| Clydach murders on 19:55 - Oct 21 with 1902 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 17:04 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
2 juries who heard all the evidence decided unanimously on 2 separate occasions it was guilty. Each and every member of the 23 who sat felt it was beyond reasonable doubt or they wouldn't have found him guilty. That speaks volumes yet those who read books or see TV programmes and didnt hear all the evidence believe otherwise.
I dont think anybody other than those who sat through the trial are in a better position to decide otherwise on what is basically hearsay. |
I watched the English nanny case, they convicted her of murder and that was educated jurors (not ordinary members of the public) with a so called top judge, I strongly felt at the time seeing the same evidence as the jurors that it was not proved that she had done it, she might have, but I didn't think it was proved that she had and I was not alone in that, in fact somebody I knew really well had also watched the live case for hours and hours everyday and came to the exact same conclusion as me, we spoke when the jury was out and we both thought that she was going to get done not because they proved it, they didn't in our view but because of the way everything went, the barristers behaviour, the way the judge handled it.
Apparently now expert witnesses for the prosecution have changed their mind, jurors are said to have changed their mind, they were for acquittal but to 2 or 3 that was initially for a guilty verdict happened to be the stronger personalities and persuaded the others, the top judge was shocking allowing jurors to rehear prosecution evidence but not defence evidence, if I remember right the alternate jurors smashed the place up when they heard the verdict the judge went white (probably realising his part) and without looking things up he retired on the spot after sentencing, no death penalty, time served I believe, the family thought her guilty and wanted the maximum sentence, by the way the American system was based on our system.
Juries often get it wrong, because a jury finds somebody guilty it doesn't mean they are guilty in reality, when there are eye witnesses ,forensic evidence, strong motive etc fine but when those things are missing or flimsy then it should not be easy to get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction, in this case not only is it not open and shut there are others in the picture as well.
Like I previously said, once convicted it becomes hard to overturn but should he have been convicted in the first place based on the known evidence. |  |
|  |
| Clydach murders on 20:31 - Oct 21 with 1874 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 19:55 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I watched the English nanny case, they convicted her of murder and that was educated jurors (not ordinary members of the public) with a so called top judge, I strongly felt at the time seeing the same evidence as the jurors that it was not proved that she had done it, she might have, but I didn't think it was proved that she had and I was not alone in that, in fact somebody I knew really well had also watched the live case for hours and hours everyday and came to the exact same conclusion as me, we spoke when the jury was out and we both thought that she was going to get done not because they proved it, they didn't in our view but because of the way everything went, the barristers behaviour, the way the judge handled it.
Apparently now expert witnesses for the prosecution have changed their mind, jurors are said to have changed their mind, they were for acquittal but to 2 or 3 that was initially for a guilty verdict happened to be the stronger personalities and persuaded the others, the top judge was shocking allowing jurors to rehear prosecution evidence but not defence evidence, if I remember right the alternate jurors smashed the place up when they heard the verdict the judge went white (probably realising his part) and without looking things up he retired on the spot after sentencing, no death penalty, time served I believe, the family thought her guilty and wanted the maximum sentence, by the way the American system was based on our system.
Juries often get it wrong, because a jury finds somebody guilty it doesn't mean they are guilty in reality, when there are eye witnesses ,forensic evidence, strong motive etc fine but when those things are missing or flimsy then it should not be easy to get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction, in this case not only is it not open and shut there are others in the picture as well.
Like I previously said, once convicted it becomes hard to overturn but should he have been convicted in the first place based on the known evidence. |
So you dont accept the jury's verdict. Were you there. How much of the evidence did you see. What do you want to replace the Jury with.
The fact is that every juror backed this verdict. The family who sat through these trials believe the verdict was right. I had a discussion years ago with the father of one of the press team covering the trial. She sat through the trial and could only see one verdict. Her senior reporter at the time was convinced of his guilt. A friend of mine who was a full time defence solicitor said to me he was guilty and gave me the reason why and he defended people every day. All these people must be wrong and you right based on a book or TV programme. If the jury had any doubt they would need to acquit but not one of them did. |  | | |
| Clydach murders on 20:39 - Oct 21 with 1869 views | onehunglow |
When people ay they want justice ,it means they want the verdict to see their friend etc found not guilty or guilty as the case may be to suit them. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 20:51 - Oct 21 with 1859 views | Dr_Winston |
Let's be honest, there are a lot of people who subscribe to the view that "ACAB" and there's nothing you can do to convince them that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice.
Two trials, numerous appeals and the opinion of people who saw all the evidence don't register with them. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Clydach murders on 20:58 - Oct 21 with 1847 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 20:31 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
So you dont accept the jury's verdict. Were you there. How much of the evidence did you see. What do you want to replace the Jury with.
The fact is that every juror backed this verdict. The family who sat through these trials believe the verdict was right. I had a discussion years ago with the father of one of the press team covering the trial. She sat through the trial and could only see one verdict. Her senior reporter at the time was convinced of his guilt. A friend of mine who was a full time defence solicitor said to me he was guilty and gave me the reason why and he defended people every day. All these people must be wrong and you right based on a book or TV programme. If the jury had any doubt they would need to acquit but not one of them did. |
I seen all of the nanny case, as regards the Morris case I accept the verdict whether they should have reached that verdict is another matter., I wouldn't replace trial by jury. as no system is perfect.
Two questions for you.
1) do you think juries always get it right ?
2) put a percentage on how certain you are that Morris is guilty, do you think Morris in your own mind for example 51% guilty of the crimes, 75% guilty, 100% guilty ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 21:08]
| |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:00 - Oct 21 with 1843 views | onehunglow |
On the money there Doc.
Some bad apples do not a rotten orchard make.
Corruption is nothing like it was in the 50s/60s when Police were paid a pittance .
The advent of mobile phones has meant working officers ,even faced with overwheming shytes, have to be careful to stick to rules and procedures chapter and verse.
There are far more corrupt group of "professionals " stating with politicians who pass the rules /laws in the first place | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:07 - Oct 21 with 1831 views | Dr_Winston |
Even as far as the 80's. There have been coppers who gleefully bragged about looking forward to smacking around people on a peaceful night out.
Thankfully that Neanderthal breed of Copper are largely extinct. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:09 - Oct 21 with 1827 views | majorraglan |
| Clydach murders on 20:51 - Oct 21 by Dr_Winston |
Let's be honest, there are a lot of people who subscribe to the view that "ACAB" and there's nothing you can do to convince them that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice.
Two trials, numerous appeals and the opinion of people who saw all the evidence don't register with them. |
Good post.
Some will always believe there been a miscarriage of justice and others are convinced he’s guilty.
The fact his DNA wasn’t found isn’t really pivotal, the use of bleach was documented, on top of that the place was set on fire and after that I am sure the fire service would have doused the place in hundreds of gallons of water. Lots of evidence would potentially have been burnt of washed away.
I keep an open mind in relation to books and TV, because they can be couched in such away as to promote a particular view or opinion - we are seeing that with the US election where all the channels are pursuing their own agenda. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clydach murders on 21:10 - Oct 21 with 1822 views | onehunglow |
I certainly did not do that. If that's a reference to me .I post for effect ,as you well know. It s like bashing miners . Its like ...y know.
Certainly ,Ive laid out many but only when faced with odds that would see my missus getting one of those calls at home from a Superintendent and a female Family Liaison officer. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:11 - Oct 21 with 1821 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 20:58 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I seen all of the nanny case, as regards the Morris case I accept the verdict whether they should have reached that verdict is another matter., I wouldn't replace trial by jury. as no system is perfect.
Two questions for you.
1) do you think juries always get it right ?
2) put a percentage on how certain you are that Morris is guilty, do you think Morris in your own mind for example 51% guilty of the crimes, 75% guilty, 100% guilty ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 21:08]
|
Juries dont always get it right but they usually find not guilty verdicts instead of guilty rather than the other way around as they give the benefit of doubt and most often have anti police element anyway.
I believe 2 juries, families, press who sat through the case and all believe it. I believe 100% that he did it. There are serious questions why nobody noticed he didnt have the chain that night in the pub if he had left it the previous night. How he could walk from the New Inn to Llangyfelach and back and nobody saw him. How he changed his story about the chain just before the trial when the prosecution advised the defence of its evidence but at the end of the day I wasnt at the trial. The juries were and they heard all the evidence and were convinced. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 with 1808 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:11 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
Juries dont always get it right but they usually find not guilty verdicts instead of guilty rather than the other way around as they give the benefit of doubt and most often have anti police element anyway.
I believe 2 juries, families, press who sat through the case and all believe it. I believe 100% that he did it. There are serious questions why nobody noticed he didnt have the chain that night in the pub if he had left it the previous night. How he could walk from the New Inn to Llangyfelach and back and nobody saw him. How he changed his story about the chain just before the trial when the prosecution advised the defence of its evidence but at the end of the day I wasnt at the trial. The juries were and they heard all the evidence and were convinced. |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:31 - Oct 21 with 1799 views | Andy1300 |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 by trampie |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. |
He’s always right, haven’t you gathered that yet? |  |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:39 - Oct 21 with 1795 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 by trampie |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. |
Because unlike you I dont think I know better than people who spent weeks hearing the evidence. I dont base it on a book I read either. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 with 1783 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:39 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
Because unlike you I dont think I know better than people who spent weeks hearing the evidence. I dont base it on a book I read either. |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:50 - Oct 21 with 1774 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. |
The jury heard all the evidence presented to the court. That is the only evidence that they can consider. |  |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:51 - Oct 21 with 1771 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:50 - Oct 21 by Joe_bradshaw |
The jury heard all the evidence presented to the court. That is the only evidence that they can consider. |
Yes exactly. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 22:09 - Oct 21 with 1756 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. |
They sat weeks hearing and considering evidence and at the end decided he was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT twice. Separate jurors, different judges in other places. If there was reasonable doubt they would have acquitted. That term sometimes leads to defendant's who have committed crimes being found not guilty. It is necessary so that you are sure before you convict but at the end of the day some are not found guilty even though they have done it and that sometimes happens so juries dont get the right verdict for understandable reasons. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 22:14 - Oct 21 with 1747 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 22:09 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
They sat weeks hearing and considering evidence and at the end decided he was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT twice. Separate jurors, different judges in other places. If there was reasonable doubt they would have acquitted. That term sometimes leads to defendant's who have committed crimes being found not guilty. It is necessary so that you are sure before you convict but at the end of the day some are not found guilty even though they have done it and that sometimes happens so juries dont get the right verdict for understandable reasons. |
They have sat for weeks in other cases and come up with what proved to be the wrong verdict. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 22:20 - Oct 21 with 1736 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 22:14 - Oct 21 by trampie |
They have sat for weeks in other cases and come up with what proved to be the wrong verdict. |
How many have had 2 trials and been unanimously found guilty twice. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 22:24 - Oct 21 with 1728 views | Andy1300 |
| Clydach murders on 22:20 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
How many have had 2 trials and been unanimously found guilty twice. |
Why the continuous questioning of the verdicts? | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 22:28 - Oct 21 with 1723 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 22:24 - Oct 21 by Andy1300 |
Why the continuous questioning of the verdicts? |
I am not questioning the verdicts. As far as I am concerned the jurors heard the case and found him guilty. There will always be cases where someone who has done something is found not guilty. That is the nature of having to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is a safety net to ensure people are not wrongly found guilty. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 00:11 - Oct 22 with 1682 views | Highjack |
| Clydach murders on 22:28 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
I am not questioning the verdicts. As far as I am concerned the jurors heard the case and found him guilty. There will always be cases where someone who has done something is found not guilty. That is the nature of having to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is a safety net to ensure people are not wrongly found guilty. |
I don’t know an awful lot about this case but from what I’ve heard the argument seems to be that the evidence put to the court twice was somehow fabricated or altered by corrupt police officers protecting their own. We know this corruption happens, from Hillsborough to Stephen Lawrence and many others. I’m not necessarily suggesting it happened here but that seems to be the feeling amongst many and if it is the case that fabricated evidence was put to the court then of course the jury would convict twice. |  |
| |
| Clydach murders on 00:40 - Oct 22 with 1676 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 00:11 - Oct 22 by Highjack |
I don’t know an awful lot about this case but from what I’ve heard the argument seems to be that the evidence put to the court twice was somehow fabricated or altered by corrupt police officers protecting their own. We know this corruption happens, from Hillsborough to Stephen Lawrence and many others. I’m not necessarily suggesting it happened here but that seems to be the feeling amongst many and if it is the case that fabricated evidence was put to the court then of course the jury would convict twice. |
The problem is that there is deep suspicion about the police and some people want to believe it is the police responsible. The defence tried that and the juries rejected it. Morris in his second trial had one of the uks best barristers. A guy who has overturned numerous verdicts and represents the rich and famous. He failed to set the seeds of doubt amongst the jury. The key evidence is that Morris chain was found in the house. He continually denied it was his chain and got someone to buy a similar one for him. He continually denied it was his chain until the prosecution showed the proof it was. At that stage he changed his story to say it was his and he had left it there the night before when he had sex with Mandy Power. The jury basically did not believe his story. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 08:20 - Oct 22 with 1632 views | trampie |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54590367
The defence did not use the timeline - he could not have done it type of defence due to the timeline of events.
The defence was not allowed to see lots of evidence and therefore the jury did not see lots of the known evidence.
Seems like they might be some of the points raised in the show based on the above article anyway.
They speak to witnesses that did not give evidence at either trial, it is well known there was no witnesses to the killings and no DNA evidence against the convicted person and of course there were others in the frame.
All in all, should he have been done, beyond reasonable doubt ? [Post edited 22 Oct 2020 8:32]
| |
| |
| Clydach murders on 09:48 - Oct 22 with 1591 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 08:20 - Oct 22 by trampie |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54590367
The defence did not use the timeline - he could not have done it type of defence due to the timeline of events.
The defence was not allowed to see lots of evidence and therefore the jury did not see lots of the known evidence.
Seems like they might be some of the points raised in the show based on the above article anyway.
They speak to witnesses that did not give evidence at either trial, it is well known there was no witnesses to the killings and no DNA evidence against the convicted person and of course there were others in the frame.
All in all, should he have been done, beyond reasonable doubt ? [Post edited 22 Oct 2020 8:32]
|
The BBC and yourself continue to ignore that the juries saw the evidence, they saw Morris behaviour, they saw other witnesses behaviour, they saw the murder scene and how it was connected to the pub, the distance from the pub to Llangyfelach. They heard all the evidence. I didnt, you didnt and neither did the BBC. It might make good TV or books but the fact is that those present including BBC employees believed he is guilty. You earlier stated that you believe in the jury system. Now it seems you want to replace it with trial by TV.
All this so called evidence has already been considered by the courts. The only thing that hasnt is some bloke coming forward 21 years later and has suddenly remembered he saw someone leaving that night in a bomber jacket. Can you remember what you saw 21 years ago. i certainly cant. Who is suddenly going to believe someone who comes forward 21 years later. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
