| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:15 - May 14 with 1405 views | Steve_M |
Yes, the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to repeatedly consider new evidence is a thread that runs through so many similarly appalling tragedies.
And, as one of his relatives rightly pointed out yesterday, the family of the victim have been denied any sense of justice by this state failure. |  |
|  |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:35 - May 14 with 1347 views | naa |
His sentence had a minimum term of 19 years. So, despite having a dodgy confession, which he rescinded, very dodgy physical evidence and nothing else they kept him in for another 19 years for the sake of it. [Post edited 14 May 11:36]
|  | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:48 - May 14 with 1274 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
Shocking. And underlines why we shouldn't have the death penalty. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:50 - May 14 with 1272 views | blueasfook |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:48 - May 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Shocking. And underlines why we shouldn't have the death penalty. |
Well yes, poor fella would have been hanged. But then if he was dead, would there have been a relentless effort to clear his name? |  |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:54 - May 14 with 1217 views | iamatractorboy |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:35 - May 14 by naa |
His sentence had a minimum term of 19 years. So, despite having a dodgy confession, which he rescinded, very dodgy physical evidence and nothing else they kept him in for another 19 years for the sake of it. [Post edited 14 May 11:36]
|
I assume this is because he always maintained his innocence, whereas if he'd admitted to something he didn't do he may well have been released. The ultimate irony. I think that's what happened with Andrew Malkinson? Not eligible for release because he kept (rightly) fighting the verdict. | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:59 - May 14 with 1196 views | naa |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:54 - May 14 by iamatractorboy |
I assume this is because he always maintained his innocence, whereas if he'd admitted to something he didn't do he may well have been released. The ultimate irony. I think that's what happened with Andrew Malkinson? Not eligible for release because he kept (rightly) fighting the verdict. |
Yes, it seems to be a ridiculous loophole in the parole system that you have to admit your guilt and accept everything to be able to be released, meaning innocent people with principles stay in jail. | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 12:00 - May 14 with 1191 views | naa |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:50 - May 14 by blueasfook |
Well yes, poor fella would have been hanged. But then if he was dead, would there have been a relentless effort to clear his name? |
Probably not, but not sure that's a good thing is it? | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 13:43 - May 14 with 1037 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:59 - May 14 by naa |
Yes, it seems to be a ridiculous loophole in the parole system that you have to admit your guilt and accept everything to be able to be released, meaning innocent people with principles stay in jail. |
That principle is not ridiculous when you consider this is a shocking murder we are talking about, and murderers are only released from a Life Sentence if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a threat to the public.
Admission of guilt and comprehension of the damage done are key first steps in the process of rehabilitation. A violent killer who denies guilt should not be released by a Parole Board, who simply look at the details of the offence and reports on rehabilitation, and aren't tasked with questioning the verdict of the jury.
What is ridiculous is how many times we discover that somebody who didn't do it had learning difficulties, and confessed without having appropriate representation. Anyone who has watched "Making a Murderer" will be aware just how vulnerable people with learning difficulties are to suggestion from "nice Police Officers who only want to help them". | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 14:35 - May 14 with 952 views | Zx1988 |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 13:43 - May 14 by ArnoldMoorhen |
That principle is not ridiculous when you consider this is a shocking murder we are talking about, and murderers are only released from a Life Sentence if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a threat to the public.
Admission of guilt and comprehension of the damage done are key first steps in the process of rehabilitation. A violent killer who denies guilt should not be released by a Parole Board, who simply look at the details of the offence and reports on rehabilitation, and aren't tasked with questioning the verdict of the jury.
What is ridiculous is how many times we discover that somebody who didn't do it had learning difficulties, and confessed without having appropriate representation. Anyone who has watched "Making a Murderer" will be aware just how vulnerable people with learning difficulties are to suggestion from "nice Police Officers who only want to help them". |
Surely it's possible, though, to conduct a thorough assessment as to whether or not someone would pose a risk to the general public upon release, regardless of whether or not they confess/agree that they are guilty?
If you've got me locked up at His Majesty's Pleasure over the course of a 19-year period, surely there is sufficient opportunity for long-term observation in order to assess my mental state and general demeanour? Whether I abandon my claims of innocence should have nothing to do with it. | |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 17:07 - May 14 with 830 views | naa |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 13:43 - May 14 by ArnoldMoorhen |
That principle is not ridiculous when you consider this is a shocking murder we are talking about, and murderers are only released from a Life Sentence if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a threat to the public.
Admission of guilt and comprehension of the damage done are key first steps in the process of rehabilitation. A violent killer who denies guilt should not be released by a Parole Board, who simply look at the details of the offence and reports on rehabilitation, and aren't tasked with questioning the verdict of the jury.
What is ridiculous is how many times we discover that somebody who didn't do it had learning difficulties, and confessed without having appropriate representation. Anyone who has watched "Making a Murderer" will be aware just how vulnerable people with learning difficulties are to suggestion from "nice Police Officers who only want to help them". |
I understand what you are saying but I'd like to think the parole board's assessment would be a lot more thorough than the person saying they are sorry.
I mean, they might not mean it in the slightest so, therefore, should carry no weight on its own. I'm sure the parole board assess information from a lot of sources, some of which would be far less subjective.
If, therefore, any admission of guilt and repentance is to essentially be ignored as any evidence of their safety to the public, why insist on it in the first place? | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 17:33 - May 14 with 788 views | Kievthegreat |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 17:07 - May 14 by naa |
I understand what you are saying but I'd like to think the parole board's assessment would be a lot more thorough than the person saying they are sorry.
I mean, they might not mean it in the slightest so, therefore, should carry no weight on its own. I'm sure the parole board assess information from a lot of sources, some of which would be far less subjective.
If, therefore, any admission of guilt and repentance is to essentially be ignored as any evidence of their safety to the public, why insist on it in the first place? |
It's a crappy situation because while the courts work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (although they clearly still screw up), after the verdict is rendered, they will always be treated as guilty by the justice system.
At that point the prison and probation system takes over and they have 3 jobs. Protect the public by keeping dangerous individuals locked up, punish the guilty through loss of liberty and rehabilitate such that they will no longer be a risk to the public.
As soon as he is sent down, he's a murderer in the system. Then the issue is that a murderer who shows no remorse for his crimes is unrepentant and is refusing to rehabilitate. Do we want unrepentant murderers being released? It's not parole boards job to hold a second trial. It's to look at the risk he poses and being unrepentant for murder will not be a factor in favour of release.
As for sincerety, it will likely not just be the prisoner being asked at the parole board. It will take evidence from probation officers and prison staff too. The prisoner will have had to admit guilt over a period of time and will need to convince people they are being truthful. |  | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 18:00 - May 14 with 745 views | bluelagos |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 13:43 - May 14 by ArnoldMoorhen |
That principle is not ridiculous when you consider this is a shocking murder we are talking about, and murderers are only released from a Life Sentence if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a threat to the public.
Admission of guilt and comprehension of the damage done are key first steps in the process of rehabilitation. A violent killer who denies guilt should not be released by a Parole Board, who simply look at the details of the offence and reports on rehabilitation, and aren't tasked with questioning the verdict of the jury.
What is ridiculous is how many times we discover that somebody who didn't do it had learning difficulties, and confessed without having appropriate representation. Anyone who has watched "Making a Murderer" will be aware just how vulnerable people with learning difficulties are to suggestion from "nice Police Officers who only want to help them". |
Am sure the police officer who took the confession of the guy with learning difficulties will be fully held to account for his role in this. 38 years an innocent man in jail and they've not even been looking for the murderer...
When it comes to lessons learned I've got a suggestion. Whenever a false confession is discovered the copper who took it could do the same jail time as the innocent person did. But that would require us to actually hold them to account, something we have consistently failed to do for decades. |  |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 18:47 - May 14 with 687 views | chicoazul |
“If you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”
Remember this case as the govt and Police and CPS continues to agitate for more AI in the justice system, facial recognition etc |  |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:08 - May 14 with 629 views | MattinLondon |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 13:43 - May 14 by ArnoldMoorhen |
That principle is not ridiculous when you consider this is a shocking murder we are talking about, and murderers are only released from a Life Sentence if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a threat to the public.
Admission of guilt and comprehension of the damage done are key first steps in the process of rehabilitation. A violent killer who denies guilt should not be released by a Parole Board, who simply look at the details of the offence and reports on rehabilitation, and aren't tasked with questioning the verdict of the jury.
What is ridiculous is how many times we discover that somebody who didn't do it had learning difficulties, and confessed without having appropriate representation. Anyone who has watched "Making a Murderer" will be aware just how vulnerable people with learning difficulties are to suggestion from "nice Police Officers who only want to help them". |
The principle in theory is sound but in practice it’s ridiculous. Why should someone who maintains their innocence, and for the benefit of this argument is actually innocent, have to ‘admit’ that they are guilty in order to be considered for parole. It’s like torturing someone to get a confession - only in this case it’s mental rather than physical.
I understand the logic of it but what looks good as an idea is, in practice, nonsensical. [Post edited 14 May 19:11]
|  | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:15 - May 14 with 594 views | MattinLondon |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 18:00 - May 14 by bluelagos |
Am sure the police officer who took the confession of the guy with learning difficulties will be fully held to account for his role in this. 38 years an innocent man in jail and they've not even been looking for the murderer...
When it comes to lessons learned I've got a suggestion. Whenever a false confession is discovered the copper who took it could do the same jail time as the innocent person did. But that would require us to actually hold them to account, something we have consistently failed to do for decades. |
How on earth can those police officers live with themselves knowing that they deliberately sent someone to prison who is actually innocent? Especially so given the length of time.
When this happens are other cases looked at? Because if they stitched up one fella the chances are that they did it to others? Surly their pensions should be withdrawn (at the very least) for bringing the police into disrepute. | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:16 - May 14 with 591 views | Swansea_Blue |
In fairness, he does look a bit shifty. Better to lock him up and be sure about these things 
The scary thing is that this could happen to any of us on here (unlikely but not impossible). |  |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:24 - May 14 with 567 views | Whos_blue |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:50 - May 14 by blueasfook |
Well yes, poor fella would have been hanged. But then if he was dead, would there have been a relentless effort to clear his name? |
Derick Bentley? |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:35 - May 14 with 547 views | bluelagos |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:15 - May 14 by MattinLondon |
How on earth can those police officers live with themselves knowing that they deliberately sent someone to prison who is actually innocent? Especially so given the length of time.
When this happens are other cases looked at? Because if they stitched up one fella the chances are that they did it to others? Surly their pensions should be withdrawn (at the very least) for bringing the police into disrepute. |
Only thing that surprised me is that it was Merseyside and not West Midlands plod. In the mid 80s the West Midlands Serious Crime squad were a law unto themselves. Have a google of Stanley Beechey. | |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:43 - May 14 with 518 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 18:00 - May 14 by bluelagos |
Am sure the police officer who took the confession of the guy with learning difficulties will be fully held to account for his role in this. 38 years an innocent man in jail and they've not even been looking for the murderer...
When it comes to lessons learned I've got a suggestion. Whenever a false confession is discovered the copper who took it could do the same jail time as the innocent person did. But that would require us to actually hold them to account, something we have consistently failed to do for decades. |
I suspect the involved officer is now long retired, otherwise I’m sure he’d be subjected to a rigorous 1 hour re-training session to teach him the error of his ways. | |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:25 - May 14 with 450 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 11:15 - May 14 by Steve_M |
Yes, the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to repeatedly consider new evidence is a thread that runs through so many similarly appalling tragedies.
And, as one of his relatives rightly pointed out yesterday, the family of the victim have been denied any sense of justice by this state failure. |
Not sure why this has 5 upvotes. The article literally says "Mr Sullivan's defence team, led in court by Jason Pitter KC, said he acknowledged that attempting to test the sample any earlier could have destroyed it permanently without yielding any results."
Hardly state failure if his own team are saying testing earlier could have destroyed his chances of ever getting out. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:26 - May 14 with 444 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:25 - May 14 by Kropotkin123 |
Not sure why this has 5 upvotes. The article literally says "Mr Sullivan's defence team, led in court by Jason Pitter KC, said he acknowledged that attempting to test the sample any earlier could have destroyed it permanently without yielding any results."
Hardly state failure if his own team are saying testing earlier could have destroyed his chances of ever getting out. |
Equally fascinated to understand how people have concluded this was a deliberate dishonest act, presumably out of malice for no obvious reason, by police.
Nonsensical. | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:28 - May 14 with 443 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 19:15 - May 14 by MattinLondon |
How on earth can those police officers live with themselves knowing that they deliberately sent someone to prison who is actually innocent? Especially so given the length of time.
When this happens are other cases looked at? Because if they stitched up one fella the chances are that they did it to others? Surly their pensions should be withdrawn (at the very least) for bringing the police into disrepute. |
I would imagine there is a lot of pressure to get a result and the officers will often convince themselves that someone is guilty and getting the confession probably gives them a feeling of winning the game.
Whether they have enough awareness to realise they overstepped in forcing that confession or whether they convince themselves that the new evidence that exhonerates them isn't all it looks to be who knows? Something in me thinks most of them would not show the remorse you seem to expect of them. Something in me says that sort of character is far less likely to have forced the confession in the first place. |  |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:30 - May 14 with 436 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:28 - May 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I would imagine there is a lot of pressure to get a result and the officers will often convince themselves that someone is guilty and getting the confession probably gives them a feeling of winning the game.
Whether they have enough awareness to realise they overstepped in forcing that confession or whether they convince themselves that the new evidence that exhonerates them isn't all it looks to be who knows? Something in me thinks most of them would not show the remorse you seem to expect of them. Something in me says that sort of character is far less likely to have forced the confession in the first place. |
There is also a significant issue of confirmation bias. Human trait, well recognised in the jurisprudential literature, and trained about in the police these days. | | | |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:41 - May 14 with 414 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:25 - May 14 by Kropotkin123 |
Not sure why this has 5 upvotes. The article literally says "Mr Sullivan's defence team, led in court by Jason Pitter KC, said he acknowledged that attempting to test the sample any earlier could have destroyed it permanently without yielding any results."
Hardly state failure if his own team are saying testing earlier could have destroyed his chances of ever getting out. |
I upvoted and will admit I had not read what you quote there. That does explain that part. | |
| |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 21:11 - May 14 with 339 views | bluelagos |
| Got to feel sorry for this poor fella on 20:26 - May 14 by redrickstuhaart |
Equally fascinated to understand how people have concluded this was a deliberate dishonest act, presumably out of malice for no obvious reason, by police.
Nonsensical. |
So you think it was an accidental dishonest act? The police accidentally got a confession from a special needs guy who had done nothing wrong?
The obvious reason why they would have done it is because they were more concerned with "getting a result" than actually ensuring they got the right person.
See countless other cases from 1980s UK policing - who were quite content fitting up innocent people. The parallels with Stefan Kiszko are quite stark. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
