Colin Stagg - compensation awarded

[detective-boy]

Might they be inclined to go for the easy conviction?

No. They would look at the evidence as a whole and make a decision on the basis of that. They (and the police) are bound by law to reveal all unused material to the Court and, unless the Court certify otherwise, to the defence. They would know that the defence would have to be made aware of the evidence undermining the prosecution case and of the Courts obligation to ensure a fair trial.

Wherever evidence conflicts, further enquiries are made to try and strengthen / weaken one part and, invariably, one ends up significantly stronger than the other when all possible explanations for the conflict are investigated.

The hypotehetical situation is a load of bollocks basically - I cannot conceive of a situation in which evidence which proves innocence would be inadmissible and, if that evidence existed, that other, admissible evidence would prove guilt.

 

[aylee]

The hypotehetical situation is a load of bollocks basically - I cannot conceive of a situation in which evidence which proves innocence would be inadmissible and, if that evidence existed, that other, admissible evidence would prove guilt.

Well I could give you one .... where a defendant claims that another suspect has made a confession to his solicitor. No evidence can be given of that confession unless the other suspect waives his legal professional privilege.

 

[Jazzz]

... or perhaps the chief of police frequents the same massage parlours as the suspects, and gets the whole story

 

[Spymaster]

go away

 

[claphamboy]

... or perhaps the chief of police frequents the same massage parlours as the suspects, and gets the whole story

Stop being a dick.

 

[Jazzz]

Stop being a dick.

simply an example off the top of my head. You can subsitute information from other informants for whom discretion demands they can't be revealed. Or dodgily-sourced information, such as hidden microphones or illegal phonetaps.

We're making progress though. It would seem, from what DB is saying, that the police can say to the CPS - 'look, we don't actually think this guy did it' - whatever the reason - and then the CPS should decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute innocent parties.

But of course this does mean that the question of innocence is cared about, which of course it should be.

 

[claphamboy]

We're making progress though.

TBH looking back over the thread it’s only you that needs to make progress, being the only one having any problem understanding what DB posted in the first place

 

[detective-boy]

Well I could give you one .... where a defendant claims that another suspect has made a confession to his solicitor. No evidence can be given of that confession unless the other suspect waives his legal professional privilege.

That's one example of half the equation ... but that evidence does not prove the other party wasn't responsible (there have, as I am sure you are aware, been all sorts of false admissions for all sorts of reasons ...). And, if the police were aware of the existence of the admission, admissible evidence of it exists anyway.

 

[Dovydaitis]

That's one example of half the equation ... but that evidence does not prove the other party wasn't responsible (there have, as I am sure you are aware, been all sorts of false admissions for all sorts of reasons ...). And, if the police were aware of the existence of the admission, admissible evidence of it exists anyway.

eh?? that makes no sense at all

 

[Jazzz]

TBH looking back over the thread it’s only you that needs to make progress, being the only one having any problem understanding what DB posted in the first place

I don't think so

 

[8den]

simply an example off the top of my head.

Off the top of your head is a leaping off point for insanity.

 

[detective-boy]

eh?? that makes no sense at all

If someone knows of the admission, they can give evidence of their knowledge of it. Hearsay evidence is admissible in all sorts of situations and there is no way in a million years that a judge would rule out secondary evidence of something as central to the delivery of justice as something like this.

And the police, becoming aware of an admission made by someone else, would be perfectly capable of arresting and interviewing that person anyway.

A "secret" admission proves absolutely fuck all (otherwise all anyones solicitor would have to do is wander into court and say "Oh, my defendent's not guilty 'cos I've heard a bit of a rumour that someone else has admitted it to another solcitor but they won't release the from the obligation to keep that secret ..."

(And, I would suggest, a solicitor, as an officer of the Court, would be perfectly entitled to bin the legal privilege rule in the interests of justice in the bizarre circumstances postulated).

 

[Jazzz]

If someone knows of the admission, they can give evidence of their knowledge of it. Heresay evidence is admissible in all sorts of situations

Hearsay evidence

 

[8den]

Hearsay evidence

You are just an objectionable cunt aren't you Jazzz?

 

[Jessiedog]

The hypotehetical situation is a load of bollocks basically - I cannot conceive of a situation in which evidence which proves innocence would be inadmissible and, if that evidence existed, that other, admissible evidence would prove guilt.

Cheers for the response.



And, yes, Jazzz's rather convoluted example does stretch things somewhat.



Woof

 

[Meltingpot]

You are just an objectionable cunt aren't you Jazzz?

Somehow you don't strike me as the easygoing type either, bearing in mind your propensity for insulting people you disagree with like me (e.g. "Moron!").

Let's be honest about this. The police were faced with a situation in which a young woman had been killed in cold blood, with no witnesses and (due to bad weather) no forensic evidence, and huge media pressure to get a "result." They responded in a perfectly understandable way; they bent the rules and tried to get some evidence by relying heavily on forensic psychology, a discipline still in its infancy, to narrow down the list of possible perpetrators as much as possible and advise on how to deal with them.

They found someone (Stagg) whom they thought was a likely suspect and, using extremely controversial "honeytrap" methods, tried to get him to lower his guard sufficiently to provide them with clues as to where some solid forensic evidence could be found. It didn't work, but they were still unwilling to let go of the idea that Stagg was the killer even when there was absolutely no evidence that he was. Not only that, Mr Britton (the psychologist) didn't and apparently still doesn't seem able to appreciate the consequences of his "operation" on Mr Stagg. I'm glad I didn't see his recent interview on TV about his role in this case as I expect it would have made me angry.

 

[audiotech]

...