T V Show

[Jan]

No, you've missed the point - the point is, in their ignorance, they went with the obvious option and the obvious option was to dial 999. They didn't make an observation, that's the point, they hadn't done their homework and assumed he would have called 999.

No I did understand what you were saying - but I think it was sloppy programme making plus assumption . Like assuming his motive was inheriting a posh house.

[Caroline]

No I did understand what you were saying - but I think it was sloppy programme making plus assumption . Like assuming his motive was inheriting a posh house.

The docu was an absolute travesty but I did manage to get the 999 observation from it - although that was more by accident than design. As a side issue I thought the woman who introduced it had a resemblance to Sheila? I think she might have looked similar where she alive now.

[Jan]

I read most posts.

You're posts I find a bit long and over sentimental. So may not read them, unless they are quoting my posts.

Scipio's posts are long but straight to the point. However I don't read all of his. 

Mike's threads and posts I rarely read and never respond to.

Jan and Lookout's posts I read and have said they can PM me prior to a stance change.

really ? Is that not a sign of egotism? I must check the definition first though. Don't want to jump to conclusions.

[Jan]

Actually saw a much more interesting programme last night . "Did they really do it ".

A brief summary - man accused and jailed for rape and murder . Various "experts " arguing about blood grouping and forensics saying they were not reliable in the 80s .Circumstancial evidence.  Man pleads innocence . Grandmother dobs him about his timings being wrong . there are other suspects . Man is put to death still pleading innocence . DNA evidence gets more accurate . Still people fighting for him . Final result turns out he was guilty .

It was interesting .

At the point of the DNA evidence being released there were people who genuinely believed it could go either way.

I am sure Skippy will come along and give you a full lecture about the case - but the above is a summary

[lookout]

No I did understand what you were saying - but I think it was sloppy programme making plus assumption . Like assuming his motive was inheriting a posh house.

I've heard all that kind of old tosh before involving the McCanns who " supposedly " murdered their daughter according to Amaral and Bennett the solicitor ( both had axes to grind )
They " live in a big posh house  had big posh cars  both doctors and not sink-estate dwellers  had money 
This type of repetitive talk gets one down slightly,same old same old.

I remember getting shouted down on a forum when I'd said that odious Matthews woman and her boyfriend were guilty of " kidnapping " her child,long before police had spent thousands using helicopters,dogs plus hours/days of their time. How could nobody see through that ?

[scipio_usmc]

Actually saw a much more interesting programme last night . "Did they really do it ".

A brief summary - man accused and jailed for rape and murder . Various "experts " arguing about blood grouping and forensics saying they were not reliable in the 80s .Circumstancial evidence.  Man pleads innocence . Grandmother dobs him about his timings being wrong . there are other suspects . Man is put to death still pleading innocence . DNA evidence gets more accurate . Still people fighting for him . Final result turns out he was guilty .

It was interesting .

At the point of the DNA evidence being released there were people who genuinely believed it could go either way.

I am sure Skippy will come along and give you a full lecture about the case - but the above is a summary

Was it about the person I mentioned a few days ago (Roger Coleman)?  If so this was actually a pretty big deal here because it took a lot of starch out of the anti-capital punishment crowd.

As he was being put to death he insisted he was innocent as many others have while they were being readied  for execution.  It had been asserted that at that point they would not be lying about being innocent and suggested when they assert it till the end they must be innocent.  The proof he was guilty tore that argument to shreds.

This should not have been as big a surprise as it was.  Before they put him to death they did rudimentary DNA testing that supported his guilt (excluded like 98 percent of the population) and he left work early that day so his supposed alibi was no good.  He had blood on his pants that was the same blood type as the victim.  Well after his death advanced DNA testing took place which confirmed his guilt.  Supporters made such a big stink that the governor did the extraordinary by allowing the advanced DNA test that left no doubt he was guilty.

What is difficult for people in other countries to understand is that when a prisoner is tried in a state court, apart from the state appeal process there is a federal appeal process that can be turned to. A state supreme Court action can be appealed to the US Supreme Court so there is a means for federal oversight anyway.  But in addition there is the ability to try pursuing a federal action.  This is why you have so many different proceedings to contend with in the US. Clemency can be sought from the governor and president.

If someone is tried in federal court the process is streamlined they only can use the federal courts and can only seek clemency from the president. Federal courts can only try federal crimes.  State courts can try state or federal crimes.

This is why state Death Row can seem so convoluted. 

[Jan]

yes it was  coleman. It was an interesting and well put together programme with well presented arguments. Interestingly explaining how forensic science has moved forward since the time of the crime.

[Jan]

Was it about the person I mentioned a few days ago (Roger Coleman)?  If so this was actually a pretty big deal here because it took a lot of starch out of the anti-capital punishment crowd.

As he was being put to death he insisted he was innocent as many others have while they were being readied  for execution.  It had been asserted that at that point they would not be lying about being innocent and suggested when they assert it till the end they must be innocent.  The proof he was guilty tore that argument to shreds.

This should not have been as big a surprise as it was.  Before they put him to death they did rudimentary DNA testing that supported his guilt (excluded like 98 percent of the population) and he left work early that day so his supposed alibi was no good.  He had blood on his pants that was the same blood type as the victim.  Well after his death advanced DNA testing took place which confirmed his guilt.  Supporters made such a big stink that the governor did the extraordinary by allowing the advanced DNA test that left no doubt he was guilty.

What is difficult for people in other countries to understand is that when a prisoner is tried in a state court, apart from the state appeal process there is a federal appeal process that can be turned to. A state supreme Court action can be appealed to the US Supreme Court so there is a means for federal oversight anyway.  But in addition there is the ability to try pursuing a federal action.  This is why you have so many different proceedings to contend with in the US. Clemency can be sought from the governor and president.

If someone is tried in federal court the process is streamlined they only can use the federal courts and can only seek clemency from the president. Federal courts can only try federal crimes.  State courts can try state or federal crimes.

This is why state Death Row can seem so convoluted.

They said all the first DNA test did was not exclude him. It was the second DNA  test that was 90million to one chance.

[Adam]

Was it about the person I mentioned a few days ago (Roger Coleman)?  If so this was actually a pretty big deal here because it took a lot of starch out of the anti-capital punishment crowd.

As he was being put to death he insisted he was innocent as many others have while they were being readied  for execution.  It had been asserted that at that point they would not be lying about being innocent and suggested when they assert it till the end they must be innocent.  The proof he was guilty tore that argument to shreds.

This should not have been as big a surprise as it was.  Before they put him to death they did rudimentary DNA testing that supported his guilt (excluded like 98 percent of the population) and he left work early that day so his supposed alibi was no good.  He had blood on his pants that was the same blood type as the victim.  Well after his death advanced DNA testing took place which confirmed his guilt.  Supporters made such a big stink that the governor did the extraordinary by allowing the advanced DNA test that left no doubt he was guilty.

What is difficult for people in other countries to understand is that when a prisoner is tried in a state court, apart from the state appeal process there is a federal appeal process that can be turned to. A state supreme Court action can be appealed to the US Supreme Court so there is a means for federal oversight anyway.  But in addition there is the ability to try pursuing a federal action.  This is why you have so many different proceedings to contend with in the US. Clemency can be sought from the governor and president.

If someone is tried in federal court the process is streamlined they only can use the federal courts and can only seek clemency from the president. Federal courts can only try federal crimes.  State courts can try state or federal crimes.

This is why state Death Row can seem so convoluted.

Sounds like an American version of the Hanratty case. Who also claimed he was innocent up until his death. Spurred on by supporters. DNA tests confirmed his guilt.

Bamber is lucky there are no items that can still be checked for DNA.

[Adam]

Criminals often do not want to confess guilt unless there is irrefutable forensic evidence.  Even if they are already in prison for other offences.

Robert Napper will never be released and is suspected of dozens of unsolved crimes as the 'Green Chain' rapist. But refuses to confess to any of them unless there is forensic evidence linking him.

I suspect these prisoners like the attention and the mystic surrounding them. As well as believing they have put one over the police. They may be in prison, but the police can't nail them on other crimes.

[Jan]

Sounds like an American version of the Hanratty case. Who also claimed he was innocent up until his death. Spurred on by supporters. DNA tests confirmed his guilt.

Bamber is lucky there are no items that can still be checked for DNA.

the programme was interesting in the respect of how the other forensics were not that accurate in those days - for example they said blood grouping was not finite and really the only forensics that were accurate were finger prints. So he was tried on his personality and timing inaccuracies.

Now as I explained - the supporters right to the last day felt the information he was tried upon was not enough for the death penalty - as it happened they were wrong - but they felt it could go either way .

I am being unbiased by posting about this case because in a way it has similarities .

I did not try and compare it directly with the bamber case though because it could be too easy to jump to incorrect conclusions because a lot of the circumstances were very very different .

I will leave that up to you 

[Jan]

Criminals often do not want to confess guilt unless there is irrefutable forensic evidence.  Even if they are already in prison for other offences.

Robert Napper will never be released and is suspected of dozens of unsolved crime as the 'Green Chain' rapist. But refuses to confess to any of them unless there is forensic evidence linking him.

I suspect these prisoners like the attention and the mystic surrounding them. As well as believing they have put one over the police. They may be in prison, but the police can't nail them on other crimes.

I am sure in SOME cases you are correct - but there are also some cases where you are wrong - another American case where there is a book written called Picking cotton  is a very interesting and very sad read.

It is all to easy to generalise and paint a picture - that suits your argument.

[Reader]

. . . an American version of the Hanratty case. . . . DNA tests confirmed his guilt.

Yet Hanratty had an alibi and Alphon didn't.

[lookout]

It just goes to show that you can also have an alibi and still be guilty.

[Adam]

Yet Hanratty had an alibi and Alphon didn't.

An alibi. So that is why he was convicted.