Author Topic: 44 Minutes.  (Read 386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2019, 04:02:PM »
Too long for what was categorically too short: 44mins.
Skip this 44mins for now.
Let us go on just 10mins.

It took just 10mins of this party, starting on their walk together,
on Roansdyke path - for this discovery.

The police, (IMO) did not become suspicious because all four people gave the same
account - they became suspicious due to the vast differences in them.
Of the impossible differences.

It would appear, that in that first week, one thing became clear - that was clarification,
as to where everyone was.
Where they were, when this dog was up against this wall - scrabbling or sniffing.
It is dark. It is dreek. They are on an isolated path, out of all streetlight.
Importantly and vital, is this - They nor this dog are in this woodland,
this woodland is cut off from this path, by a 6-8ft high, thick wall.

In that first week, Luke gives an account of walking passed this V, not even 20yards.
He is with Kelly and JaJ.
The dog reacts.
Some 36-48hrs later he puts this into a diagram for his FLO.
X marks the spot.
We have this V. Some distance passed this V we have two X's, one on the path and one in the woods.
He describes this scenario as being parallel to the other.
That where he, Kelly, JaJ and the dog were, was parallel to where Jodi was, on the woodside.

This was a distance of some 13.6mtrs - 44 ft.

The other members of the search party have given their account.
They give descriptions.
Kelly describes this dogs head as being level with this V.
They give an account of the dogs leash being handed to AW.
They give an account of Luke going into the woodland.
They give an account of seeing him shine his torch to the left - of following the torchlight.
They give an account of continuing to walk this path.
That they had barely walked some 10-15ft when Luke shouts.

The police are right to be suspicious here.
If this search party had even been 10-15ft passed this V when this dog reacted, and they continued
as Luke claims, when he backtracked.
They would not have been able to refer this dogs head as being level with this V
They would not have been able to see the leash getting handed over.
They would not have been able to see Luke climb over, shine his torch anywhere, far less to the left.

These discrepancies appear to far outweigh what may tally.
It is not just the account of where everyone may have been, there is this timescale also.
The police are already aware of two main things, when those first accounts were given.
That first call to the police at 10.50pm.
That call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.
They know there has to be a level of organisation.
A timescale for everything to happen.
The main one, apparent, from the off - is that very short time frame, of all four meeting.
To that very call to 999.

On top of this - we have the claim of never been in this woodland before, by Luke.
Of not knowing of the existence of this V until that night.

One set of accounts - explains things as happening around this V point.
The other of it happening some distance passed.
This short time frame - can not be changed.
The short time frame - once over this wall, can not be changed.
There was no sign, at all - that the ground he entered, was unfamiliar to him.

The way I see, IMO, is - if these people had been in the actual woodland searching,
they would have been hard pushed, with the dogs help, to make this discovery as quick.
They were not, they were on this path - yet still, this discovery was made, very quick.
In a place, where it appears abundantly clear - this girl was left hidden.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2019, 05:16:PM »
"The prosecutor must—

(a)disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused"


That applies to all the UK.

That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2019, 08:20:PM »
That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?

If its not capable of undermining the defence, then the prosecution have no need or motive to suppress it in the first place.

If information is withheld from them by the police. Not much I can do about that. It shouldnt happen but it does.

The police Knew Stefan Klitzko was innocent and suppressed the reports of sperm cells on the victim. Stefan Klitzko was impotent and could not produce sperm. The police did not want that to come to light for obvious reasons. But events like that are rare.

What could the police have withheld from Luke's team? Due to the circumstancial nature of the case, the only thing capable of undermining the case would be an alternative suspect with circumstantial evidence also. Such a thing would be difficult to hide, as they must have investigated him to know that in the first place.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2019, 09:42:PM »
If its not capable of undermining the defence, then the prosecution have no need or motive to suppress it in the first place.

Obviously, and it's of no use to the defence anyway. But what if it is capable of undermining the defence? might there be a need or motive to suppress then? Can you think of any famous UK cases where exactly that happened, David? If not, I suggest you do some research

Quote
If information is withheld from them by the police. Not much I can do about that. It shouldnt happen but it does.

This isn't about you David. The argument you were making (as far as I can fathom) is that the system, generally, works well. It's just as well the families of 96 innocent, unlawfully killed people didn't take your approach, otherwise we wouldn't, today, have as much concrete proof that the police can, and do, willfully withhold information. Do you accept that innocent people should rot in jail because police withhold evidence? Does that fit with the justice systems of your "civilised societies?



Quote
The police Knew Stefan Klitzko was innocent and suppressed the reports of sperm cells on the victim. Stefan Klitzko was impotent and could not produce sperm. The police did not want that to come to light for obvious reasons. But events like that are rare.

Once is one too many - I'm pretty sure that's what you'd be maintaining if it happened to you or someone you love. I'd love to see the evidence to back up your claim that "events like that are rare." Again, I'd suggest some research on the subject. 

Quote
What could the police have withheld from Luke's team? Due to the circumstancial nature of the case, the only thing capable of undermining the case would be an alternative suspect with circumstantial evidence also. Such a thing would be difficult to hide, as they must have investigated him to know that in the first place.

And again, you relate the unrelated in order to made a completely invalid point seem as if it's important.  Let me just say this - if it wasn't difficult to hide, in plain view, the truth about the deaths of 96 people in a public place, caught on tv cameras across the country for almost three decades, what on earth makes you think it would be difficult to hide anything in any case?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2019, 10:45:PM »
Obviously, and it's of no use to the defence anyway. But what if it is capable of undermining the defence? might there be a need or motive to suppress then? Can you think of any famous UK cases where exactly that happened, David? If not, I suggest you do some research


Already pointed out Stefan Klisko

This isn't about you David. The argument you were making (as far as I can fathom) is that the system, generally, works well.

The system generally works well yes. 40% of crown court cases are resolved through guilty pleas. The other 60% that go to trial, 80% of them result in a guilty verdict. Its estimated that between 1 to 5 percent of the prison population is innocent. If you exclude the guilty pleas then we have less than 3% at most. That figure I expect to go down as technology advances.

An 80 percent conviction rate of trials to me reflects a fair and balanced justice system. Where as Russia for example has a conviction rate of 99.8%! that's not good.

Do you accept that innocent people should rot in jail because police withhold evidence? Does that fit with the justice systems of your "civilised societies?

Like I said. It should not happen. But the world is not ideal. In Saudi Arabia the prosecution only needs two male witnesses to a crime to punish the accused by be-heading. Or four fe-male witnesses as their testimony only carries half the weight of men in Sharia courts. 
« Last Edit: October 27, 2019, 10:46:PM by David1819 »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2019, 07:27:AM »
The UK prison population in 2018 was approximately 93,000. 3% of that is 2790. That is not a "small" number of lives ruined, especially when you add family members etc.

There are no official statistics concerning wrongful convictions of factually innocent individuals, because records of those claiming factual innocence are not kept.

I think that we'd both agree that neither the Russian nor the Saudi justice systems can be called "civilised."

Sine we both agree that the system is "not perfect," my question is a simple one - what do we do to reduce incidences of wrongful conviction or to rectify those which do happen? I'm assuming you haven't missed the massive outcry over false allegations of sexual assault which have emerged in recent years? Or the scandals surrounding "failure to disclose," or widespread failings in forensic labs used by police forces? Or what about the select committee convened to examine failings in forensic science used in courts?Those events surely indicate a trend towards increasing wrongful convictions (or, at the very least, a strong suggestion that those "estimates" you floated at the beginning of your post are very possibly significant under-estimates).

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2019, 12:31:PM »
Sine we both agree that the system is "not perfect," my question is a simple one - what do we do to reduce incidences of wrongful conviction or to rectify those which do happen?

Simple amendments can be made to help reduce the error rate. And to help rectify any future cases if the jury was wrong.

-  Screening potential Jurors with basic IQ tests prior to a trial to determine eligibility. Ensuring the jury is made up of reasonable people.

-  A guilty verdict can only be reached by juror unanimity.

-  Allow Jurors to openly express what took place in deliberations. That way there will be much less wiggle room for the judges at the appellate courts.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24723
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2019, 08:12:PM »
Simple amendments can be made to help reduce the error rate. And to help rectify any future cases if the jury was wrong.

-  Screening potential Jurors with basic IQ tests prior to a trial to determine eligibility. Ensuring the jury is made up of reasonable people.

-  A guilty verdict can only be reached by juror unanimity.

-  Allow Jurors to openly express what took place in deliberations. That way there will be much less wiggle room for the judges at the appellate courts.

How would an IQ test help? An IQ test does measure reasoning and problem-solving abilities but  this ia centred around visual, mathematical and language abilities as well as your memory and information processing speed - it doesn't measure practical intelligence. And using such screening would mean that jurors weren't randomly selected.

What happens in cases where a unanimous verdict isn't reached? Risk letting a guilty person go free?

Discussing deliberations will just lead to the relaying of the type of squabbles regularly found on this forum.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2019, 08:42:PM »
That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?

what the defence sees also depends on what the proscution admits to having.

and yes the police dont allways disclose everything to the proscuter.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2019, 08:55:PM »
How would an IQ test help? An IQ test does measure reasoning and problem-solving abilities but  this ia centred around visual, mathematical and language abilities as well as your memory and information processing speed - it doesn't measure practical intelligence. And using such screening would mean that jurors weren't randomly selected.

IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process. 

In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.

What happens in cases where a unanimous verdict isn't reached? Risk letting a guilty person go free?

A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.

Discussing deliberations will just lead to the relaying of the type of squabbles regularly found on this forum.

Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11256
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2019, 09:34:PM »
IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process. 

In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.

A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.

Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.
I wouldn't hold the USA judicial system in such high esteem. Look at the OJ Simpson case for one. The plea bargain system is just a way to cut public expenditure and not a means of searching for truth.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2019, 09:46:PM »
on thing i will say about the us systm is there much better than the uk at admiting they were wrong.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24723
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2019, 09:55:PM »
IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process. 

In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.

A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.

Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.

A. IQ isn't the way to go because it doesn't measure practical intelligence and by doing so, you would be omitting people who would make good jurors. They interview jurors in the US to determine bias ie. in instances where the price of guilt is the DP.

B. Retrials would be expensive

C. I'm not aware that jurors in the US can speak out?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2019, 09:58:PM »
I wouldn't hold the USA judicial system in such high esteem. Look at the OJ Simpson case for one. The plea bargain system is just a way to cut public expenditure and not a means of searching for truth.

The OJ case has no relevance today.

How many innocent people take a plea bargain?  ???

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24723
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2019, 10:09:PM »
The OJ case has no relevance today.

How many innocent people take a plea bargain?  ???

I think that would be an unknown quantity.
Few people have the imagination for reality