Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
He or she probably used the tent on a camping trip
Nicola payne (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wingy
- Start date
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Been following this. Police have lost credibility in the misplacement of the hair brush in their custody. Shows guidelines were not followed. How can you say there are no cross-contamination of hair samples when you don't even know where you have stored the hair brush.
Hopefully new evidence will someday come to light in this case.
Hopefully new evidence will someday come to light in this case.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
I fear the only way the truth will come out is a deathbed confession from whoever did it
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
we dont know for sure she is dead - a lot of the questioning etc, was around whether she had disappeared at will
My understanding, from someone who knows about this sort of thing, is that the CPS will only ever go for a prosecution if they think they have at least a 60% chance of winning the case, and it is in the public interest.
Otis
Well-Known Member
No, you misunderstand. Maybe I worded it wrong. What I meant was that just because you are found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do it, so by the letter of the law you are innocent, but guilty people have been found not guilty in the past and continue to do so.
There are cases where there has been insufficient evidence to convict and therefore a not guilty verdict, but the people have been guilty.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Is that Latin for O J Simpson and Oscar Pistorious?
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.
Its the presumption of innocence. English common law is as screwed as a legal system can be. In Scotland, by the way, the jury has a third option of, "not proven".
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but then I suppose the assumption could then be that 'not proven' means guilty, rather than possibly innocent in some people's eyes, that the public might well err on the side of guilty.
It's never going to be a perfect system is it. Sometimes people can get off because they have good lawyers, or through a technicality whereby forensics weren't gathered correctly, or procedures weren't followed.
There were acquittals in the initial Stephen Lawrence trial down to insufficient evidence, even though police were convinced of their guilt.
Never going to be a 100% full proof system is it unfortunately.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I believe it has more to do with the epistemological argument around the nature of innocence rather than the assumption of guilt in a 'not proven' case.
To say someone is not guilty in Scotland then the evidence would need to back it up, rather than in England where a not guilty verdict needs to be found if there is reasonable doubt in the guilt.
And you are correct, there is never going to be a full proof system.
Last edited:
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
in this case however - however much the police thought they were guilty, the evidence was worse than a game of cluedo. A complete waste of time
Otis
Well-Known Member
Well that was why I was asking. Haven't followed this trial as intently as some.
How was this ever brought to trial then? Desperation? Long shot?
A waste of everyone's time and money and more heartache for the Payne family.
SuperElite
New Member
very bad policing, rubbish witnesses and a laughable alibi. Wonder what happened to the Capri?
Covbaker96
New Member
No body no case simple as..
that's why the guys were declared not guilty
that's why the guys were declared not guilty