Anyone found guilty you think is innocent?

[louise5754]

Lots of crime series around lately.

It does make you think especially ones where people have been accused of murder but there was no body or DNA.

@Graphista didn't see eventually admit to lightly shaking the baby? Was no one charged at all then with the babies death?

I remember her name but had forgotten the trial.

@karencantobe it's a shame. Just because a middle age man lives alone, has never married and looks different people assume he was guilty.

Didn't she have to plead guilty or admit it to get out of there?

Any doubt at all you must find him not guilty

This isn't quite true though..? It was this that led to a Not Proven verdict when I was on a jury in Scotland a few years ago. It was extremely frustrating, because there was a whole load of good evidence against the accused, but because he had not actually been captured on camera committing the crime or somesuch, and the prosecutor was a bit strange(think it was one of her first, and she was nervous) we went with Not Proven...grrr

Ah! With The Difters / Shadows? I doubt the 2 ' I 's Coffee bar in London had comperes

But I wasn't there (though my aunt was).

But that's besides the point really.

There is positive evidence that Amanda Knox did not particulate in Meredith's murder. It's not the lack of her DNA at the scene, but the presence of RG's.

It's possible for someone to remove all DNA from a scene such that none of their DNA remains despite having been present and committed a murder. However, it is actively impossible to remove all of one person's DNA whilst leaving behind full DNA profiles of another person. She can't have been present when it happened, given her DNA was not there but RG's was.

I was amazed when I watched the recent documentary that despite being made by her camp and clearly designed to exonerate her, they didn't really make this point. For me, it's the killer blow to the prosecution.

Obviously this doesn't go to whether she was guilty by encouragement (no active evidence of that either, but it's not disproved by DNA), but she can't have actively participated.

Also, multiple people in E&W convicted of baby shaking manslaughter on the basis of scientific evidence that was later disproven.

Doctors at the time gave evidence at trials that where a baby showed a particular tripos of symptoms, the only possible cause of all three symptoms together was the baby being shaken. We now know that this isn't true.

Curtis flowers in the USA - except he's never been officially convicted but has spent about 30 years behind bars going through 7 trials . Crazy.

@Glitterfisher

I've watched when they see us and the stair case.

I felt awful for those boys.

I can't actually remember the stair case but that whole family were odd.

That poor chap maligned by Elon Musk who lost his suit against him - God knows how.

Because Elon Musk is a billionaire perhaps and money is power? The guy obviously was not a paedophile, Elon Musk is a prize twat.

I think Amanda Knox is guilty personally.

@louise5754 we are 3 episodes in so 1 more left I think. There are also the interviews with them on Oprah also on netflix which I'll watch after. It made me feel physically sick what they did to those boys.

Michael Stone is probably innocent. Especially given that Levi Bellfield has basically admitted it was him

I've recently watched The Murder Of Jessica Chambers. The police were so unbelievably terrible. That poor girl was burnt to death and no one convicted because the police didn't scour the area properly at the time and removed the car from the scene too quickly. The guy that was charged - Quinton Tellis - I felt was guilty, especially given his other crimes - but the police failures mean he'll probably never get found guilty of it

I am not sure re The Staircase. It couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt thats the one thing for sure, the prosecution's evidence was simply untrue (that was proved) and also didnt actually prove he did it, and there was not a fair trial. Regardless of guilt thats the one thing that should always happen.

He should never have gone to prison based on the prosecutions case. He was a strange bloke though.

Have any of you say on a jury? Truly frightening they decide someone's fate. I did years ago. Reasons my fellow jurors wanted to find him guilty
We wouldn't be here otherwise
He has that look in his eye
Can't you 2 just agree with the rest of us? I want to get home in time for coronation street
I was one of the two _ ended up with hung jury

Its difficult because I can't really think of a good alternative to juries but sometimes it is ridiculous that people can be partly responsible for sending someone to prison for the rest of their life when they can't understand basic facts about forensics that prove a person could not have done something.

Some of the jurors on the Guy Heinz Jr case were really disappointed that there was no death penalty option. They wanted to have to power to effectively kill him and were annoyed that they couldn't. Chilling.

I have been on a jury, thankfully an easy case to decide on. I found though that several people dominated the discussion and certain people's views were pretty much ignored.

It’s interesting isn’t it though that different people can have such differing opinions on the same situation. E.g. there are people who say they believe that Jeremy bamber is definitely guilty whereas others who say they believe he is definitely not. Personally I can’t see how anyone could remotely believe he was innocent, and yet there are people who do.

So how is it that two different people can glean entirely different opinions from the same evidence?

If there were two different juri’s would they reach two different conclusions?

I don't believe for a second that Steven Avery is guilty, and the fact that Brendan Dassey was convicted is a fucking disgrace. He did not have the mental capacity to be questioned alone, let alone stand trial. It's obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that he is innocent.

Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey.

@allheart Yes it is interesting. I too cannot see why some people think Bamber is innocent. I do think sometimes in very brutal crimes that some people think if the accused seems a decent person, then they could not have done it. It is like they think only an obviously crazy or dangerous person could commit terrible crimes. When in reality people who come across as nice and respectable can commit terrible crimes.

@Graphista the situation you pointed out re. DNA contamination happened in Germany

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm

Have a read of Ian Leslie's 'Born Liars' - the chapter on Amanda Knox is interesting - it's fascinating how people will make judgements based on very little.

The Guardian has this piece, well worth a read.
Ian Leslie piece in Amanda Knox

@AllHeart1 'It’s interesting isn’t it though that different people can have such differing opinions on the same situation. E.g. there are people who say they believe that Jeremy bamber is definitely guilty whereas others who say they believe he is definitely not. Personally I can’t see how anyone could remotely believe he was innocent, and yet there are people who do.'

It boils down to the basic fact that people believe, or 'feel' things because they want to. Regardless of detail.

I find it terrifying that juries make such life changing decisions. Think about the average people you come across on a daily basis and imagine them in charge of deciding whether someone was guilty or not. It’s crazy.

I don't get the Bamber fan club. I've not seen the new dramatisation but I have followed the case for years.

Once it was obvious that it couldn't be his sister- there's forensics for this- it has to be him. He called the police telling them his dad had called him saying Sheila was shooting them.

I did work experience in a local fiscals office many moons ago and the staff there were very for not proven. They said that the people that get the not proven verdict are the ones that they know that did it but just can't or prove it on the day. So for them it's better than non guilty. I'm in two minds as I think having the third option there might mean that people who may have been convicted are given not proven instead. Would be interesting if they did jury exit polls to see what people would have voted if not proven was not an option...