During my 3.5 years in Her Majesty's Estate I never met anyone who thought he was guilty.
That's inmates, officers, governors, chaplains, healthcare - the lot - all of whom had met him.

I must tell you the feeling is the same about Michael Stone.

Many, many prison people consider a huge amount of high profile convictions to be unsafe. The bigger the publicity, the more the police bend the evidence and the courts bend the presentation.

Why? The media needs BIG STORIES whether true or false.

Society needs "perpetrator found!" headlines to feel safe and secure.

The police, CPS, Establishment need stories to show they are doing their jobs and need salary and budget increases.

Which is why there are so many appeal results - from the Paul Blackburns to the Sally Clarks.

Screw the individuals. Satisfy the media.

Why do the words HELL and HANDCART spring to mind?

the police will probably claim that he was not framed - but why then do they continue to deny that firearm officers were at his flat when there are several witnesses who saw them?

This is what happens in a high profile case ... police under pressure to "solve" case ... anyone will do !

The tragedy is that innocent person has life destroyed - guilty person walks free (and is still free to this day).

It's called Justice !

Both MM and JK`s above comments have an interesting comparison.

Both media career people with a full trial by media.

Do refuse collectors have trial by the refuse collection commitee?
I think not.

There is still this nasty human trait to shoot the entertainment/media industry down in flames, which taints many counts of "justice".

If someone incredibly famous lived next door to me and was killed, I would doubtlessly be the first person pulled in for the crime of "dressing eccentrically".

Does anyone agree that 8 years in prison for a crime he probably did not commit is a gross insult to the judicial system?

Does anyone agree that jailing a cot death mother as a baby murderer is also appalling?

Does anyone agree that a man jailed for a crime he didn't commit in London should have his conviction overturned when he can prove he was in America at the time?

Does anyone feel we might be better as society finding and jailing people who kill (like Milly Dowler's murderer) or kidnap (Maddie?)...?

It's all gone dreadfully wrong.

We need to see a return to the burden of proof being on the prosecution. As Viscount Sankey ruled in Woolmington vs DPP (1935)

No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.

It seems that in recent years, not only has there been no requirement for the prosecution to prove their case, but the definition of proof has been changed. Proof used to mean evidence supporting an allegation of a crime. Now it seems that the allegation itself is 'proof'. The burden of genuine proof has been transfered to the defence. I'm still amazed that the British courts permit the police/CPS to take someone to court, present a mere allegation, then insist that the defence disprove said allegation. This undermines the foundations of English Common Law, and of common sense.

...and I do wish Jonathan, you'd have written a song about Barry George rather than Shipman. It's not too late of course.

It is for Shipman!

No news from the ccrc for you today then JK?

Mart wrote:
Both MM and JK`s above comments have an interesting comparison.

Both media career people with a full trial by media.

Do refuse collectors have trial by the refuse collection commitee?
I think not.

There is still this nasty human trait to shoot the entertainment/media industry down in flames, which taints many counts of "justice".

If someone incredibly famous lived next door to me and was killed, I would doubtlessly be the first person pulled in for the crime of "dressing eccentrically".

Bang on there Mart - it seems just like in the 1970s with the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four that the Police are pulling in who they think are the most likely to have done the crime, not those that did do the bloody crime to start with!

I have watched all this horrible stuff going on in absolute horror. How many more people sent to prison because they "probably" did it or they "look" the part.

"Beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt".
Dear oh dear.

How can someone live with themselves after knowingly ruining someone's life by bending evidence or making false witness?

The knowledge inside them must destroy them.

If Karma exists.

There seems to be a feeling on this thread that British justice used to be beyond reproach, and has gone down the pan lately.

You can trawl through history as far back as you like and find miscarriages of justice. We used to burn witches after all. No point yearning for the old days. We need to rip it up and start again.

Read the 2 page story in today's Daily Express - no one (not even one of the Jurors !) was really convinced of his guilt !

Tis true!
The evidence was rather flimsy to say the least,but the hounding press bayed for blood...and got it.
All the hallmarks of being tried by 'Murdoch jury',how can it be possible to get a fair trial with all that publicity?
It joins the long list of unsafe convictions,the Birmingham 6,Guilford 4,JK...well there's also more of course.

Thanks Tim