Suffolk murders
Posted by: Rasher on 13 December 2006
I don't get it. Ipswich red light district is what, 2-3 streets? I don't understand how 5 girls can be murdered over a short period without the police being to be able to catch the killer. They know the killer will operate within these streets right now, and they know who the targets are. There are probably 45 girls at risk there at a guess. How difficult can it be to look after them?
I think it was the Torygraph that said this week that Suffolk police are the least capable force in the country to deal with a major incident. Why are they not immediately bringing in assistance from the forces that caught the Yorkshire Ripper & Ian Huntley? I would have thought that would be the first thing they would do. This is another cock-up (pun unintended).
It'll be the usual suspect: known sex offender/murderer released back into the community 3 months ago.
I think it was the Torygraph that said this week that Suffolk police are the least capable force in the country to deal with a major incident. Why are they not immediately bringing in assistance from the forces that caught the Yorkshire Ripper & Ian Huntley? I would have thought that would be the first thing they would do. This is another cock-up (pun unintended).
It'll be the usual suspect: known sex offender/murderer released back into the community 3 months ago.
Posted on: 19 December 2006 by rackkit
quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Seems to me that this guy went out of his way to be arrested; why remains to be seen.
For his 15 minutes of infamy maybe? He just doesn't seem like the right one to me. Cant' explain why. I'm probably wrong though...
Posted on: 21 December 2006 by Roy T
It looks like the police have released Tom Stephens without charging him, I wonder does he have a case against some of the press and media for any untrue and or misleading comments made about him? I would expect that he has gone through rather a lot of mental pain and anguish during his trial by media and may well find picking up his life again rather hard to do. Should he be protected by the law and if need be be supported by the public purse if he wishes to have his day in court as might well be his right?
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Analogue
A man was charged the murder of all five women last night.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by graham55
I suspect that Tom Stephens is a fantasist and got the response that he expected, just to a larger degree.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by JWM
Just to be technical, the 39-year old from Trimley, whom the police did not name (Tom Stephens), has not been released without charge. He has been bailed.
The other man, Wright, has been charged.
I do not presume charging = guilt. We have an innocent until proved guilty criminal justice system. So the trial will determine that.
Nevertheless, I for one am glad that the small Suffolk Police Force, assisted by other contabularies, have been able to get to this stage so quickly, and give thanks for that. I hope it will be some small crumb of comfort for the families and friends of those murdered.
James
The other man, Wright, has been charged.
I do not presume charging = guilt. We have an innocent until proved guilty criminal justice system. So the trial will determine that.
Nevertheless, I for one am glad that the small Suffolk Police Force, assisted by other contabularies, have been able to get to this stage so quickly, and give thanks for that. I hope it will be some small crumb of comfort for the families and friends of those murdered.
James
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by graham55
To be even more technical, a person charged in England with a criminal offence and acquitted is not found to be "innocent" - the finding is "Not Guilty".
In Scotland, when a jury is unsure whether to bring in a Guity or Not Guilty verdict, it can return a Not Proven verdict.
In Scotland, when a jury is unsure whether to bring in a Guity or Not Guilty verdict, it can return a Not Proven verdict.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Bob McC
Is an internet forum subject to subjudice?
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by JWM
quote:Originally posted by graham55:
To be even more technical, a person charged in England with a criminal offence and acquitted is not found to be "innocent" - the finding is "Not Guilty".
Graham, if this is picking me up on a technical point, I'm afraid I don't understand why. I have never suggested that [in England by implication] anyone is found 'innocent'.
I was referring to the fact that our justice system includes the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, i.e. the burden is on proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on proving innocence.
And Bob, does something being subjudice mean that, literally, it may not be mentioned at all, or just that you can't suggest guilt or innocence about a particular person, which might unduly influence a juror?
I am most anxious about people receiving a fair trial, which is why I was entirely 'neutral' in my earlier post.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Bob McC
I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Are internet forums subject to the same limitations on discussion that other forms of media are.
Are internet forums subject to the same limitations on discussion that other forms of media are.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
To be even more technical, though Graham 55 a former solicitor should know better, to be charged with an offence is simply that.
CPS decides whether a sustainable case can be made for prosecution; a court decides whether such a case might be brought; if so, the jury decides on the evidence.
Being charged means nothing in itself except that the police do it. And once they do, they stop looking for anyone else.
CPS decides whether a sustainable case can be made for prosecution; a court decides whether such a case might be brought; if so, the jury decides on the evidence.
Being charged means nothing in itself except that the police do it. And once they do, they stop looking for anyone else.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
a court decides whether such a case might be brought;
are you saying a court decides whether such a case might be brought to er court?
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
a court decides whether such a case might be brought;
are you saying a court decides whether such a case might be brought to er court?
A Court considers whether there is a case to answer on the face of the evidence. I believe it's called a grand jury in the US and it is called depositions in NZ.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
[QUOTE]
A Court considers whether there is a case to answer on the face of the evidence. I believe it's called a grand jury in the US and it is called depositions in NZ.
I see. What is it called in the UK then?
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by JonR
Commital proceedings, I think.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by andy c
quote:And once they do, they stop looking for anyone else.
Really.
Interesting tho is the point that some sceptics, who initially were very scathing, are not saying much now.
The process for arriving at a level whereby charges are brought is very stringent. The cPs will have been consulted b4 the decision is made.
Encouraging news indeed.
The other thing is the accused was already subject to a warrant of further detention...
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by graham55
Nigel is wrong here.
Prosecution is the job of the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service) or, in other cases, specialist bodies such as the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) or the SFO (Serious Fraud Office). All prosecutions are usually brought in the name of the Crown (viz R v Bloggs). Police officers (and others) are called to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
Once a decision is taken by the CPS (or others) to prosecute, "a court" (whatever that may mean) is not involved in deciding whether a case might be brought. There are, to be sure, committal hearings, but all that the Crown needs to prove to the court is that the defendant has a case to answer (prima facie evidence of guilt).
Once the case comes to trial, the trial judge can throw out the case, if he/she is satisfied that the prosecution have come nowhere near satisfying their case "beyond reasonable doubt". But, even then, the judge can only direct a Not Guilty finding.
As to Nigel's final para, the police do not, as explained above, bring the "charge". I have no idea whether or not they continue to investigate once the CPS (or whoever) have charged the defendant.
Graham
Prosecution is the job of the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service) or, in other cases, specialist bodies such as the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) or the SFO (Serious Fraud Office). All prosecutions are usually brought in the name of the Crown (viz R v Bloggs). Police officers (and others) are called to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
Once a decision is taken by the CPS (or others) to prosecute, "a court" (whatever that may mean) is not involved in deciding whether a case might be brought. There are, to be sure, committal hearings, but all that the Crown needs to prove to the court is that the defendant has a case to answer (prima facie evidence of guilt).
Once the case comes to trial, the trial judge can throw out the case, if he/she is satisfied that the prosecution have come nowhere near satisfying their case "beyond reasonable doubt". But, even then, the judge can only direct a Not Guilty finding.
As to Nigel's final para, the police do not, as explained above, bring the "charge". I have no idea whether or not they continue to investigate once the CPS (or whoever) have charged the defendant.
Graham
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by andy c
graham 55 - good description.
again - this process is far more resillient than, say, 10 years ago.
again - this process is far more resillient than, say, 10 years ago.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by graham55:
[QUOTE] Nigel is wrong here.
Has he ever been right about anything?
quote:Once a decision is taken by the CPS (or others) to prosecute, "a court" (whatever that may mean) is not involved in deciding whether a case might be brought.
Indeed. Thanks for the details Graham.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by graham55
CPS = Crown Prosecution Service.
Sorry, just seen my blooper and too late to amend.
Graham
Sorry, just seen my blooper and too late to amend.
Graham
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Deane F
There have been mutterings recently in NZ about doing away with the depositions stage of prosecutions altogether. After all, it is almost unheard of for a case not to proceed beyond depositions as it is fairly cut and dried as to what will show that there is a case to answer and a prosecutor would not go to depositions on a wing and a prayer.
Personally though, I think the ability of an interested party to bring a private prosecution might be harmed by such a move. Several years ago a private prosecution for murder was brought against a policeman. It was thrown out at depositions but the two Justices of the Peace who heard the deposition went beyond their ken and commented as to their beliefs in respect of the constable's actions. Sian Elias CJ reheard the deposition and found that there was indeed a case for the constable to answer. He was tried and found not guilty.
Personally though, I think the ability of an interested party to bring a private prosecution might be harmed by such a move. Several years ago a private prosecution for murder was brought against a policeman. It was thrown out at depositions but the two Justices of the Peace who heard the deposition went beyond their ken and commented as to their beliefs in respect of the constable's actions. Sian Elias CJ reheard the deposition and found that there was indeed a case for the constable to answer. He was tried and found not guilty.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Mick P
Chaps
I find it strange that the murder of 5 drugged up prostitutes causes such concern.
How many people died last week on the roads
How many people died of cancer
How many people died alone in their houses only to be found weeks later.
Did anyone write in about them ?
I find the concern over sex workers a little bit odd.
Regards
Mick
I find it strange that the murder of 5 drugged up prostitutes causes such concern.
How many people died last week on the roads
How many people died of cancer
How many people died alone in their houses only to be found weeks later.
Did anyone write in about them ?
I find the concern over sex workers a little bit odd.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Right Wing
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps
I find it strange that the murder of 5 drugged up prostitutes causes such concern.
How many people died last week on the roads
How many people died of cancer
How many people died alone in their houses only to be found weeks later.
Did anyone write in about them ?
I find the concern over sex workers a little bit odd.
Regards
Mick
Agreed Micky.
one of em was pregant, still on the game, smoking truckers/taxi drivers cock to fuel her habit.
They never deserved to die, but it is interesting how this case has created so much interest.
Money would be better spent on stopping the likes of Ian Huntley working in a school (ect) IMO.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by Right Wing
quote:Originally posted by Right Wing:quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps
I find it strange that the murder of 5 drugged up prostitutes causes such concern.
How many people died last week on the roads
How many people died of cancer
How many people died alone in their houses only to be found weeks later.
Did anyone write in about them ?
I find the concern over sex workers a little bit odd.
Regards
Mick
Agreed Micky.
one of em was pregant, still on the game, smoking truckers/taxi drivers c*ck to fuel her habit.
They never deserved to die, but it is interesting how this case has created so much interest.
Money would be better spent on stopping the likes of Ian Huntley working in a school (ect) IMO.
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by David Tribe
Perhaps the point is that there is some crazy fuck running around killing other human beings. If you do not have the humanity to have a compassionate thought for the victims in this case, I would think that you lot would at least be selfish enough to show mild concern that somebody this bat-shit-crazy is on the loose. Doesn't live near you? Just a road trip away baby!
DCT
DCT
Posted on: 22 December 2006 by acad tsunami
Mick parry,
You are a truly repulsive individual with little discernable intelligence, insight, wisdom, understanding or compassion. I used to think that you were just an old witless buffoon but now I think you are just a plain common or garden variety vicious creep. I think you would be more at home on a forum of BNP members.
Acad
You are a truly repulsive individual with little discernable intelligence, insight, wisdom, understanding or compassion. I used to think that you were just an old witless buffoon but now I think you are just a plain common or garden variety vicious creep. I think you would be more at home on a forum of BNP members.
Acad