Justice at Last

[Geezer]

Finally after 8 years just really has been served and Barry george is released from prison for the murder of Jill Dando.

[dvtimes]

yes.

therre seems to be a wiff of somthing corupt with the police on this.

they seem to too keen to re-open the case.

and the evidence they had for him was pathetic.

no witnesses. no evidence (aport from a spec of dust).

the only thing they had against him was that he was an odd bod. well heck, if being some odd bod is going to get you sent down for murder, i will be doing life.

[Geezer]

if being some odd bod is going to get you sent down for murder, i will be doing life.

I'm surprised your'e not

But yeah this was all bollocks from the start and I don't see how he was convicted in the first place. Still he is free now but fuck having 8 years of your life taken away.

[Jel]

I'm surprised your'e not

But yeah this was all bollocks from the start and I don't see how he was convicted in the first place. Still he is free now but fuck having 8 years of your life taken away.

I thought you'd been married?

[dvtimes]

I'm surprised your'e not

But yeah this was all bollocks from the start and I don't see how he was convicted in the first place. Still he is free now but fuck having 8 years of your life taken away.

i wonder if he will get comensation?

a woman at the first trial said the evidence sucked.

i guess people presume that if somone has been charged then chances are they are guilty.

but to be honest i am suprised also that the juge allowed it.

i am sure i heard a case where they found somone gulty and the judge (correctly) said no he was inicent and overruled them (but i may be wrong).

but i am sure juges have the power to stop cases where they think the evidence is nonsence.

[Geezer]

Of he will and of course he should get compensation.

Most people presume someone guilty just for get arrested, then when they are charged they are positive they are guilty. Oh and he did have a picture of himself with a gun so he must have done it :noway2:

[Jel]

But the old bill never lie in court, and they aren't cunts out to secure convictions just for the sake of numbers at all.

[dvtimes]

Of he will and of course he should get compensation.

Most people presume someone guilty just for get arrested, then when they are charged they are positive they are guilty. Oh and he did have a picture of himself with a gun so he must have done it :noway2:

its why i do not belive they should name people (unless there is a need to) till somone is found guilty of a crime.

of course there are cases were they will need to, ie if i went on a shooting spre and was on the run.

of couse that would not have helped him as he was found guilty.

i think they are already reviwing using a spec of dust in uk cases. i think they said a bit back that in the usa they would not have allowed that evidence.

also i wonder if they will allow character evidence to be used. it seems rather odd evidence, after all just becase somone acts odd to one person, he may seem fine to another.

but as i say, i am suprised he was found guilty in the first place as your suposed to show that there is no doubt that somone could be inicent and it would seem there was huge doubt.

it also makes me wonder about the quality of the legal team in his first defence, if they had not been incompetent.

i wonder if he has a case against his first legal team too.

[dvtimes]

But the old bill never lie in court, and they aren't cunts out to secure convictions just for the sake of numbers at all.

the police interviewd afterwords were not the type i would trust.

[Geezer]

its why i do not belive they should name people (unless there is a need to) till somone is found guilty of a crime.

of course there are cases were they will need to, ie if i went on a shooting spre and was on the run.

of couse that would not have helped him as he was found guilty.

i think they are already reviwing using a spec of dust in uk cases. i think they said a bit back that in the usa they would not have allowed that evidence.

also i wonder if they will allow character evidence to be used. it seems rather odd evidence, after all just becase somone acts odd to one person, he may seem fine to another.

but as i say, i am suprised he was found guilty in the first place as your suposed to show that there is no doubt that somone could be inicent and it would seem there was huge doubt.

it also makes me wonder about the quality of the legal team in his first defence, if they had not been incompetent.

i wonder if he has a case against his first legal team too.

I don't think people should named until they are found guilty and convicted. Look at rape cases, the man is always named, now whether he is convicted or not people will always wonder and say he was lucky to get off. When a woman is found to lied about a rape she should be named.

The problem is that Barry George is not playing with a full deck so he was easily manipulated by the old bill. Also if this had been Jill Bloggs I doubt he would have even gone to court.

[A Priest]

i heard he's getting 1m in compo, from sky news.

1m for 8 years in prison, sign me up! :(

[dvtimes]

I don't think people should named until they are found guilty and convicted. Look at rape cases, the man is always named, now whether he is convicted or not people will always wonder and say he was lucky to get off. When a woman is found to lied about a rape she should be named.

The problem is that Barry George is not playing with a full deck so he was easily manipulated by the old bill. Also if this had been Jill Bloggs I doubt he would have even gone to court.

in some cases people will need to be named, ie if you have good evidence about somone and they are on the run, you may need to alert the public.

but a juge can deside this on the basis of evidence and so forth.

if however police arrest you and charge you, and unless there is any public need to then, there should be no need to have names public.

but of course such as a rape case where there is evidence for prosection but also evidencxe that there are other cases, it may be needed to ask if other people have been attacted to builed up a lot more evidence.

but one reason not to name people is that it can affect a case. i would suspect a named person may predudice a case.

but this does not seem to be the first case where police have picked on somone with a low iq.

[dvtimes]

i heard he's getting 1m in compo, from sky news.

1m for 8 years in prison, sign me up! :(

and i bet the goverment then send him a bill for his time in prison like they tried last time somthing like this happened.

[dvtimes]

in truth, the cps should never have alowed this to go to court.

even on a guilty charge it should have not taken 8 years to mess about. the evidence was so poor (ie non) that a re-tial should have taken place much sooner. in fact i fail to see why there was a re-trial, unless the police had further evidence it should have been overturned much sooner.

lets face it these days 8 years is as long as you would get for killing somone. i am sure most of the people who have stabed somone and killed them, will serve around 8 years.

i am not surer what he was sentenced to, but i bet he has served most of it anyway.