The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
After watching a program called manhunt yesterday I wondered about the present law. Basically the program was about a man murdered and the killer was one of two people. When at court the two suspects blamed each other which meant niether could be charged with the murder, insted one got 7 years and the other for 5 years for perverting the court of justice. This is just a thought but surley the courts would have come across this sisuation before and could have changed the law to prevent this from happening. Another thought of a law change could be if a person is sent down for perverting the court when murders involved then once there times up send them straight back to court for the same trail and if they pervert the court send them down for another 5and 7 years untill they admit which one killed him. They were as bad as each other as they both tried to pretend he was still alive by forgeing letters pretending he was alive and well living away somewhere. Either way this is a law which needs changing.
All I know is that the lass got 7 years and the bloke got 5 years. I dont think they found any evidence on the dead body as it was charred. The only way they found out was the fact the dead body was found yet they were writing letters to say he was still alive and well. That was basically the only evidece they had. So when it came to interviewing them they flapped and blamed it on each other.
Wouldn't each others testimony be enough to charge them both, if one says " yes this is what happened, he did it" then surely thats a witness statement, i'm sure the police would have had some evidence to question them in the first place.
ßulle†† wrote:
> It's also a Law that could be abused too, resulting in innocent people
> being sent to jail.
>
> One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use
> polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
>
Good point, never seen all of the program so can't comment on that as I've only seen the last 20 mins or so. But I can say that the police knew they were lying as every interview they had they changed there statments.
> It's also a Law that could be abused too, resulting in innocent people
> being sent to jail.
>
> One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use
> polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
>
Good point, never seen all of the program so can't comment on that as I've only seen the last 20 mins or so. But I can say that the police knew they were lying as every interview they had they changed there statments.
kevstar wrote:
> Yes Flock I am sure as it was on telly last night, I think they didn't
> have enough evidence so the only thing they could charge them on was
> perverting the court of justice.
It doesn't mean they'll get away with it, i'd expect the case to remain open and the police would still be looking into it, they must have been very clever about it that even if one accused the other there would still be no evidence to back it up.
> Yes Flock I am sure as it was on telly last night, I think they didn't
> have enough evidence so the only thing they could charge them on was
> perverting the court of justice.
It doesn't mean they'll get away with it, i'd expect the case to remain open and the police would still be looking into it, they must have been very clever about it that even if one accused the other there would still be no evidence to back it up.
ßulle†† wrote:
> It's also a Law that could be abused too, resulting in innocent people
> being sent to jail.
>
> One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use
> polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
Not passable in a court of law because they can be manipulated and if they refused to talk anyway it wouldn't make much difference.
> It's also a Law that could be abused too, resulting in innocent people
> being sent to jail.
>
> One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use
> polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
Not passable in a court of law because they can be manipulated and if they refused to talk anyway it wouldn't make much difference.
Yes Flock I am sure as it was on telly last night, I think they didn't have enough evidence so the only thing they could charge them on was perverting the court of justice.
It's also a Law that could be abused too, resulting in innocent people being sent to jail.
One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
EDIT - but, I suppose if they were both in it anyway, they both deserve to go to jail.
One thing that's bugging me about your post - did the Police not use polygraphs/other Lie detecting techniques?
EDIT - but, I suppose if they were both in it anyway, they both deserve to go to jail.
kevstar wrote:
> After watching a program called manhunt yesterday I wondered about the
> present law. Basically the program was about a man murdered and the
> killer was one of two people. When at court the two suspects blamed
> each other which meant niether could be charged with the murder,
Are you sure, just because they accuse each other doesn't mean they can't both be charged and thats what would happen as a way to turn them against each other, the jury would simply be left to decide if both of them or just one was guilty, you can charge multiple people for one murder if the evidence is there to support the charge on both defendants.
> After watching a program called manhunt yesterday I wondered about the
> present law. Basically the program was about a man murdered and the
> killer was one of two people. When at court the two suspects blamed
> each other which meant niether could be charged with the murder,
Are you sure, just because they accuse each other doesn't mean they can't both be charged and thats what would happen as a way to turn them against each other, the jury would simply be left to decide if both of them or just one was guilty, you can charge multiple people for one murder if the evidence is there to support the charge on both defendants.
After watching a program called manhunt yesterday I wondered about the present law. Basically the program was about a man murdered and the killer was one of two people. When at court the two suspects blamed each other which meant niether could be charged with the murder, insted one got 7 years and the other for 5 years for perverting the court of justice. This is just a thought but surley the courts would have come across this sisuation before and could have changed the law to prevent this from happening. Another thought of a law change could be if a person is sent down for perverting the court when murders involved then once there times up send them straight back to court for the same trail and if they pervert the court send them down for another 5and 7 years untill they admit which one killed him. They were as bad as each other as they both tried to pretend he was still alive by forgeing letters pretending he was alive and well living away somewhere. Either way this is a law which needs changing.