judge sitting on a high profile murder trial is going to be pretty clued up on what is and is not permissible within a murder trial. .

Assuming everyone is intimating to the same case, that would be Justice Sweeney? The same judge who called the jury idiots (in more learned words) when the Vicky Pryce trial collapsed, due to the jury asking too many stupid questions during deliberation. I heard on good authority, Sweeney got smack over the knuckles for that.

 

[Barry Izbak]

Can anyone explain seriously, why it is anticipated that the trial of Mr Y will last for eight weeks!

It is the most obviously open and shut case since Messrs A & B were accused of stealing BHAFC in cahoots with Mr S.

Eight weeks?
Really?

At what cost?
Surely the court of NSC could deal with this case in a morning in Dicks Bar

 

[Megazone]

Nearly every other crime is either Mr X or Mr Y. How comes no one ever suspects Mr K or Mr B of anything?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Nearly every other crime is either Mr X or Mr Y. How comes no one ever suspects Mr K or Mr B of anything?

Your aspersions against our current #11 and the Chairman are premature and potentially libellous.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Just a hunch here, Harty, but I'm going to take a punt that a vastly experienced court judge sitting on a high profile murder trial is going to be pretty clued up on what is and is not permissible within a murder trial.

Look at the Milly Dowler case. Levi Bellfield's QC spent a considerable amount of time trying to suggest that Bob Dowler was somehow linked to his daughter's disappearance, and the trial ended up being a horrific experience for her family, even with Bellfield's conviction. It's just the defence trying to cast any element of doubt they possibly can into the jury's minds. That tiny "but what if..?" could be enough to tip a juror or two into thinking they cannot be sure of a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

If by some miracle Mr Y was acquitted, at least we'd be spared him doing a Gerry Conlon outside the Old Bailey........

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Can anyone explain seriously, why it is anticipated that the trial of Mr Y will last for eight weeks!

It is the most obviously open and shut case since Messrs A & B were accused of stealing BHAFC in cahoots with Mr S.

Eight weeks?
Really?

At what cost?
Surely the court of NSC could deal with this case in a morning in Dicks Bar

If it is so open and shut, why wasn't Mr Y convicted first time round? Many fingers at the time pointed in a different direction, although the police were adamant that they had the right man.

 

[Gwylan]

Can anyone explain seriously, why it is anticipated that the trial of Mr Y will last for eight weeks!

Unless there's a guilty plea, all murder trials last a few weeks. There'll be a variety of reasons why this could be longer: there have already been a couple of days when the jury didn't sit as the judge had to hear legal arguments (possibly around the issues that the OP mentioned). But there will also be a lot of shorter interruptions during days when jurors are sitting. This case is particularly complicated because there's already been one trial and there needs to be significant new evidence. There was also a day lost when the jury came down to Wild Park.

If I were on trial for murder, I sincerely hope that my defence counsel would be able to speak up for me, call witnesses etc and not wait while a few boozers decide my fate.

 

[Lenny Rider]

If it is so open and shut, why wasn't Mr Y convicted first time round? Many fingers at the time pointed in a different direction, although the police were adamant that they had the right man.

If my memory serves me correctly, an hour after the not guilty verdict in 1987 Sussex Police issued a statement saying they weren't looking for anyone else in connection with the murders.

 

[Ernest]

If it is so open and shut, why wasn't Mr Y convicted first time round? Many fingers at the time pointed in a different direction, although the police were adamant that they had the right man.

You only have to look at the Suzy Lamplugh case to see how the police can make a mess of an investigation. The book 'A Question of Evidence' about the case said that there was other suspects and not just the one man

 

[Gwylan]

If my memory serves me correctly, an hour after the not guilty verdict in 1987 Sussex Police issued a statement saying they weren't looking for anyone else in connection with the murders.

They said exactly the same thing after the case was dropped against Colin Stagg for the murder of Rachel Nickell. They told he family that the murderer had got away with as they had the right man. It was a shocking case: Stagg's life was destroyed and the police officer who tried to entrap him suffered severe psychological damage.

So, I'd take anything the police say about guilt of murderers with a pinch of salt - that' what court cases are for.

 

[Crispy Ambulance]

If it is so open and shut, why wasn't Mr Y convicted first time round? Many fingers at the time pointed in a different direction, although the police were adamant that they had the right man.

Ralph Haeems managed to convince the jury that the forensic evidence could be flawed due to possible contamination of evidence bags which weren't sealed.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Mr Y clearly didn’t help his defence counsel with his performance in the witness box, but his former partner Ms Z makes another shocking allegation against Mr X.
If Mr X is totally innocent these allegations are potentially life changing, with no possibility of recompense or legal recourse, he will be forever tainted by what has been said in open court.
If having your daughter murdered wasn’t bad enough, he’s had to suffer character assassination to the extreme.