mollag Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Serves him right then. What about Colin Stagg, another nonce, fitted up big style by the Police. He'll do nicely. When he was aquitted the police spat the dummy out and i remember the statement to the effect that they were not of a mind to look for anyone else. The real murderer went on to kill three more times. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ert-533156.html OK we dont like the nonces but while they are banged up and the newspapers have made their money the real bastards are out there preying on us the public. Im glad the police dont do bomb disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 And to take the piss a commander from the met reads a statement outside the court saying how disapointed he was with the juries verdict. Were they as disappointed that noone was charged with killing Jean Charles de Menezes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 They still found particles of gun discharge on his person which matched the gun used in the killing - the Times reported that today - however under new laws this was deemed inadmissable because it was only 1/2000th of an inch and was therefore too small to be regarded as conculsive. Also included was the fact the evidence was handled by a firearms officer whou had fired his weapon within the last few weeks wheras a firearms officer who searches or handles eveidence from a case that involves firearms and has himself shot a weapon within the last 3 months then that evidence cannot be admissable if the particles found are less than a certain minimum size due to cross contamination of residues. Rough explination taken from H.M. publication for forensic evidence guidlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Also included was the fact the evidence was handled by a firearms officer whou had fired his weapon within the last few weeks wheras a firearms officer who searches or handles eveidence from a case that involves firearms and has himself shot a weapon within the last 3 months then that evidence cannot be admissable if the particles found are less than a certain minimum size due to cross contamination of residues. Rough explination taken from H.M. publication for forensic evidence guidlines. That might be true but there's no denying that the guy is a) a convicted nonce and b) a serious nutter who generally worries the general public (in particular women). I don't see what benefit him getting £1m in compensation might achieve. He may have not been guilty of this crime but I can't see that taking a loony like this off the streets for 8 years has been much of a detriment to society. Give him a few years and he'll bollocks it up again and end up inside - he'll be under so much media attention the next time he pesters a woman in a park or gets his cock out on a train or whatever he'll be back in the big house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Bar George is far too noisy. Three people talking and it's like....oh, sorry....BarRY George.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Bar George is far too noisy. Three people talking and it's like....oh, sorry....BarRY George.... They really have missed a re-branding opportunity - ladies why not spend the night in Barry George! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Also included was the fact the evidence was handled by a firearms officer whou had fired his weapon within the last few weeks wheras a firearms officer who searches or handles eveidence from a case that involves firearms and has himself shot a weapon within the last 3 months then that evidence cannot be admissable if the particles found are less than a certain minimum size due to cross contamination of residues. Rough explination taken from H.M. publication for forensic evidence guidlines. That might be true but there's no denying that the guy is a) a convicted nonce and b) a serious nutter who generally worries the general public (in particular women). I don't see what benefit him getting £1m in compensation might achieve. He may have not been guilty of this crime but I can't see that taking a loony like this off the streets for 8 years has been much of a detriment to society. Give him a few years and he'll bollocks it up again and end up inside - he'll be under so much media attention the next time he pesters a woman in a park or gets his cock out on a train or whatever he'll be back in the big house. I wasn't arguing that he didn't do it was pointing out the serious cockup that if he did do it let him get away with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 He was tried and found guilty by the media and now we are seeing the same media squirm. I do hope the BBC will be forthcoming with an apology and hope he (his lawyers) sue the living f*&k out them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Bar George is far too noisy. Three people talking and it's like....oh, sorry....BarRY George.... They really have missed a re-branding opportunity - ladies why not spend the night in Barry George! Sorry hboy, but his past offences don't put a smile on my face and presume that you were unaware of his past history. Convicted of attempted rape in 1983, when he followed a 20-year-old language student from a train station and grabbed her in a dark stairwell. He was jailed for 33 months, a sentence which also took into account an earlier indecent assault in which he had grabbed a woman's breasts. [unquote] Interesting reading from the Telegraph Link Link to More info I agree that the facts in this case appears to be extremely shoddy and the people who made those huge leaps and seemingly wrongful decisions, will be taken to task. Anyone who is wrongfully accused deserves some type of sympathy and I find it amazing that in this day and age, a person can be arrested and convicted on such flimsy evidence. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about Barry George, due to his mental instability and with whom I think is a cause for concern and his being locked in jail 'might' have saved others from suffering in the long run? I do realize however, that I can't play Devil's Advocate and neither should the law and I trust that he's given a chance to firstly adjust to the outside world again, but also get the help that he seems to need. The offender however, is therefore still at large and one hopes that no further offences have been committed since, as that would rub salt in the wounds. I would hesitate a guess that he would be entitled to some sort of reimbursement for his time in prison, but one should also consider that 'his victims' should also receive some compensation, as their suffering may be carried for life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 TESCO value Alibi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Ah - so he was stalking another woman at the time. Well, that's ok then - carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I wondered how long before someone bought that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 And to take the piss a commander from the met reads a statement outside the court saying how disapointed he was with the juries verdict. Were they as disappointed that noone was charged with killing Jean Charles de Menezes? But that was a difficult case. only CCTV footage and up to 300 eye witnesses. Admission by the shooting officer and so much forensic that the speaker of the house of keys could have found it. A clear case of 'Accidental death'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [sorry hboy, but his past offences don't put a smile on my face and presume that you were unaware of his past history. I agree. You should have read my earlier post to that one. I agree with you 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [sorry hboy, but his past offences don't put a smile on my face and presume that you were unaware of his past history. I agree. You should have read my earlier post to that one. I agree with you 100% Lol, I think selective seeing goes along with my selective hearing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.