Indeed. There was a proactive targetting of Stagg, aimed at creating evidence, whereas there wasn't in the case of George, where there has never been any suggestion that any of the evidence found was invented or created in any way.
Good prediction, prick. Why don't you actually try reading my posts and following what I actually write in future ...In the absence of detective boy I was calling you a fuckwit for suggesting that the Met could possibly have fitted anyone up for anything. No thread like this is complete without a spot of ex-bacon bluster.
Unlikely. I know someone who spent 20 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit and he got only a little bit more than Colin Stagg. They take loads back for board & lodging for the time you spent in prison.
This is a joke, right?
Not massively in the Stagg case. The proactive operation was a police decision, largely motivated by the fact that the investigating officer was convinced Stagg was guilty (the case is used as classic example of why it is essential that investigating officers keep an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it takes them rather than seeking to make the evidence take them where they have decided they want to go).
This has been a line of reasoning suggested by some other posters on other threads, implicit in their claim that the police should only pursue the prosecution of someone "they are convinced is guilty" ...
One officer who cannot be criticised at all in this case is the undercover officer (Lizzie James). She had a job to do and did it as she was instructed. She was not in a position to decide whether or not it was appropriate to pursue that proactive line of enquiry (because she was of constable rank and chief inspectors and superintendents were directing the investigation and because she simply was not privy to the information that would have enabled her to do that).
You couldn't help elimate another half dozen numbers could you ...
There's only really two people with central roles which could have been pursued. Keith Pedder was the Investigating Officer. He remained in the police for a while but I think he eventually retired early, not sure of the circumstances. I don't think there was any disciplinary proceeding against him. It should also be recognised that his training to investigate serious crime was dire in those days - it was pre-Lawrence enquiry and an organisational acceptance that there had, effectively, been no serious investigative training provided to senior detectives (it was organisationally viewed as an "art" until the mid-90s).
The Met hounding the neighbourhood oddball over a high profile killing because they had no other ideas? Surely not!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1556219.ece
Another example of what a cuntish paper the Scum is,at least the comments after the article seem to think Stagg deserves his payout.
Not a good outcome ... Pretty weak to abandon it as he "couldn't get a fair hearing", to be honest. Bearing in mind the case law on fair criminal trials in the teeth of massive media coverage it sounds a bit like a cop out to me.
It would probably fall in the usual meaning of that word. They certainly set out to entrap him and managed the operation to create more evidence to support their case that he was guilty.
Probably not ... that would usually suggest planting evidence or entirely inventing stuff to ensure conviction. Neither of those happened.
No. There was no hiding of what they did, so far as I am aware (which is why the Court were so able to recognise it as improper and throw it out)
Effectively, yes.
Yes. I was one of the first generation of senior investigating officers to receive proper training in the investigation of murder and major crime, based on the work of Sir David Phillips, the Chief Constable of Kent, who developed the first Major Investigation Model and accompanying Manual in the early 1990s.
