ForumGarden

spot;493995 wrote: And if he's found innocent from considering the evidence, the scum will get out on the basis of fairly applied justice?
If he is actually guilty of the crime, but the evidence cant prove it, he walks. Just shows he is a good criminal able to get away with murder. BUT if he is innocent and walks, then GOOD! But the worst is if he is innocent but gets convicted. We have a very flawed system, us democracies of the west.

So then my next question is how long before this guy goes to trial??? How long do we have to wait to hear or see any of the evidence against him.:-5

Raven;494001 wrote: If he is actually guilty of the crime, but the evidence cant prove it, he walks. Just shows he is a good criminal able to get away with murder. BUT if he is innocent and walks, then GOOD! But the worst is if he is innocent but gets convicted. We have a very flawed system, us democracies of the west.
And in how many of those scenarios is the word "scum" applicable?

CARLA;494003 wrote: So then my next question is how long before this guy goes to trial??? How long do we have to wait to hear or see any of the evidence against him.:-5
He went before the magistrates today, and they fast tracked to crown court January 2nd.

CARLA;494003 wrote: So then my next question is how long before this guy goes to trial??? How long do we have to wait to hear or see any of the evidence against him.:-5Three months would be minimal, six typical.

spot;494006 wrote: And in how many of those scenarios is the word "scum" applicable?
All of them. Had to pay for sex didnt he? He wouldnt be in this predicament if he didnt have any association with those girls. PLUS he was living with a partner.

Well you have a better handle on the press then we do over here. There is nothing being said about this case other than he has been arrested..

Raven;493948 wrote: As always seems to be the case, those interviewed who knows him say "he was a quiet guy, kept to himself" LOL!


don't know what gave you that idea. The Sunday Mirror interviewed everyone they could seduce including the man's father.

Dad says:

"I don't actually think he's clever enough to commit these crimes, they take a level of intelligence that I don't think Steve has.

He's just not capable of killing people."

Everyone else says they saw Wright buying prostitute services on a daily basis. He most certainly is not being depicted as someone who keeps to himself. And, if he is innocent of murder, I don't know how he will ever hold his head up again in public. It's disgusting to watch the rush for gossip destroy a man's life before he has even been tried in court. If he's found guilty all the gossip mongers will pat themselves on the back. If he's found not guilty then they will move on to their next hot story without even a hiccup of regret.

Diuretic;494012 wrote: Yep, the common law system goes for procedural truth, not factual truth. But it's more likely that a guilty person will be acquitted than an innocent person will be convicted. I have no statistics on that and I can't at the moment think of any research on it, just repeating a conventional view I suppose. But the way the common law operates with its very strict rules on admissibility of evidence I'd back it in as being pretty right.
I come from a place that has the death penalty. (U.S.) I know, before the process of dna, we have put many a person on death row and they be innocent.

koan;494019 wrote: don't know what gave you that idea. The Sunday Mirror interviewed everyone they could seduce including the man's father.



Dad says:

"I don't actually think he's clever enough to commit these crimes, they take a level of intelligence that I don't think Steve has.



He's just not capable of killing people."



Everyone else says they saw Wright buying prostitute services on a daily basis. He most certainly is not being depicted as someone who keeps to himself. And, if he is innocent of murder, I don't know how he will ever hold his head up again in public. It's disgusting to watch the rush for gossip destroy a man's life before he has even been tried in court. If he's found guilty all the gossip mongers will pat themselves on the back. If he's found not guilty then they will move on to their next hot story without even a hiccup of regret.
I guess we were watching different news programs then. I saw two interviews with both people describing him as shy and a person who kept to himself. On Sky news. Thats where I got that.

The Crown court hearing will be to set conditions of bail and it's preliminary. The trial will be months later.

Diuretic;494017 wrote: Is there a preliminary hearing? Or is it sent straight to trial?
I am not sure how it works here, but his first hearing in crown court is the 2nd of January. I am assuming that will be the preliminary where he officially pleads to the charges. Then they would set a date for trial by jury I guess.

Diuretic;494030 wrote: That's the bloke that was arrested in second place I think.
Yeah, the one they charged with the crimes.

Diuretic;494028 wrote: As does any jurisdiction which has the death penalty. It always struck me that having the death penalty was either an incredibly arrogant thing to do (so convinced that the system will only ever convict the guilty) or was evidence of a society that didn't really value human life.



Anyway apologies, I just took the thread to a place we don't want to go.



On this one, without reflecting on the guilt or innocence of the suspected person(s) it's still a quite quick resolution to the case. It would be good if the media now toned the hysteria down a bit.
No worries mate! It's a valid concern! Personally, I feel unless you can be 100% sure of guilt, then a life sentence would be more appropriate for heinous crimes.

Raven;494024 wrote: I guess we were watching different news programs then. I saw two interviews with both people describing him as shy and a person who kept to himself. On Sky news. Thats where I got that.The charged man used to run the Ferry Boat Inn in the heart of Norwich's red light district, the pub which was "a regular haunt of two prostitutes - Natalie Pearman, 16, and Michelle Bettles, 22 - whose murders remain unsolved". He was not running the pub at the time of their deaths. He'd been a steward on the QE II, none of which one would associate with shy or retiring.

Raven;494024 wrote: I guess we were watching different news programs then. I saw two interviews with both people describing him as shy and a person who kept to himself. On Sky news. Thats where I got that.


Diuretic;494030 wrote: That's the bloke that was arrested in second place I think.


Raven;494036 wrote: Yeah, the one they charged with the crimes.


Just so we're clear, Stephen Wright was the second bloke arrested, the one charged with the crimes and the one who is certainly not quiet and shy as shown by the Mirror article.

Diuretic;494046 wrote: Ah I was just wondering if there was a preliminary hearing to examine the evidence and see if there was a case to answer and then set down for trial later but it looks like it might go straight to trial after the formalities.
Like I said before, I am not quite sure how it works here.......LOL! And I dont want to find out!! Their judges still wear those wigs, and that would scare me to death! Blank hankies and all...you understand.

:yh_bigsmi I sentence you to be hanged by the neck till dead!

koan;494052 wrote: Just so we're clear, Stephen Wright was the second bloke arrested, the one charged with the crimes and the one who is certainly not quiet and shy as shown by the Mirror article.
Absolutely nothing shy about the other guy! He was a bit eager to talk to the press.

Diuretic;494055 wrote: Ah the old black cloth on the head............that would be enough to make yer knees a bit wobbly
It's funny in a twisted sort of way, but it would frighten me more to get into trouble here, than it would back where I am from! Go figure!

:-2

Diuretic;494063 wrote: Why is that Raven?
They just LOOK more intimidating! Got the old wooden docks and everything! In the states, even though the sentences are usually harsher, it just doesnt look so scary! But the courts here, (from what I've seen on telly) look absolutely draconian! I would be wee'ing all over myself!

spot;494049 wrote: The charged man used to run the Ferry Boat Inn in the heart of Norwich's red light district, the pub which was "a regular haunt of two prostitutes - Natalie Pearman, 16, and Michelle Bettles, 22 - whose murders remain unsolved". He was not running the pub at the time of their deaths. He'd been a steward on the QE II, none of which one would associate with shy or retiring.
Didnt the realestate lady who was murdered work on the same ship at about the same time as him as well?

Raven;494069 wrote: Didnt the realestate lady who was murdered work on the same ship at about the same time as him as well?That's right - they both worked the QE II at the same time. Her body wasn't ever found after she disappeared from London. There's another Norfolk/Suffolk missing person case being looked at in the same light at the moment.

spot;494076 wrote: That's right - they both worked the QE II at the same time. Her body wasn't ever found after she disappeared from London. There's another Norfolk/Suffolk missing person case being looked at in the same light at the moment.
This guy could prove to be sinister indeed.

Raven;494078 wrote: This guy could prove to be sinister indeed.If he does end up convicted of ten or so murders including the most prominent missing-body case of the last fifty years then yes, you could say that. The nearest I ever came to sinister was keeping a library book out for two years and I still got strange looks when I took it back.

I just gotta ask this, Spot!! What was the book? I got clobbered once when I went back to a video hire store. My son - who's been interstate then overseas for a few years now, had several late return fines still outstanding. Sigh....

AussiePam;494603 wrote: I just gotta ask this, Spot!! What was the book? Elinor M. Brent-Dyer's The Chalet School In Camp, AP. I fear we're drifting slightly off topic in bringing that up but not much is going to happen on this one at a guess, so maybe it doesn't matter too much.

lady cop;494607 wrote: i knew suspect #1 was full of crap. but of course spot had to try to discredit me. i have done hundreds of interrogations. not online bullshit. . but for real. i can smell them a mile away.Linda, have you considered posting for a month without mentioning your unsavoury police obsession, just to see what you're like without it? I'm sure there's a person in there someplace if you'd only let her out.

spot;494611 wrote: Linda, have you considered posting for a month without mentioning your unsavoury police obsession, just to see what you're like without it? I'm sure there's a person in there someplace if you'd only let her out.i have...many times. YOU don't see me as a person.

lady cop;494613 wrote: i have...many times. YOU don't see me as a person.I truly doubt whether you have at all. If you sit back and consider the suggestion and your answer you might even realize that you probably misread it and that I'm right.

Dangerous malign posters are people too. Everyone's a person, some are just more pleasant and well-meaning than others.

lady cop;494759 wrote: i don't think you have the cajones to do what i've done for years. put myself in the line of fire. and it would take me hours to list the people here who asked me for help and got it. you don't know me at all. tell you what spot, ignore me and i shall do the same. your obsession is showing. don't address me and i shall not address you.


I'd observe, firstly, that despite your repeated accusations it's quite clear that I don't stalk you, obsess over you, harrass you or in any way initiate frequent exchanges with you. If we're in the same thread we discuss the topic at hand independently. If you mention me in that thread, I sometimes comment on your observation. That's a simple matter of checkable fact. Your ignore list is entirely your own affair but you most definitely aren't going to dictate to me who goes on mine.

As for any facts you claim about yourself, it's a long time since I last took anything you said at face value or gave you even the benefit of the doubt. The extent to which you've lied elsewhere on ForumGarden releases me from any assumption as far as your claims to be truthful in other matters go. An obsession as far as your willingness or ability to help anyone seems to be yours rather than mine since you bring it up so often and it's so easily interpreted in other ways. You're quite right that I don't know you at all and I'm relieved that I'm not obliged to.

SnoozeControl;494786 wrote: Oh come on, I'm not that bad! Am I? :-2Never, sweetie. Everyone keeps telling you that but you don't hear it for some reason. Impish, easily bored, wary as hell, untrusting, happiest when sparks fly, always prepared to fling on another log when the blaze dies down, all of that but never malign or dangerous.

SnoozeControl;494798 wrote: By the way, I sort of got an Edina vibe from that 'sweetie' endearment.


God that was one funny show! :wah:

SnoozeControl;494801 wrote: I bought the first three seasons... the one where they show up sh*tfaced for the funeral had me nearly crying for laughing so hard. I love Pats.


Yeah she is cool, I kinda fancied the young girl when I was younger, I like them studious women!

SnoozeControl;494832 wrote: I ran across his field of vision and he fired upon me.You quoted me, Snooze, while putting a direct question to me, and I stroked your fur very gently I thought. The posts are there, after all. You can't pretend they're other than what they are.