Family & Relationships7 mins ago
A Confession
21 Answers
I did enjoy this series, I thought there would be a twist though
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chessington. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As has already been said, the series was true to actual events so, unlike fictional detective series, there could be no twist. I've almost finished reading Steve Fulcher's book, which recounts the whole sorry episode, and i must say it's a very good read, despite my knowing most of what took place.
I did watch the first half hour of the following documentary with the real Steve Fulcher and have recorded the rest of it to watch later today. He comes across as very honest and very sincere.
I did watch the first half hour of the following documentary with the real Steve Fulcher and have recorded the rest of it to watch later today. He comes across as very honest and very sincere.
Ken4155, I've recorded the documentary also, and will probably watch tonight. I think the police should have done more to find out if he did murder others in the space between the 2 murders. Perhaps 'To catch a serial killer' might shed light on that. I enjoyed the drama, less complicated than other dramas that are on at the moment.
Oh come on boys and girls – let us have some common sense in this.
Some of it was true and above all it was a drama that they had to sell
The idea that if you think someone is guilty you can deprive him of any rights is piffle. ( xc terrorism where they don’t have any anyway). This was around the time of confessions occurring in police cars ( no recording see?) – there was a rash of them and the judges basically said ‘oh no, come on, you are police and incredibly you have to obey the law, and not just the laws you like on the day’
This is another case where Fulcher stands up and says that he had deprived him of his rights not because he “forgot” but as a conscious decision. Not surprisingly the judge said that the police may ignore settled and strict law but the courts wouldn’t. Good for them. Not before time.
The plods on the disciplinary correctly conclude that a murder conviction has gone down the jarn as a result of police (Fulcher’s) misconduct. Fulcher plays his golden trump card time after time: “oh yes well you see I reasonably believed she was alive at the time and so I didn’t have to obey any law known to man!” After a short time, it sounds threadbare and then no one buys it. No wonder they don’t invite him back and say “ go on! Break the law a few more times and we will all clap”. Fulcher makes the point that he hasn’t learnt he isn’t sorry and he would do it all again. When the tribunal heard that I would expect them to say – ‘oh god, that means we have to review ALL his cases’. The point would be to uncover what other little foibles and omissions Fulcher had used un-noticed.
So much for real life
The drama was well scripted. The hacks as usual don’t have much clue about the law – which is why PACE is so underplayed. I think a judge’s permission is needed to defend yourself in a murder charge, as it is so obvious that the defendant is likely to lose on ‘inequality of arms’ alone. I thought the boots point was badly made. It showed he didn’t kill her immediately. I thought he could have and then taken them off post-mortem afterwards.
The structure was very well done – one victim was a fallen woman and one was a student. Ne’er would the families meet. They also had different things to say. This allowed Fulcher to say – “and there were many many more in between!”. Of course reasonable belief was not enough this time – there had to be admissible evidence and there wasnt. The fabrics fished out of the pool had rotted.
There were plenty of instances of putting a reasonable belief of something incredible next to a bare faced lie. Fulcher says at one point that he is being hung out to dry for always telling the truth, and then in the next breath asks a contact not to tell his wife bombs go off regularly in Benghazi. The chief constable warns our hero how close he came to being fired, and then on tv says that Fulcher has resigned and was NOT fired. One of the bereaved mothers remarries and then makes it obvious that when she said yes, she had better said no.
So it was a good six hours of watching people says yes and in their next breath no.
Some of it was true and above all it was a drama that they had to sell
The idea that if you think someone is guilty you can deprive him of any rights is piffle. ( xc terrorism where they don’t have any anyway). This was around the time of confessions occurring in police cars ( no recording see?) – there was a rash of them and the judges basically said ‘oh no, come on, you are police and incredibly you have to obey the law, and not just the laws you like on the day’
This is another case where Fulcher stands up and says that he had deprived him of his rights not because he “forgot” but as a conscious decision. Not surprisingly the judge said that the police may ignore settled and strict law but the courts wouldn’t. Good for them. Not before time.
The plods on the disciplinary correctly conclude that a murder conviction has gone down the jarn as a result of police (Fulcher’s) misconduct. Fulcher plays his golden trump card time after time: “oh yes well you see I reasonably believed she was alive at the time and so I didn’t have to obey any law known to man!” After a short time, it sounds threadbare and then no one buys it. No wonder they don’t invite him back and say “ go on! Break the law a few more times and we will all clap”. Fulcher makes the point that he hasn’t learnt he isn’t sorry and he would do it all again. When the tribunal heard that I would expect them to say – ‘oh god, that means we have to review ALL his cases’. The point would be to uncover what other little foibles and omissions Fulcher had used un-noticed.
So much for real life
The drama was well scripted. The hacks as usual don’t have much clue about the law – which is why PACE is so underplayed. I think a judge’s permission is needed to defend yourself in a murder charge, as it is so obvious that the defendant is likely to lose on ‘inequality of arms’ alone. I thought the boots point was badly made. It showed he didn’t kill her immediately. I thought he could have and then taken them off post-mortem afterwards.
The structure was very well done – one victim was a fallen woman and one was a student. Ne’er would the families meet. They also had different things to say. This allowed Fulcher to say – “and there were many many more in between!”. Of course reasonable belief was not enough this time – there had to be admissible evidence and there wasnt. The fabrics fished out of the pool had rotted.
There were plenty of instances of putting a reasonable belief of something incredible next to a bare faced lie. Fulcher says at one point that he is being hung out to dry for always telling the truth, and then in the next breath asks a contact not to tell his wife bombs go off regularly in Benghazi. The chief constable warns our hero how close he came to being fired, and then on tv says that Fulcher has resigned and was NOT fired. One of the bereaved mothers remarries and then makes it obvious that when she said yes, she had better said no.
So it was a good six hours of watching people says yes and in their next breath no.
Hellywelly4 - the murderer's name is Halliwell. Just add a 'y' :-((
PP; I'm not sure what to make of your critique. You say "the structure was very well done. One victim was a fallen woman, the other was a student." It wasn't 'structured' that way - it 'happened' that way. You also question Fulcher's honesty in asking a colleague not to mention the regularity of exploding bombs to his wife. That's not being dishonest, imho, unless she specifically asks the question and is then lied to.
You also make a point of Fulcher's future cases being open to question. I haven't read of any of his prior cases being put under scrutiny and, as his action was under circumstances no-one could consider normal, it would most likely never re-occur?
You mention that a judge's permission is needed for a defendant to defend themselves in court? That may well be so, but the fact this wasn't remarked upon is irrelevant. It is what happened.
If you read the book, you will see he was 'fired'. He writes, "I was sacked from my role on the national team and returned to force."
I fully understand where you are coming from as regards PACE and Fulcher's lack of adherence to it, but none of his superiors disagreed with his 'urgent interview' of Halliwell which led to the eventual discovery of Sian's body. It was only when Halliwell asked him if he wanted 'another one' that the rules of PACE were breached. However, in the book, he does ask the reader the question, what would you have him do if it were your daughter who was missing? I have 3 daughters and i know what my answer would be. And at the second trial (Becky Godden-Edwards' murder) that particular judge allowed the full testimony of Steve Fulcher to be heard.
PP; I'm not sure what to make of your critique. You say "the structure was very well done. One victim was a fallen woman, the other was a student." It wasn't 'structured' that way - it 'happened' that way. You also question Fulcher's honesty in asking a colleague not to mention the regularity of exploding bombs to his wife. That's not being dishonest, imho, unless she specifically asks the question and is then lied to.
You also make a point of Fulcher's future cases being open to question. I haven't read of any of his prior cases being put under scrutiny and, as his action was under circumstances no-one could consider normal, it would most likely never re-occur?
You mention that a judge's permission is needed for a defendant to defend themselves in court? That may well be so, but the fact this wasn't remarked upon is irrelevant. It is what happened.
If you read the book, you will see he was 'fired'. He writes, "I was sacked from my role on the national team and returned to force."
I fully understand where you are coming from as regards PACE and Fulcher's lack of adherence to it, but none of his superiors disagreed with his 'urgent interview' of Halliwell which led to the eventual discovery of Sian's body. It was only when Halliwell asked him if he wanted 'another one' that the rules of PACE were breached. However, in the book, he does ask the reader the question, what would you have him do if it were your daughter who was missing? I have 3 daughters and i know what my answer would be. And at the second trial (Becky Godden-Edwards' murder) that particular judge allowed the full testimony of Steve Fulcher to be heard.
// That's not being dishonest, imho, unless she specifically asks the question and is then lied to.//
watch both programmes again
"they said a suicide bomb went off in Benghazi" (wifey)
oh no my dear I was here and I heard nothing (F)
.... is a lie
and was a dramatic trope to show the - "lets all tell the truth - er except when I lie" underlying of the whole series. or the theme of - l"let us say and do the wrong thing and make everyone feel much better, except the fella who is so awful that I am going to deprive HIM of his rights and no one will give a tibker's curse - ever"
and if you say it is not a lie
then it fully explains why Fulcher was subject to further scrutiny
prog shows benghazi and the second programme, somalia ( er some way away from each other, and different languages) but we agree one was a drama and the other (purported) to be the real thing, dont we?
watch both programmes again
"they said a suicide bomb went off in Benghazi" (wifey)
oh no my dear I was here and I heard nothing (F)
.... is a lie
and was a dramatic trope to show the - "lets all tell the truth - er except when I lie" underlying of the whole series. or the theme of - l"let us say and do the wrong thing and make everyone feel much better, except the fella who is so awful that I am going to deprive HIM of his rights and no one will give a tibker's curse - ever"
and if you say it is not a lie
then it fully explains why Fulcher was subject to further scrutiny
prog shows benghazi and the second programme, somalia ( er some way away from each other, and different languages) but we agree one was a drama and the other (purported) to be the real thing, dont we?
Latest Posts
New I V F Rules?? Why Do They Even Do It...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
ChatterBank65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles127 mins ago
