the judge has already warned jurors to ignore anythhing they see about the trial on the net or twitter or whatever. they've got no chance of a fair trial.
Quote by soul_stylistDo you think they're innocent ?
Course not but it's not really for me to decide is it? but what I'm saying is this thread is part of a wider issue regarding contempt of court for active proceedings. These two have no chance of a fair trial. Remember jo Yates' landlord? He clearly did it, judging by reports at the time. Except he didn't and settled out of court with two papers for libel. I don't think the papers got done for contempt but some of their coverage was very near the knuckle. Everyone deserves a fair trial as they're presumed innocent until proven guilty, no matter how abhorrent they and their crimes appear.
Which brings me to my original post nefc - They deserve what they get
If they're innocent then they'll obviously be found not guilty, if they're guilty then they'll be brought to justice.
However, if they're trial isn't a fair one (after 18 years of walking free) and they are responsible, then perhaps in a round about way that's justice in itself , as the original investigation and subsequent trial was a complete farce that allowed those now in the dock to walk free with big smug grins on their faces. What goes around comes around I say.
Quote by soul_stylistWhich brings me to my original post nefc - They deserve what they get
If they're innocent then they'll obviously be found not guilty, if they're guilty then they'll be brought to justice.
However, if they're trial isn't a fair one (after 18 years of walking free) and they are responsible, then perhaps in a round about way that's justice in itself , as the original investigation and subsequent trial was a complete farce that allowed those now in the dock to walk free with big smug grins on their faces. What goes around comes around I say.
im not sure what you're getting upset about here. the crime is horrendous but there's other things around the trial which are interesting. the contempt laws in this country are being left behind by other 'reporting' outlets. the game has changed hugely since the private prosecution, never mind the original trial.
Quote by soul_stylistI'm simply voicing my opinions on the matter
fair enough but what im saying is all our opinions on the matter are - unless someone has inside info - fuelled by reporting, discussion and speculation. like with the yeates landlord thing. so if the whole country is convinced of their guilt, it must have been extremely hard to select jurors. all im saying is everyone - without exception - deserves a fair trial and i can't see how that will happen here.
I respect what you're saying nefc, however, I think it's a lot easier to take that morel high ground in your position as opposed to that of someone who has been the victim of or relatives to a victim of such a horrible crime.
Quote by soul_stylistI respect what you're saying nefc, however, I think it's a lot easier to take that morel high ground in your position as opposed to that of someone who has been the victim of or relatives to a victim of such a horrible crime.
im not taking the moral high ground at all. the fact is none of us know what happened that night, but we all think we do. thats what im talking about, not the actual killing
Are you following the trial at all ncfc? Because two witnesses have now given evidence, and you're being pretty broad with the statement about never knowing what really happened.
Quote by PentonvilleAre you following the trial at all ncfc? Because two witnesses have now given evidence, and you're being pretty broad with the statement about never knowing what really happened.
here's what i've said: 'the fact is none of us know what happened that night, but we all think we do.'
'what im saying is all our opinions on the matter are - unless someone has inside info - fuelled by reporting, discussion and speculation.'
yes im following the case. i've not said anything about never knowing (i dont think, if i have i didnt mean to). im saying none of us here or the public in general (which is where the jury comes from) knows. witnesses to the murder or people involved in the investigation and/or privy to the details clearly believe they do. im not on about the crime itself, im on about the reporting of it and the possibly of it presenting a substantial risk of a serious prejudice to an active case. which is one of the tests for contempt of court.
Fair enough. I think I misinterpreted what you had written about never knowing the truth. The evidence that is being given is quite shocking and I'm going to back off this thread as in hindsight it may be slightly inappropriate.
OFF HAND
Print view
Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:23 am
reply
