Milly Dowler

[ohboob]

I couldn't find a thread on this. I just wanted somewhere to write that I'm finding it all really distressing. My heart goes out to her and her family so much and it's horrible hearing details, even of the poems she wrote.
It's such a horrendous thing to have happened. What her mum must be going through.

On the one hand, I can see a robust defence is necessary, not to help Bellfield but, because, if the wrong man is jailed, there's still a dangerous person walking around out there...but how this leads into destroying the family I don't know. Suggesting she ran away because she was depressed, how does that help? Her body was found buried, it's clearly not a suicide. Then the suggestion that the father's bondage porn collection = innocence for Bellfield, I don't get that either, police found no case against the father and he was not on trial here.

If anyone was at fault in this case, it had to be the judge. The judge has the power to decide if a line of questioning is appropriate or inappropriate. The judge also had the decision on whether the court proceedings were reported or not. As I said before, in the absence of direct & compelling evidence, the defence were bound to try sidetracking the jury by presenting alternative scenarios that could cast 'reasonable doubt'. That is normal. But if the judge had felt that the alternative scenarios were irrelevant (and I'm sure the prosecution team would have raised objections) then the line of questioning could have been stopped. Unfortunately, distressing is not the same as irrelevant.

seabright
i know the cab rank rules exists to ensure everyone gets a proper defence and barristers cannot back out of jobs they don't fancy.
But how would the cab rank rule be consistent with this defence barrister apparently having wha appears to be a line in defending very violent domestic murder cases and getting reduced sentences for the perpertrators of terrible crimes against women?
Genuine question.
Surely the cab rank rule would mean this guy's cases were not so focussed on getting hideous men off with lesser sentences?

In an adversarial justice system the defence barrister's job is to get the best outcome for their client - who is assumed innocent, of course, before the process starts. And they often do 'specialise' in a particular type of crime because they get a reputation and people seek them out. I know a barrister that, for whatever reason, gets a lot of sex-crime cases to defend, ranging from bestiality to gang rape. I knew someone in NI whose defence barrister husband got many IRA defence cases. The late Sir John Mortimer QC was involved defending quite a few obscenity trials.

This type of case is (thankfully) very, very rare, hence there will be very few barristers with this type of specialism, so it will be the same few people doing similar cases over and over.

When her body was found the cause of death could not be determined, so it couldn't categorically be said that she was murdered and there was zero witness or scientific evidence to link her body to Bellfield, so to convict on circumstantial evidence everything else (however unlikely) has to be out forward as an alternative theory, otherwise Bellfield could appeal on the basis he didn't get proper representation and a fair trial and the family would be put through another trial.

Our system isn't perfect, but I've worked in other jurisdictions (ones that operate without the jury system) and, in my opinion, our system is best.

Cogito your posts have been very helpful and informative. In light of what you have said I don't think any change in the law is warranted but, yes, perhaps the judges handling of the trial is questionable.

What a deeply distressing case.

I don't know if you can call any system 'the best' when it involves putting the family of an innocent dead teenager on trial, instead of the accused murderer. Maybe the least worst, but it's pretty shit.

Bellfield chose not to give evidence, so avoided having to answer a single question about his behaviour. Maybe the order of events should have been different, so his decision not to speak was made clear before the family were subjected to such awful cross-questioning.

Maybe the legal people could answer - what if the family had also refused to speak a la Bellfield? Would the case have been thrown out?

Interesting thread, as I have been wondering how the defence could justify their treatment of the family. Cannot understand why the judge let it be reported.

Bellfield has 11 children..............

The family couldn't refuse to speak, they were called as witnesses. If you refuse to give evidence you are in contempt of court - a criminal offence.

I think the judge let the questioning happen so that Bellfield could never claim he had an unfair trial and be granted a new trial, which would have been another ordeal for the family.

In my opinion, what happened was the least-worst option (there isn't a best option in cases like this), since the choice was prevent the line of questioning and make them go through it all again in a couple of years time at a re-trial or do it now, and it's over for ever.

So the judge prohibits a legitimate, if distasteful cross-examination, and Bellfield gets off on appeal because he hasn't had a fair trial. Brilliant.

Sorry, Seabright didn't read your final par. I agree it was the only option.

How did it come about that a witness who refuses to speak is in contempt of court and a defendant is not?

A defendant is not obliged to take the stand - you don't have to say anything that might incriminate yourself in a crime under English law. You used to not have to say anything that might incriminate your spouse either, but I don't know if that law still exists.

Jeffrey Samuels QC no better than Bellfield imho.They both sought to tear a family apart with impunity.

Well, the DPP is talking about reviewing the treatment of witness and victims. Let's hope he thinks of some way of ensuring innocent people aren't put through psychological and emotional torment just to gratify a sick, twisted murderer ever again.

Benhur - I know it can seem like that, but if you have a chance, read my posts at 9:44 and 15:00 where I tried to explain about why that line of questioning was allowed and why barrister act for people who seem not to deserve representation.

Also, let's all not forget that Sally Clarke was portrayed as an evil baby murderer, and she was completely exonerated.

Poor Sally Clarke. RIP.

Interesting explanation of the judicialmsystem which allows this typemof questioning of witnesses here from Joshua Rozenberg in The Guardian.

Seabright - that's rather different, though. Sally Clarke's son's death was unexplained - the issue the jury had to decide was whether it was cot death or deliberate killing. Sadly the judge didn't have the wit to ask whether Roy Meadows was qualified to claim 'three cot deaths in one family = murder', which he most certainly was not. Don't know why judges are said to be so ruddy clever when they treat the evidence of medical expert witnesses as impossible to analyze.

Eurostar - Those links you posting are absolutely sickening. As for the trial, there's innocent until proven guilty and allowing the legal process to be manipulated to give a serial killer his kicks.

There was some equally unsavoury tactics used in the Vicky Hamilton trial (draging up photos she posed for a boyfriend), even though the evidence was clear that Tobin had murdered her.

It's bad enough that both girls were murdered by evil misogynists who should have both been in prison a long time ago, but for to have their reputations smeared and their families tormented during the justice process is also wicked.

god i had no idea Sally Clark had died, i am so saddened to hear that.

i have recently sat in on a murder trial and, while i understand why the system is as it is, i found the whole defence sickening. i couldnt do it.

i just hope now that the Dowlers can find some peace.

True, Goth. Vicky Hamilton's father still campaigns for changes in the law, and, thanks in part to his actions and those of the father of Dinah McNichol, the appeals process for serial killers in Scotland has been changed. Their murderer Peter Tobin failed to appear at 3 appeals, costing the taxpayer over £300,000. It is strongly believed he is the Bible John killer, but there is not enough evidence due to the number of years that have passed and so this investigation has been called off.

Lachesis - Well at least that's something. I'm surprised there wasn't more fuss made about the Vicky Hamilton trial tbh. He'd allowed the family to go through nearly 20 years of hell, there was clear evidence that he'd done it, yet the defence were still allowed to dredge up irrelevant and embarrassing material.

According to this: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/16/peter-tobin-guilty-dinah-mcnicol Tobin has a whole stack of items stolen from victims. It's just horrific.