Miscarriages of justice-Do they really happen.

[redfox 10]

The 'guff' was what exactly? Not objected to by the defence and allowed to be admitted in evidence by a judge! If you want to read about a true miscarriage of justice

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Innocents-Justice-Failed-Stefan-Molseed/dp/1857024028

[Cyclone 10]

At last somebody who understands what I'm getting at !! Actually being at the trial and reading about it after each day being in the courtroom, I thought I was at two different trials !!

I'm not saying Bridger is innocent. He certainly had a hand in it BUT not in the way the prosecution portrayed.

And how did you identify this when the jury apparently didn't?

[boyfriday 21]

maybe because they were actually there..which leaves me to believe bridgers defence knew he had blown it..and is saving certain things that have been left out in the courtroom for his appeal.

 

They may well have been at the trial, but unless they actually know what happened to April Jones their 'guff' is as bad as anybody else's.

 

Incidentally Bridger's barrister, Brendan Kelly is an eminent QC and Crown Court Recorder, it's quite likely he would have seen through any spin the prosecution was trying to put on proceedings.

[RootsBooster 24]

In answer to the thread title, yes, of course miscarriages of justice happen

[kidley 48]

There has just been another one hasn't their, boy friend and another released from a life sentence for the murder of Rachel Manning,after real murderer is caught by is DNA after ten years. Of course there are miscarriages of justice at the highest level,innocent People convicted of MURDER.

 

The boy friend and the other person was released after an appeal, they served six years of a life sentence.

Edited September 5, 2013 by kidley

[teenyweeny 10]

And how did you identify this when the jury apparently didn't?

 

 

because those on the jury had to be those that had not read up about the case..they only decided on what the prosecution presented.

[SnailyBoy 10]

because those on the jury had to be those that had not read up about the case..they only decided on what the prosecution presented.

 

And the defence of course

[teenyweeny 10]

brandon kelly must have known that bridger was buggered and also may have cannily set aside some defence for a re trial or appeal.in other words he has not yet played a full hand.

[redfox 10]

The jury heard the evidence presented by both sides. The prosecution call evidence first which is challenged by the defence. Then the defence call evidence (the defendant included) and that evidence may be challenged by the prosecution.

Not sure what on earth you mean by the jury not having read up about it - they are told to decide the case only on the evidence they hear in the court not from "reading up about it"

[SnailyBoy 10]

brandon kelly must have known that bridger was buggered and also may have cannily set aside some defence for a re trial or appeal.in other words he has not yet played a full hand.

 

oh yes, that well known defence tactic. Wait until everything has calmed down and hit them with the ace in the hole.

[redfox 10]

You mean Brendon Kelly QC. I am not following your logic however. How would he know that his client was 'buggered' and as a result not play a full hand -perhaps you could enlighten us sceptics as to what the 'full hand' might be here.

 

The suggestion that a leading counsel would not put his full case as well as he was able in a case like this on the basis I am waiting until I appeal is nonesense.

[boyfriday 21]

The suggestion that a leading counsel would not put his full case as well as he was able in a case like this on the basis I am waiting until I appeal is nonesense.

 

I agree, an utterly bizarre strategy..if evidence exists that would compel an appeal court why would a barrister not present it to a crown court in the trial?

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2013 at 17:22 ----------

 

because those on the jury had to be those that had not read up about the case..they only decided on what the prosecution presented.

 

But teenyweeny you already criticised people who were forming an opinion based on what they'd read in the press?