Barry George Not Guilty

[Juan Albion]

Look if people are murdered, someone did it. Therefore someone killed these people.

If you read court proceedings, which I do, there is certain evidence that is catergorically overwhelming i.e the remains of the 10 people that Dennis Nielsen killed were found blocking his drains. I think it would also have been safe to assume that Fred West would have been convicted as well. Shipman's patients went to him and they didn't come out of his surgery alive.

I think I am safe to assume that all of these man are guilty. Or do you disagree and think that they are innocent?

I think we would all agree that there are some cases where the evidence seems to be absolutely 100% overwhelming, but the problem is in the cases that are not quite so. Where are you going to draw the line? 99% 95% 90%?

 

[simmo]

A fraction of them maybe, with whatever slant the journo put on them, consciously or subconsciously, through his/her decision to include or exclude.

No they are actual transcripts. Do you not read them?

Also a journo is not allowed BY LAW to prejudice any trial otherwise they can be sent to jail.

 

[Juan Albion]

However, in many cases, specifically in the cases of serial/mass murderers the evidence is so overwhelming e.g Nielsen, Sutcliffe the defendant's actual defence is that they caused the offence by reasons of insanity. They do this not because they are insane, but because the evidence against them is absolutely overwheleming.

There you go dealing in absolutes again. So it is not possible to have such a case where the evidence is overwhelming AND the guy actually was insane? And is the detection of insanity or otherwise 100% foolproof?

 

[simmo]

I think we would all agree that there are some cases where the evidence seems to be absolutely 100% overwhelming, but the problem is in the cases that are not quite so. Where are you going to draw the line? 99% 95% 90%?

The judge decides and then it is reviewed, after a cooling of period, to let the hysteria subside by a set of senior judges/law lords.

 

[Juan Albion]

No they are actual transcripts. Do you not read them?

Also a journo is not allowed BY LAW to prejudice any trial otherwise they can be sent to jail.

So you actually believe that a newspaper will print the entire transcript of a trial that lasts many weeks? You must have much heavier newspapers than we do. . .

And BTW, a transcript tells you NOTHING of HOW a thing was said. You should know from being on this forum that the written word can completely FAIL to convey the way in which something is said.

 

[simmo]

There you go dealing in absolutes again. So it is not possible to have such a case where the evidence is overwhelming AND the guy actually was insane? And is the detection of insanity or otherwise 100% foolproof?

If there is a murder and a dead body (or in the case of a mass murderer many dead bodies), someone somewhere ABSOLUTELY must have killed them.

Therefore, someone somewhere is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of these crimes. If you read court transcripts you can see those that are 100% guilty of these crimes.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

If there is a murder and a dead body (or in the case of a mass murderer many dead bodies), someone somewhere ABSOLUTELY must have killed them.

Therefore, someone somewhere is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of these crimes. If you read court transcripts you can see those that are 100% guilty of these crimes.

Of course SOMEONE is guilty, but you can't just lock up SOMEONE based on hunches or guesses - this case has proved that entirely!!!

 

[Juan Albion]

If there is a murder and a dead body (or in the case of a mass murderer many dead bodies), someone somewhere ABSOLUTELY must have killed them.

Therefore, someone somewhere is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of these crimes. If you read court transcripts you can see those that are 100% guilty of these crimes.

Juan Albion: "You, simmo, are clearly an intellectual GIANT."

That is how something I said might look in a court transcript. Does the transcript tell you whether it was said with sarcasm or genuine admiration?

Go on, guess. . .

 

[Da Man Clay]

If there is a murder and a dead body (or in the case of a mass murderer many dead bodies), someone somewhere ABSOLUTELY must have killed them.


Thanks for that, Sherlock.


Therefore, someone somewhere is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of these crimes. If you read court transcripts you can see those that are 100% guilty of these crimes.

No you cant, thats why there is a trial that last several weeks. You cannot decide if someone is guilty just by a transcript of an interview - or transcript of any other sort unless you have a transcript of the entire trial.

 

[Storer68]

I did actually put at the end of that same message the following

This of course won't happen because of the EC so it is all hypothetical.

Got nothing to do with the EU (EC doesn't exist anymore my dear old thing). All that the EU has provided is to prevent the re-introduction of capital punishment except in "times of war".


Capital punishemnt was abolished in this country in 1969

The Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty in England, Wales and Scotland (but not Northern Ireland) for murder for a period of five years, and substituted a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment; it further provided that if, before the expiry of the five-year suspension, each House of Parliament passed a resolution to make the effect of the Act permanent, then it would become permanent. In 1969 the Home Secretary, James Callaghan, proposed a motion to make the Act permanent, which was carried in the Commons on 18 December 1969, and a similar motion was carried in the Lords in the same month. The death penalty for murder was abolished in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

Under a House of Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, proposed by Lord Archer of Sandwell, the death penalty was abolished for treason and piracy with violence, replacing it with a discretionary maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These were the last civilian offences punishable with death.

On 20 May 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998. The UK later (10 October 2003; effective from 1 February 2004[7]) acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances,[8] so that the UK may no longer legislate to restore the death penalty while it is subject to the Convention.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If there is a murder and a dead body (or in the case of a mass murderer many dead bodies), someone somewhere ABSOLUTELY must have killed them.

Therefore, someone somewhere is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of these crimes. If you read court transcripts you can see those that are 100% guilty of these crimes.

What about Bob Woolmer? He might have been murdered? so no absolute killer there

 

[withdeanwombat]

It was George Barry.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Of course SOMEONE is guilty, but you can't just lock up SOMEONE based on hunches or guesses - this case has proved that entirely!!!

It's a new detective series. I'm going to pitch this one to NBC

SIMMO

The police have a suspect. The case goes to trial. The jury is hung. Damn thos PC dogooders The Judge calls in SIMMO, renegade BHA fan and keyboard warrior. He reads the transcript and pronounces GUILTY. Another badman sent to the chair and alls well on the streets Littlehampton (I don't know where Simmo lives but I like to imagine he walks the mean streets of Sussex's 6th favourite seaside town)

 

[desprateseagull]

i can't beleive the original convistion was ever sound, mainly based on just ONE spec of gun shot residue, found (or planted?) on his clothes...

i recall the media at the time almost made it an open and shut case, as she was a very popular presenter.

barry george is an odd man for sure, but that doesnt automatically make him a murderer.

it will be interesting to see what police do now, as there is another person out there who did this..

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Another nail in the coffin for capital punishment, thankfully.

 

[Amsterdam Albion]

I am not so sure about that.

I think there are some cases where the evidence is so overwhelming it is absolutely crystal clear that a person is a killer. It is not so in George's case and in my opinion he should not have been convicted in the first place.

In Huntley's case the police showed that one of the girls had been bleeding in his bathroom. Where the area that the girls bodys were dumped he knew very well, also that one of the girls phones was switched off for the last time right outside Huntley's house. Huntley killed those girls 100%.

There are others as well that absolutely catergorically murdered and in some cases mass murdered.

Dennis Neilsen killed 10+ men in his house, he eventually got caught because their remains were blocking the shared drains of the very building he lived in.

There is no reason why either should not be executed. The same with Peter Sutcliffe.

Not sure how this would stand up legally -you are very guilty so will be executed but you are only probably guilty so we'll lock you up for awhile.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Barry George had the misfortune to be the nearest local weirdo at the precise moment the Old Bill were coming under very heavy criticism for not solving Jill Dando's murder. Had Jill Dando been just another dead nobody and not an enormously popular television personality, Barry George would have been left to his own weird devices. Whatever they were. However, if he was weird before he was banged up, I'll bet he'll be quite doodle alley after serving 8 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

 

[El Presidente]

There is no reason why either should not be executed. The same with Peter Sutcliffe.

There is a very good reason, they are mentally ill. If you look at the murder rate in countries where the death penalty operates it is no higher than those without, so state murder is still murder, it just gives politicians the right of life and death.

 

[steward 433]

Another nail in the coffin for capital punishment, thankfully.

Joining Europe did that for us!!!

 

[Brighton Breezy]

The death penalty is not a deterrant.

Most people who commit murder do it on the spur of the moment. It is a non-thought out reaction, often manifesting in a crime of passoin and thus any deterrant is useless.

Also, when you take into account legal costs it is actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than go through the length million pound trials and retrials to secure a death sentence.