news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7947078.stm

Just shows how the police don't check their facts.
Even if somebody confesses,they should at least make sure with real facts & hard evidence.Not take the easy way out,and lock up the first easy target they find.

I wonder how much they'll now charge him for board and lodging.

you actually bring up a very important point about this odious practice of charging prisoners for accomodation etc.

I've been hoping for a long time now that one who has been on the receiving end of this would take the government to court for supplying inferior food etc. I guarantee no jail anywhere maintains it's supposed standards and I'm sure it would open up a can of unwanted worms.

The Australian government did likewise to people they jailed for years as "illegal immigrants" when their legal status was 'asylum seekers' and charged them for food etc. which obviously none who were incarcerated could pay.

A legal challenge was mounted by friendly lawyers and the new government hastily re-treated and has begun to back-peddle. The likely result according to legal experts was a friendly judgement for ex-prisoners (highly likely) would lead to huge compensation claims.

I can only speak from my own experience at HMP Risley. As an example, one day a week we had fish. This was always a bit of grey psuedo cardboard with a few breadcrumbs attached. When the prison had an ispection on fish day we had much better quality white filleted fish with finely chopped recognisable vegetables. If the prison was spending the official amount on food for inmates, why would they have to change things for inspection day?

I also recall that when Ann Widdecombe was given a tour of the prison every inmate was kept locked in their cell despite it being during the work hours. She did not see how the prison was normally run.

No wonder the public perception of prisons is so inaccurate.

JC wrote:


I also recall that when Ann Widdecombe was given a tour of the prison every inmate was kept locked in their cell

That was probably for your safety incase she started bashing you with her brolly and giving lectures.

So here we go again - Sally Clark, Steven Downing, Barry George, Sion Jenkins, Birmingham 4, Guildford 6, Stefan Kizsco, Jonathan King... oh, I've not been found innocent yet and, of course, there was no DNA since there was no actual crime.

Just assume every guilty person is in fact innocent and you'll be closer to the truth.

When will someone in meejah realise it's a good story?

None of the above named, including yourself JK, were actually proven guilty. The verdict in each case was an assumption of guilt based on very little or no evidence. It's about time those in power got the legal system sorted out and restored the presumption of innocence. Also they need to research the meaning of the words evidence and proven and then apply them properly.

I felt so sorry for this pale and broken man as he walked out of court. Such a large chunk of his life stolen from him. He can never get those years back. We see so many miscarriages of justice that it seems the politicians and police do not care at all. Nothing is ever done to halt the injustice. Instead we see the governments making it even easier to convict without evidence. I think it is shameful.

Media, police and government are all skirting round some very important questions. If this man did not commit the murder, and we now know he didn't, why was he arrested in the first place? Ok, he confessed, but there have been attention seeking false confessions for decades. It is the duty of the police to investigate thoroughly. What evidence did they have to back up the confession? Did they check his story to see if he knew the timings and exact circumstances of the murder?

I get the impression that there was a very poor investigation with the police putting in very little effort once someone had confessed. At the time, it was unlikely that anyone would know different, other than the real murderer, and so they just accepted the confession at face value in order to quickly wrap up the case.

No doubt those officers have retired by now, but if a man had 27 years of his life stolen due to their laziness and negligence, they should be made to answer for that in some way.

Is there going to be an investigation into the investigation?

Excellent point DD and my old bugbear - accountability.

That is the key point (as hinted at by Judge Judge in his statement).

Guilty until proved innocent.

He will no doubt get huge compensation but it will not compensate the 27 years he has lost from his life.

I could say, I am astonished at the miscarriage of justice but I'm not. After seeing what the police did to Colin Stagg (as seen on Crimewatch), anything is possible.

Any news on your appeal JK?

Due to be heard this summer Mike.