Barry George should face a re-trial under the Double Jeopardy Law

[Stephanie]

   A quick search using the terms "Barry george sun libel" will give you plenty to back up my "claims". I am surprised that you need help to back up what you call claims. It is established fact that Barry George has won "substantial damages" from News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun and News of the World, for libel.

I was referring to your claims about me!

And I know about the libel damages and why he won them, seems you are stretching this in order to fit your agenda.

Maybe you can post up what the news group said word for word.

[gringo]

    The links that you have provided so far have defeated rather than helped your contentions. Quite what nuggets of knowledge you believe can be derived from an article in "Sociopath World" authored by the anonymous "psychology today blogger" is a mystery. Cod psychology epitomised.
    Another of your links is to an article where it is accepted that Mirror Group also lied about him and paid him substantial damages for libel. Why do you imagine that this backs up your allegations?
    The same tactics were used against Colin Stagg for years where it was suggested constantly that he had "got away" with murdering Rachel Nickell. How did that one turn out?
     You haven't offered a single valid reason to back up your belief that Barry George is guilty. 

[Stephanie]

   
    The same tactics were used against Colin Stagg for years where it was suggested constantly that he had "got away" with murdering Rachel Nickell. How did that one turn out?
     

Wasn't George also questioned over the Rachel Nickell murder.

[Adam]

I would have to read up on Barry George. Similar to how I did with Bamber. Reading both the pro and anti arguments. But don't have time.

It does seem strange that the police arrest a man, the DPP accepts the  case, a jury convicts and an appeal court upholds the conviction. Then after 8 years the conviction is quashed and he's found innocent at  re trial.

Not because of new evidence or another person confessing. But because 8 years of hammering away at the original small amount of forensic evidence resulted in it eventually being classed as unreliable.

Sion Jenkins did the same thing with the small amount of forensic evidence against him. However there was also more convincing circumstantial evidence against him & a time period where he was with Billie Jo and could have committed the killing.

The mysterious man who Sion Jenkins said climbed over the garden fence in broad daylight & into the house to kill Billie Jo,  without financial or sexual motivation and without knowing who else was in the house, has never been caught.

[nugnug]

Wasn't George also questioned over the Rachel Nickell murder.

sorry but somoeones allready pleaded guilty hes names robert napper.

[Adam]

Barry George's lawyers spent 3 years trying to get compensation. The case went to the high court. His lawyers claiming George would not have been convicted in the original trial if the jury had been aware of the unreliable evidence that George's lawyers had spent 11 years discrediting since the conviction. 

"The claim was heard in the High Court, but in their summing up, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder", and, on the strength of this, denied George compensation for wrongful incarceration".

[nugnug]

but the barrys lawyers argument was proven to be true by the fact that a jury that new evedence found him innocent.

so the judges statement by any standards are absurd.

[Adam]

It's not surprising the re trial went in George's favour. After 8 years of non stop work from Georges team and previous failed appeals, the COA quashed the conviction. On the basis that the incriminating evidence was perhaps unreliable.  However the COA ordered a re trial.

What were the jury in the re trial going to do, disagree with the COA ?

[gringo]

I was referring to your claims about me!

And I know about the libel damages and why he won them, seems you are stretching this in order to fit your agenda.

Maybe you can post up what the news group said word for word.

    You posted "What newspapers?" and asked if I could back up my claims. So crystal clear that you were referring to claims made about you. The only claims I have made about you are that you were attacking George's sister Michelle Diskin and that you accused his sister of covering his guilt. You have stated the following in this thread

    "The smoke and mirrors campaign his sister is running, is in my opinion, in order to cover his guilt- whether she is aware of his guilt or not."
    That sounds like attacking her to me and funnily enough, actually stating clearly that his sister is, in your opinion, "covering his guilt" counts as an accusation of "his sister covering his guilt".
    You say that you are aware of why he won damages and then ask if I could post "word for word" articles that are accepted as libellous by all parties and the High Court. What could possibly go wrong? . What other libellous articles would you like quoting verbatim?
    What evidence do you think supports your belief? Without linking to dubious newspaper articles, or articles about newspapers being shown to be lying, and in fact admitting that they lied, or links from dodgy psychology blogs which in no way refer to the case in hand anyway, as well as being totally anonymous.
    Spell out what evidence supports the claim that Barry George killed Jill Dando.

     

[nugnug]

It's not surprising the re trial went in George's favour. After 8 years of non stop work from Georges team and previous failed appeals, the COA quashed the conviction. On the basis that the incriminating evidence was unreliable.  However the COA ordered a re trial.

What were the jury in the re trial going to do, disagree with the COA ?

yes they have done before retrials and jurys have convicted a secound time in fact its common for a retrial to connvict than aquit.

[gringo]

I would have to read up on Barry George. Similar to how I did with Bamber. Reading both the pro and anti arguments. But don't have time.

It does seem strange that the police arrest a man, the DPP accepts the  case, a jury convicts and an appeal court upholds the conviction. Then after 8 years the conviction is quashed and he's found innocent at  re trial.

Not because of new evidence or another person confessing. But because 8 years of hammering away at the original small amount of forensic evidence resulted in it eventually being classed as unreliable.

Sion Jenkins did the same thing with the small amount of forensic evidence against him. However there was also circumstantial evidence against him & a time period where he was with Billie Jo and could have committed the killing.

The mysterious man who Sion Jenkins said climbed over the garden fence in broad daylight & into the house to kill Billie Jo,  without financial or sexual motivation and without knowing who else was in the house, has never been caught.

   Yes you're right, you would have to read up on it

[Adam]

yes they have done before retrials and jurys have convicted a secound time in fact its common for a retrial to connvict than aquit.

What cases ?

The Sion Jenkins case had two re trials which both failed to come up with a verdict. So he was released. Although the prosecution case here is a lot stronger than the Barry George case as Jenkins was with Billie Jo minutes before she was found dead. And with her long enough to kill her.

Anyway. The Barry George case was high profile. So he would have had lawyers and supporters working around the clock for him. Similar to what Bamber has, however there is simply too much incriminating evidence against Bamber.

After 8 years and a failed appeal, the Barry George conviction was quashed based on apparent unreliability of already submitted evidence.  And a re trial ordered. The courts said in 2011 a jury may still convict him in 2011 based on todays evidence.

[nugnug]

why do you think they send a case to retrail if they dident think there was more than a 50 percent a jury would convict they wouldent bother would they.

[sandra L]

Gringo said

There is a great big light being shone on police and media corruption and collusion. This collusion is in order to convict innocent people. To not see this is to be wilfully blind.

Stephanie said

Risk remains say police despite 2008 acquittal

Why should anyone accept claims by the very organisation which set Barry George up for conviction about whether or not he is a "risk?" Of course they're going to continue to blacken his name - their prized conviction was snatched away from them, and they did what they always do - continue to throw negative information into the public domain. The "great big light" referred to by gringo is there for all to see - phone hacking, Christopher Jefferies, Hillsborough etc - it doesn't take a lot of searching to see how much corruption and collusion is being, and has been, shoved under the rug, but it can't and won't stay there forever.

The change of law to deny compensation to wrongly convicted people was seen by many as an outrageous move - unless someone can prove absolutely that they did not commit the crime for which they were incarcerated, they will not be compensated. That is a complete inversion of one of the most basic premises (and rights) of our justice system - that a person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that proof being accepted by a jury of his or her peers. Barry George was acquitted - a jury decided that the wholly misleading forensic evidence undermined the case to the point where the conviction was no longer safe - which means they did not accept that there was a "convincing circumstantial case" without that forensic evidence.

Sam Hallam was also denied compensation. Is anyone seriously going to argue that he, too was guilty as originally charged?

[Adam]

why do you think they send a case to retrail if they dident think there was more than a 50 percent a jury would convict they wouldent bother would they.

As I asked in my last post, what convictions that the COA have quashed & ordered a re trial, have the jury at the re trial gone against the COA & voted guilty ?

Ched Evans has been given a re trial. This is another high profile case. Evans had the money to hire good lawyers. The CCRC deny the case has been fast tracked.