WPC Julia Jeapes

[Roch]

Interestingly it also mentions the 'Shrewsbury 24'. The prosecution barrister in their case was Drake. He also sent down the Bridgewater 4.

[Bubo bubo]

Interestingly it also mentions the 'Shrewsbury 24'. The prosecution barrister in their case was Drake. He also sent down the Bridgewater 4.

Excellent posting. I doubt that 'the Judge was Drake' would be grounds for referral for JB.

[Roch]

Excellent posting. I doubt that 'the Judge was Drake' would be grounds for referral for JB.

.

Interesting he was a key instrument in sending down defendants in two separate cases who were later acquitted. He then presides over sending down Bamber in a hugely controversial conviction. His excuse for the Bridgewater Four conviction was it wasn't his fault, it was corrupt police. Either he was not very sharp regarding police corruption - or he was a twat who was comfortable with sending the wrong people down.

[Zoso]

.

Interesting he was a key instrument in sending down defendants in two separate cases who were later acquitted. He then presides over sending down Bamber in a hugely controversial conviction. His excuse for the Bridgewater Four conviction was it wasn't his fault, it was corrupt police. Either he was not very sharp regarding police corruption - or he was a twat who was comfortable with sending the wrong people down.

How many cases did he preside over throughout his career? It's also not him who 'sends people down' - it's the jury. The judge presides over the evidence presented in court, if some of that is the result of corruption, how would he know that? Or should he start from the premise that ALL police are likely to be corrupt?

[Roch]

How many cases did he preside over throughout his career? It's also not him who 'sends people down' - it's the jury. The judge presides over the evidence presented in court, if some of that is the result of corruption, how would he know that? Or should he start from the premise that ALL police are likely to be corrupt?

Lightening doesn't strike twice in the same place.

[David1819]

Lightening doesn't strike twice in the same place.

Brilliant counter-argument 

[Roch]

Brilliant counter-argument 

I doubt you know what it means.

Judge Jefferies probably resided over guilty people. That doesn't mean he didn't pass the death sentence unnecessarily in many cases or on innocent people who were wrongly brought before him.

[Zoso]

Lightening doesn't strike twice in the same place.

Tell that to these people https://listverse.com/2018/06/02/10-people-who-have-been-struck-by-lightning-multiple-times/ or Christ The Redeemer statue in Rio.

There will probably always 'some' corrupt (or less than honest) police officers but you seem to be insinuating that even the judge was involved in the big frame up? Maybe the jury were knobbled too?

[Zoso]

I doubt you know what it means.

Judge Jefferies probably resided over guilty people. That doesn't mean he didn't pass the death sentence unnecessarily in many cases or on innocent people who were wrongly brought before him.

Because the 17th century is completely relevant when discussing law and order today?

[Roch]

Because the 17th century is completely relevant when discussing law and order today?

What was relevant was the fact that both judges will have presided over multiple cases involving guilty people - which is not a suitable defence to excuse convicting or helping to convict innocent people.

[Roch]

Tell that to these people https://listverse.com/2018/06/02/10-people-who-have-been-struck-by-lightning-multiple-times/ or Christ The Redeemer statue in Rio.

There will probably always 'some' corrupt (or less than honest) police officers but you seem to be insinuating that even the judge was involved in the big frame up? Maybe the jury were knobbled too?

There is corruption in all walks of life. We can suggest that Drake was unlucky in that he presided over or took part in three controversial cases that, where two have later resulted in convictions being overturned, and at least two have had the taint of police corruption attached to them. 

I do not believe the Bamber convictions will be overturned. But if they were, that would be Shrewsbury, Bridgewater and Bamber and I believe that would warrant a closer look at more of the convictions Drake was involved in.

[Zoso]

What was relevant was the fact that both judges will have presided over multiple cases involving guilty people - which is not a suitable defence to excuse convicting or helping to convict innocent people.

Of course not - but you are suggesting that he must have KNOWN they were innocent at the time?

[Zoso]

There is corruption in all walks of life. We can suggest that Drake was unlucky in that he presided over or took part in three controversial cases that, where two have later resulted in convictions being overturned, and at least two have had the taint of police corruption attached to them. 

I do not believe the Bamber convictions will be overturned. But if they were, that would be Shrewsbury, Bridgewater and Bamber and I believe that would warrant a closer look at more of the convictions Drake was involved in.

Like I said, how many cases did he preside over?

[Roch]

Of course not - but you are suggesting that he must have KNOWN they were innocent at the time?

Hypothetical question. Let's say both Priti Patel and Jeremy Corbyn are judges. If you were innocent, who would you rather be tried by? What's the betting that, as an innocent person,  you've got far more chance of being found guilty in a trial presided over by Patel than you have in one presided over by Corbyn?  Does that translate in to Patel knowingly convicting innocent people? Not necessarily.

[Zoso]

Hypothetical question. Let's say both Priti Patel and Jeremy Corbyn are judges. If you were innocent, who would you rather be tried by? What's the betting that, as an innocent person,  you've got far more chance of being found guilty in a trial presided over by Patel than you have in one presided over by Corbyn?  Does that translate in to Patel knowingly convicting innocent people? Not necessarily.

I think that's pretty much a question based on complete assumption - by the same token under this theory, Corbyn is likely to let the guilty walk free?