What a pair of stupid girls

[bigmarco]

They are of course between a rock and a hard place. If they pursue their claim of not being guilty and get convicted they will get a substantially longer sentence than if they plead guilty.

That is not Justice; but faced with a similar situation I guess most of us would take the plea route no matter how innocent we were, especially in a country where we might suspect we would not get a fair trial.

Unfortunately some will use the fact that they were in effect forced to plead guilty, to justify their condemnation of the women.


As for jumping to conclusions about a person’s guilt on the ‘evidence’ of newspaper stores;

I see Christopher Jefferies, whom I have no doubt many condemned as obviously guilty at the time, has just got an apology .

Just shows how in hindsight the facts can be so different for instant gut feelings, which many freely express. Unfortunately, it often takes the passage of time to establish fact from fiction (and prejudice).

Guardian

Christopher Jefferies hails 'public vindication' after police express regret for distress caused by arrest as suspect in case

Christopher Jefferies won damages from eight newspapers after his arrest following Joanna Yeates's murder in December 2010.

The landlord of murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates has received a letter from police expressing "regret" for the first time at the way he was treated after being arrested over her killing.

I don't see it as between a rock and a hard place John. I view it more as the "Smoking Gun". The girls have obviously had time to reflect and had their options laid out in black and white by the lawyers. Common sense is kicking in.

As for Christopher Jeffries he was treated appallingly by the press at the time of his wrongful arrest by the police. I believe some newspapers were convicted of contempt of court over this and Christopher Jeffries has himself received pay outs estimated and somewhere between £500,000 and £1million from 8 newspapers which has enabled him to retire early and very comfortably.
One of the main issues in this case for me is perhaps his name should have remained secret until such time as any charges were forthcoming.

[johncar54]

Bigmarco:- ................................ wrongful arrest by the police.

I have searched on the internet. I cannot find any reference to the police paying compensation. Newspapers (who like a lot of other people) said he was guilty, have paid compensation for their libels.

Quote - http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2012/1...ully-arrested/

…………………………. I expect that the police have denied liability and argued that the arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest ‘to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question’ (s.24(5)(e) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984),


SimonH So, is your comment about the fact that they are being forced into pleading guilty subjective or objective

It's probably objective
"Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable."

Facts they were arrested, they did claim duress, and from what we know the standard of Justice exercised in some countries is somewhat less than most Brits would expect. But, I am prepared that some may say it’s Subjective too.

[gWaPito]

I wonder what makes a few folks here think British justice is so great

In my limited experience on the receiving end of British injustice I can tell you it stinks.

Nothing to do with the police. .They are servants of the Crown up holding the law. .basically they are surfs

It's the law makers who have much to answer for.

[SimonH]

Please show me just one link that says they were FORCED into a guilty plea to back up your objective point of view.

[bigmarco]

Bigmarco:- ................................ wrongful arrest by the police.

I have searched on the internet. I cannot find any reference to the police paying compensation. Newspapers (who like a lot of other people) said he was guilty, have paid compensation for their libels.

Quote - http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2012/1...ully-arrested/

…………………………. I expect that the police have denied liability and argued that the arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest ‘to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question’ (s.24(5)(e) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984),


SimonH So, is your comment about the fact that they are being forced into pleading guilty subjective or objective

It's probably objective
"Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable."

Facts they were arrested, they did claim duress, and from what we know the standard of Justice exercised in some countries is somewhat less than most Brits would expect. But, I am prepared that some may say it’s Subjective too.

Pardon me John but I thought when the Police arrested somebody on suspicion of murder who they subsequently set free, then the term wrongful arrest is appropriate.
As regards damages I don't believe the Police actually libelled him so that's why the media settled their claims quickly.
However the letter from the Chief Constable is effectively an admission of some wrong doing and the sum of money they paid him for damage to his property has satisfied him.

[johncar54]

Pardon me John but I thought when the Police arrested somebody on suspicion of murder who they subsequently set free, then the term wrongful arrest is appropriate.
As regards damages I don't believe the Police actually libelled him so that's why the media settled their claims quickly.
However the letter from the Chief Constable is effectively an admission of some wrong doing and the sum of money they paid him for damage to his property has satisfied him.

As quoted from the internet the police have lawful power to arrest if they suspect, with reasonable cause etc. That happens all the time. That is not wrongful.

If the police cause any damage to property during a search, they will normally pay for the repairs (at least in the London Met Police Area that's what always happened).

The letter appears to have said, "............Police have insisted they were right to arrest the landlord of the murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates over her death but have apologised for not making it clear sooner that he was innocent."

[gWaPito]

As quoted from the internet the police have lawful power to arrest if they suspect, with reasonable cause etc. That happens all the time. That is not wrongful.

If the police cause any damage to property during a search, they will normally pay for the repairs (at least in the London Met Police Area that's what always happened).

The letter appears to have said, "............Police have insisted they were right to arrest the landlord of the murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates over her death but have apologised for not making it clear sooner that he was innocent."

THe filth make it up as they go along!!!!