Colin Stagg

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting show the other night, highlighting how the police tried to fit this guy up, and despite evidence to the contrary, continued to say he was guilty of Rachel Nickell's murder.

They finally had to admit their error when DNA evidence showed it had to be somebody else.

I just wondered what the hanging brigade think of this outrage. Seems like proof to me that capital punishment is far too dangerous (and not just for the guy wearing the noose).

[Jack]

I’ve not read about this particular case but it seems to prove the opposite of what you're trying to say.

Since capital punishment was done away with all these years ago the emergence of scientific evidence, such as DNA and other forensics have IMO advanced to such a degree that the chances of hanging anyone who is actually innocent is remote. The same chance as DNA being wrong, I’m sure I read that was 1 in 6 billion or more.

So for me, so long as there are safeguards such as the compulsory use of DNA testing, I’d say ‘Line up all these murderers; terrorists; kiddie fiddlers; rapists and other assorted noncy crims and hang the Bassas!’

There was a time I was well against hanging, ref Birmingham 6 (or however many there were) etc., but not now.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I’ve not read about this particular case but it seems to prove the opposite of what you're trying to say.

Since capital punishment was done away with all these years ago the emergence of scientific evidence, such as DNA and other forensics have IMO advanced to such a degree that the chances of hanging anyone who is actually innocent is remote. The same chance as DNA being wrong, I’m sure I read that was 1 in 6 billion or more.

So for me, so long as there are safeguards such as the compulsory use of DNA testing, I’d say ‘Line up all these murderers; terrorists; kiddie fiddlers; rapists and other assorted noncy crims and hang the Bassas!’

There was a time I was well against hanging, ref Birmingham 6 (or however many there were) etc., but not now.

Fair point, if the courts insisted on DNA evidence, then Stagg might not have gone on trial.

You mention the Birmingham Six, were they not convicted using falsified or inaccurate forensic evidence? To me that shows that you cannot trust the police, especially if they are under pressure to get a result.

[(((Fergus)))]

That would be fine if these technological developments were infallible. In fact they rely on the say-so of a few "experts" such as this person:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm

So rather than a jury of ordinary people relying on their powers of reason (see 12 Angry Men), we now have one or two experts deciding life-changing cases as the judge and jury defer to them.

[(((Fergus)))]

Fair point, if the courts insisted on DNA evidence, then Stagg might not have gone on trial.

You mention the Birmingham Six, were they not convicted using falsified or inaccurate forensic evidence? To me that shows that you cannot trust the police, especially if they are under pressure to get a result.

The more obscure and technical the forensic technique, the easier it is to pervert the course of justice.

That is why we have a jury system - it is the best way we have of finding impartial people to decide a case.

The police cannot be trusted to be impartial as they naturally want a "successful" outcome to every case. Who likes to admit their mistakes?

[Jack]

Fair point, if the courts insisted on DNA evidence, then Stagg might not have gone on trial.

You mention the Birmingham Six, were they not convicted using falsified or inaccurate forensic evidence? To me that shows that you cannot trust the police, especially if they are under pressure to get a result.

Agreed.



I think!

[da-robster]

Who's Colin Stagg?:confused:

[Jonnyboy]

Who's Colin Stagg?:confused:

The man who was wrongfully found guilty of murdering Rachel Nickell

[Phil D. Rolls]

The more obscure and technical the forensic technique, the easier it is to pervert the course of justice.

That is why we have a jury system - it is the best way we have of finding impartial people to decide a case.

The police cannot be trusted to be impartial as they naturally want a "successful" outcome to every case. Who likes to admit their mistakes?

Certainly not Paul Britton, who has yet to admit that he got it wrong with Stagg, as far as I'm aware.

I have sympathy for the police to an extent, because of the pressure on them to get a result. I've said before though, that historically the police have been guilty of following one line of enquiry to the extent that they ignore any evidence that goes against the case they are trying to prove.

They were convinced it was Stagg, and actually tailed the guy 24/7 for at least a year after it, convinced he would trip himself up.

[EskbankHibby]

The man who was wrongfully found guilty of murdering Rachel Nickell

He got off with it (thankfully) JB, judge cited entrapment and lack of evidence.

He was remanded but never convicted, got a healthy wedge of compensation for his troubles.

[EskbankHibby]

Certainly not Paul Britton, who has yet to admit that he got it wrong with Stagg, as far as I'm aware.

I have sympathy for the police to an extent, because of the pressure on them to get a result. I've said before though, that historically the police have been guilty of following one line of enquiry to the extent that they ignore any evidence that goes against the case they are trying to prove.

They were convinced it was Stagg, and actually tailed the guy 24/7 for at least a year after it, convinced he would trip himself up.

Read Brittons book "the jigsaw man", written before they convicted the ACTUAL killer, he had Stagg as the one and only possible killer.

The rest of the book is full of cases where Britton forwards himself as some Nostradamus figure and all the cases have (apparently) successful outcomes helped enormously by his input. Would be nice if he just held his hand up and said "i got it wrong".

[Phil D. Rolls]

Read Brittons book "the jigsaw man", written before they convicted the ACTUAL killer, he had Stagg as the one and only possible killer.

The rest of the book is full of cases where Britton forwards himself as some Nostradamus figure and all the cases have (apparently) successful outcomes helped enormously by his input. Would be nice if he just held his hand up and said "i got it wrong".

I did read it, and I have to say I'm really disappointed the guy can't just hold up his hands and say he got this one wrong. I actually found a lot of what he wrote fascinating, but now he seems like a bit of a crank.