Crosswords2 mins ago
Pc Andrew Harpers Mother
120 Answers
is backing a petition for miscarriage of justice. I would gladly sign this petition but can't find it anywhere. Any help please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Barsel. 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.
// if they get a retrial and then get found not guilty ... what then?//
they go free ( Leddy Macbeth )
but if the Crown nails its case - then they'll not go free
( rather free rewrite of - and if we fail? - - - we fail - but screw your courage to the sticking place and we will not fail)
The Americans ( jesus) have this weird verdict substitution thing - the judge says - "no that is not right I am going to record such and such"
lucky we dont have any of that Land of the Free crap here
they go free ( Leddy Macbeth )
but if the Crown nails its case - then they'll not go free
( rather free rewrite of - and if we fail? - - - we fail - but screw your courage to the sticking place and we will not fail)
The Americans ( jesus) have this weird verdict substitution thing - the judge says - "no that is not right I am going to record such and such"
lucky we dont have any of that Land of the Free crap here
smiff ( sozza I am writing in fluent AB as the thread dictates)
is discussed here
BUT I am not sure of the date and the jurisdciton.
It starts off as - negligent murder - - oo-er Mrs !
and then continues - Lord Poncey quotes Holmes . .. . .
(Oliver Wendell HOmes is an american jurist and writer who isnt really a leading light in english law)
https:/
is discussed here
BUT I am not sure of the date and the jurisdciton.
It starts off as - negligent murder - - oo-er Mrs !
and then continues - Lord Poncey quotes Holmes . .. . .
(Oliver Wendell HOmes is an american jurist and writer who isnt really a leading light in english law)
https:/
Bentley was guilty as the law stood at the time. He was only hanged because the perpetrator was under age and someone had to die. 40 years after the event DNA testing proved Hanratty's guilt.
The point at issue in the case of Smith was whether the test for intent should be subjective or objective. The HofL decided it was objective.
The point at issue in the case of Smith was whether the test for intent should be subjective or objective. The HofL decided it was objective.
oh see here
https:/
there is an awful lot of it - I am glad I dont have to do this for an exam
https:/
there is an awful lot of it - I am glad I dont have to do this for an exam
// You cant keep re-trying till you get the verdict you think you should have//
yeah there is some Latin for that - wh means it is old - really old
interest rei publicae, finis ad litem
er
Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium Definition: Latin: in the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end. Peloubert translated the maxim as follows: "It is to the interest of the state that there be a limit to litigation."
or "double jeopardy"
I like the Latin one cos no one understands it
yeah there is some Latin for that - wh means it is old - really old
interest rei publicae, finis ad litem
er
Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium Definition: Latin: in the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end. Peloubert translated the maxim as follows: "It is to the interest of the state that there be a limit to litigation."
or "double jeopardy"
I like the Latin one cos no one understands it
//Our system of ‘justice’ fails at the first hurdle. It is run by the rich, for the rich.//
What makes you say that, in this case in particular? I don't recall reading that the defendants are among "the rich" but they don't seem to have come out of their ordeal too badly thusfar.
There will always be mistakes in any criminal justice system. In the UK some 1.75m criminal prosecutions take place annually so the fact that you have found just five high profile examples over a period of, say, sixty years, demonstrates to me the exact opposite of what you are trying to suggest.
I note you have included the case of James Hanratty as one of your examples. The Hanratty case was subject to an appeal in 2002. His body was exhumed to provide a DNA sample so that matching could take place (a technique obviously not available in the 1960s). In dismissing the appeal the Court of Appeal said that Hanratty's guilt was proved "beyond doubt". However, they further went on to note, in the summary of their judgement:
“The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.”
There is no doubt in my mind that Hanratty was guilty (and it is a case about which I have read quite a bit). It is interesting that you provided it as an example of justice going wrong. I believe it demonstrates perfectly that justice got it right.
What makes you say that, in this case in particular? I don't recall reading that the defendants are among "the rich" but they don't seem to have come out of their ordeal too badly thusfar.
There will always be mistakes in any criminal justice system. In the UK some 1.75m criminal prosecutions take place annually so the fact that you have found just five high profile examples over a period of, say, sixty years, demonstrates to me the exact opposite of what you are trying to suggest.
I note you have included the case of James Hanratty as one of your examples. The Hanratty case was subject to an appeal in 2002. His body was exhumed to provide a DNA sample so that matching could take place (a technique obviously not available in the 1960s). In dismissing the appeal the Court of Appeal said that Hanratty's guilt was proved "beyond doubt". However, they further went on to note, in the summary of their judgement:
“The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.”
There is no doubt in my mind that Hanratty was guilty (and it is a case about which I have read quite a bit). It is interesting that you provided it as an example of justice going wrong. I believe it demonstrates perfectly that justice got it right.
NJ I totally disagree with you over Hanratty. You have stated the reason to find him guilty which is mainly the DNA which could well have been contaminated. You have made no mention of the reasons he could have been innocent. How did he get to the murder location, why did Valerie Storie identify a complete innocent man in the line up? What about the other man (can't remember his name) who was involved in the case? You say you have read a lot about this case so you would know more then I do, but I have always believed in his innocence and I also believe if this happened today, with the resources available to the police, he would be found innocent and the real killer would have been found. This of course is just my belief.
NJ I forgot to mention also that Hanratty didn't know how to drive the car even though he had a criminal record for stealing cars? He was a petty criminal, he was not a murderer.I don't know if his family have stopped with an appeal but they and others have worked really hard to prove he was innocent.
//...which is mainly the DNA which could well have been contaminated.//
It wasn't mainly the DNA. The Court of Appeal, in their judgement, said that the DNA evidence did not "stand alone." They considered all the other evidence against him and although any one thread may have been seen as coincidence they determined that there were too many coincidences for that to be a realistic consideration. They dismissed the idea that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated as "fanciful".
You can always find ways to explain how a defendant might be innocent. The jury's job is to decide what evidence they find the most compelling. The Court of Appeal's task is to dissect that evidence even further, which they did, as well as considering new evidence.
Most telling for me was that broadcaster and writer Ludovic Kennedy, a long time investigator of alleged miscarriages of justice and who considered the Hanratty case in minute detail, withdrew his support for Hanratty's pardon when the DNA evidence was revealed.
It wasn't mainly the DNA. The Court of Appeal, in their judgement, said that the DNA evidence did not "stand alone." They considered all the other evidence against him and although any one thread may have been seen as coincidence they determined that there were too many coincidences for that to be a realistic consideration. They dismissed the idea that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated as "fanciful".
You can always find ways to explain how a defendant might be innocent. The jury's job is to decide what evidence they find the most compelling. The Court of Appeal's task is to dissect that evidence even further, which they did, as well as considering new evidence.
Most telling for me was that broadcaster and writer Ludovic Kennedy, a long time investigator of alleged miscarriages of justice and who considered the Hanratty case in minute detail, withdrew his support for Hanratty's pardon when the DNA evidence was revealed.
// What makes you say that, in this case in particular? I don't recall reading that the defendants are among "the rich"//
jesus heark at the judge in an ivory tower
anyone who has had to pay for a defence of a criminal case ( you dont get costs if you 'win') will know you have to be rich to pay the bill ( or fees )
jesus heark at the judge in an ivory tower
anyone who has had to pay for a defence of a criminal case ( you dont get costs if you 'win') will know you have to be rich to pay the bill ( or fees )
theleading case is Woollin and Matthews Darren JOhn
here
https:/
god lardy dah - their lordships cant stop picking at the mental element required for murder
No Theland there are appeals and appeals
this one is to find murder instead of manslaughter
the PM bonker boris that is has given an anodybe reply to todays letter from the outraged widow. As he should have done
and the head fo the Cirminal Bar association has pointed out that this case isnt over yet - so no appeal yet as they have not been sentenced ( Friday )
here
https:/
god lardy dah - their lordships cant stop picking at the mental element required for murder
No Theland there are appeals and appeals
this one is to find murder instead of manslaughter
the PM bonker boris that is has given an anodybe reply to todays letter from the outraged widow. As he should have done
and the head fo the Cirminal Bar association has pointed out that this case isnt over yet - so no appeal yet as they have not been sentenced ( Friday )
that is rule 1 dont contribute innit?
money goes toward funding an appeal - but I am not sure. An appeal on the grounds she has outlined is Doomed
Jack - SMith - the driving bonnet case
was reverse by statute - one of the criminal law amendment acts
see
https:/
where his lordhip wordily and tirelessly trawls thro the knows cases and give his own little twist on them
( " def deemed to know that the policeman would fall off and die" was heavily criticised and reversed by enactment)
money goes toward funding an appeal - but I am not sure. An appeal on the grounds she has outlined is Doomed
Jack - SMith - the driving bonnet case
was reverse by statute - one of the criminal law amendment acts
see
https:/
where his lordhip wordily and tirelessly trawls thro the knows cases and give his own little twist on them
( " def deemed to know that the policeman would fall off and die" was heavily criticised and reversed by enactment)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.