Interesting but makes several odd assumptions.

A lot of good information in the article, too much for me to take in at the moment. Highlighted is the case of Simon Hall who I had never heard of. There was a successful campaign about his wrongful conviction then he confessed and I also guess there was sufficient information provided to substantiate the confession. Then I am guessing the author is raising that others such as Barry George may not be innocent after all.

The expectation of most in the West as far as I can see is that if one is ever accused then the various systems will endeavor to supply the evidence to move the accused from innocent to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then either by reading or worst still personal experience one discovers that is not often the case. That often the justice system is based on emotion as opposed to evidence. Thus the point appears in the case mentioned here of Simon Hall, for example that at the time the evidence did not support a guilty verdict thus the campaigners based on what they knew were right to campaign (now known to be genuinely guilty). The same appears for Barry George there was never any reasonable evidence. Yes, I would guess very likely character type and location were reason to investigate and not to do so would be dereliction of duty ok.

Both cases I really know almost nothing about but I agree strongly with JK that the justice system is broken and needs overhauling thus ensuring all cases are based on reasonable, unbiased evidence with checks and balances. Reasons for decisions provided at the first instance and right through to appeal level. No more reports of something been strong or weak but well reasoned assessments (Whatever one thinks of the cases of Rolf Harris or Max Clifford the reported comments and summaries of the appeal judges was totally abysmal and dismissive. Any normal employee would end up been instantly dismissed giving the same dismissive comments to why their section did not make a profit). Context of the use of strong or weak often is political, laziness, corruption, stupidity and other like reasons but certainly not professional or justice.

If business development of products worked like the justice system approach we would be lucky even to have an abacus!!!!!

Likewise I've never heard of Hall but my "odd assumptions" are... not everyone who "admits" guilt is guilty; there are various reasons including a very common one - simply giving up the fight; secondly, some people (i.e. MWT) might be shits in many cases but that doesn't mean they always are wrong and thirdly, I arrived at Belmarsh just after Barry George had left, so never met him myself, but those who did meet him all said the man was almost incapable of tying his own shoelaces.

JK2006 wrote:
Likewise I've never heard of Hall but my "odd assumptions" are... not everyone who "admits" guilt is guilty; there are various reasons including a very common one - simply giving up the fight; secondly, some people (i.e. MWT) might be shits in many cases but that doesn't mean they always are wrong and thirdly, I arrived at Belmarsh just after Barry George had left, so never met him myself, but those who did meet him all said the man was almost incapable of tying his own shoelaces.

But in Halls case he was guilty.

MWT doesn’t strike me as the type of bloke searching for the truth, his history shows this.

I have no idea about Hall or whether he was guilty, was wrongly convicted, falsely claimed to have been guilty or was forced into pretending he was guilty - others will know better than I. And MWT does indeed have a disgraceful history. But never assume, as I often tell my staff; never assume.

JK2006 wrote:
I have no idea about Hall or whether he was guilty, was wrongly convicted, falsely claimed to have been guilty or was forced into pretending he was guilty - others will know better than I. And MWT does indeed have a disgraceful history. But never assume, as I often tell my staff; never assume.

Assume nothing question everything indeed.

wjlmarsh wrote:

The same appears for Barry George there was never any reasonable evidence. Yes, I would guess very likely character type and location were reason to investigate and not to do so would be dereliction of duty ok.


“Mr George, 50, a convicted sex offender with a history of stalking women, applied for a pay-out after he was found not guilty at a retrial in 2008. He sought compensation for lost earnings, wrongful imprisonment, stress and destruction of character.
But it emerged yesterday that the Ministry of Justice had written Mr George a letter denying him the pay-out. It says he he has no reputation to damage and police have found no evidence pointing to a new suspect in the notorious case. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/76...ll-Dando-murder.html



“Not to treat Mr George's acquittal as a miscarriage of justice "went behind the decision of the jury that acquitted him" and failed to take account of the fact that no safe conviction could ever be based on the evidence against him, the QC said.
But the High Court judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21195269

JK2006 wrote:
Likewise I've never heard of Hall but my "odd assumptions" are... not everyone who "admits" guilt is guilty; there are various reasons including a very common one - simply giving up the fight; secondly, some people (i.e. MWT) might be shits in many cases but that doesn't mean they always are wrong and thirdly, I arrived at Belmarsh just after Barry George had left, so never met him myself, but those who did meet him all said the man was almost incapable of tying his own shoelaces.

He was capable of frightening his ex-wife so much that she claimed to still be afraid of him many years later. He was also capable of staging that bizarre incident when he was found hiding in the grounds of Kensington Palace.

Not saying he did murder Dando, but I for one have never been convinced of his innocence. Having said that, criminal cases must quite correctly pass a high test for guilt.

Interesting links.

"he’s far more on the ball and much brighter than the 40 watt bulb his barrister once described him as"

Judging from interviews, e.g. clips of the original police interviews in MWT "Dando files" programme and MWT's more recent interview with him in that programme, he doesn't strike me either as someone who's simple. What particularly puzzles me about what BG has said is him telling MWT that he didn't know who Jill Dando was, let alone that she lived near him. Very hard to believe, IMO, given her high profile (including recent coverage of her forthcoming marriage), especially from someone with a house full of newspapers and record of focussing on celebrities.

Don't you mean getting rid of the habit of mistaking assumptions for the truth? How can anything be explored, investigated or challenged without the existence of an assumption or a series of assumptions in the first place? How can further knowledge be gained if we are disencouraged or forbidden to assume anything or discuss our assumptions with others? Aren't there other ways of handling our assumptions while searching for the truth (whatever that could be). For example, by maintaining a discreet, third-eye level of awareness of them? I think this is far better than getting lost in guilty and conflicting thoughts that we should not have them, doing all we can to get rid of them. A more lethal way out of this conflict is for our minds to go to that other extreme of seeing assumptions as truths etched in stone.

many assumptions in that article which we are told to accept but why?

while I have no idea of the truth how can the author know either/..

eg : she says of Barry George : "If you compare and contrast the two, and cross reference some of the material contained within, you will begin to recognise Barry George is not at all like the man his sister and others have attempted to portray to the public."

his uncle wrote a book which the author says we must accept over what others say..why?

Uncle may well be right but how can we know?.

Lots of weaving together there of other incidents totally unrelated to Barry George which are somehow meant to confirm the author's claims about George.

Talk about taking "same fact evidence:" to the extreme.

Did like the stuff on Don Hale & MWT though but even though George got involved with them..at a time when the media painted them as heroes- not really his fault.

hedda wrote:

Did like the stuff on Don Hale & MWT though but even though George got involved with them..at a time when the media painted them as heroes- not really his fault.[/quote]

mobile.twitter.com/perryscope21/status/1113706820693102592

mobile.twitter.com/BrianWillmot/status/1103776211380117504

“Investigative journalist Don Hale, who has visited George in prison, believes there are parallels with the case of Stephen Downing, who spent more than 30 years in prison for the murder of a woman in Bakewell, Derbyshire. The conviction was eventually overturned after years of campaigning by Mr Hale and others. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/spec...ndo-case-413556.html


“The former editor Don Hale was awarded an OBE for leading the campaign to free Stephen Downing from a life sentence for murdering Wendy Sewell in a Bakewell graveyard. Now police say he 'embellished' his account of events.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1422861/...ampaigners-case.html

anon wrote:
“Investigative journalist Don Hale, who has visited George in prison, believes there are parallels with the case of Stephen Downing, who spent more than 30 years in prison for the murder of a woman in Bakewell, Derbyshire. The conviction was eventually overturned after years of campaigning by Mr Hale and others. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/spec...ndo-case-413556.html


“The former editor Don Hale was awarded an OBE for leading the campaign to free Stephen Downing from a life sentence for murdering Wendy Sewell in a Bakewell graveyard. Now police say he 'embellished' his account of events.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1422861/...ampaigners-case.html

“Hale saw the Court of Appeal verdict as a personal victory. He wrote a book about the campaign and co-operated with a BBC1 drama, in which he was played by Stephen Tompkinson. But police files show that Hale falsely portrayed Downing as an artless innocent who was wrongly accused while the guilty parties got away scot free.

The files demonstrate that he suppressed evidence suggesting that Downing was indeed the likely killer of Sewell, and fabricated “facts” to implicate entirely innocent people”

If someone is capable doing this once they are capable of doing it again.

Hale is portrayed in an uncritically positive light in this 2017 BBC article: Don Hale: One man's fight for justice

I agree that someone capable of doing that in one case could do it again. The BBC drama "In denial of murder" used to be on YouTube and I'm surprised to hear that Hale cooperated with it, as he didn't come out of it well. However, he was portrayed more as well-meaning but misguided, rather than devious or calculating.

There's an old TV documentary on YouTube "Murder in the Graveyard - BBC documentary - Wendy Sewell murder 1973" that I haven't watched, but dipping into it towards the end see that Hale is interviewed and claims to have received a threatening phone call from two men telling him to "leave it alone" or he'd be "blown away".

Here's another claim:

Now it’s revealed Barbara Castle drew up dossier on VIP paedophiles: File seized by Special Branch 'heavy mob'

The dossier was collated by the late Baroness Castle of Blackburn who handed it to Don Hale, the editor of her local newspaper, the Bury Messenger.

Mr Hale claimed a ‘heavy mob’ of Special Branch officers raided his office in 1984 and took away the file, threatening him with prison if he resisted.