Five Women Killed In Or Around Ipswhich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

This is what we have come to in Britain. In the US, which Brits like to claim is less civilised than Britain, Tom Stephens, being innocent, would have been protected against the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night, protected against being dragged away for interrogation. He would have been secure from having his home searched, and his possessions seized. He would have had rights. But not here. This, under Blair, has nearly become a police state.

---

Rubbish. Our system did it's job to perfection and without a nosey media Stephens would never have been named and his arrest known to anyone but his mother (who's home was also searched) and lawyer. The media is what caused a nation to assume guilt. His neighbours would only have known he wasn't home and the police were in his house, not that he'd been arrested. They probably would have thought him a victim without media bods wandering about asking while also saying the police were questioning a man of his age from his general area. The police gave out only that information, remember.

Before OJ Simpson was charged, his name was also bandied about by the media in the US - so I can only guess that the same laws apply.

At the end of all this, Stephens will probably get a handout from the police (not the media, who named him and caused the mess!) for his life being in tatters. As I've already said, he'll no doubt also have his story to sell to the still hungry media. He'll earn a good deal more than most of us next year, plus restore his name fully at the same time, I'd wager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I don't agree . . . that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tintin

Let's hope you're not called up for jury service on this case then...

---

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

---

Outstanding! Well done Gannex!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

---

Very true Gannex :up: Tintin has a habit of knowing everything but evidently doesn't.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

---

Hmm...well I wouldn't want my sister going out with someone who is a suspected murderer, but it doesn't mean that I presume he is a murderer.

I promise I will shut up about this presumption of innocence business after this, but I would like to make one more point. You can see most clearly that the presumption of innocence is reasonable and fair ONLY for jurors, rather than for the public at large, or the police, or anyone else, when you think about a bail hearing. The magistrate must decide whether the defendant applying for bail would be a risk to the public, if released pending trial. The magistrate, in making this determination, presumes that the defendant, having been charged, is guilty, and that is why Stephen Wright, presumably guilty as charged, has been held. Nor did the police presume him innocent when they decided to search his house, nor should anyone seeing Mr. Wright around the streets of Ipswich, chatting to prostitutes, presume him innocent. The only people who should, indeed must, presume him innocent, are the twelve men and women who will make the final determination as to whether Wright should be convicted of the murders -- the rest of us should use our common sense and common sense tells us, at this point, that the likelihood is that the police collared the right man when they arrested Stephen Wright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't.

---

Cannot believe nobody's pointed out theobvious flaw in this question :dozey:

Being well and truely in custody, Wright can't take tintin's sister out until after he's been found guilty or not. By then, tintin would know if he was a murderer or not, wouldn't he?

Doh!

True, Hazell. Except that what happened was Peter Wright was surprisingly released, pending trial, on one million pound bond put up by none other than Max Clifford, who was keen to get Wright under contract. Wright was released, and the first thing he did was go over for dinner at tintin's, cause he knows tin's sister will be there. Does tintin now say to the happy, surprisingly free-on-bond Mr. Wright "Welcome to my home! I shall presume that you are innocent."

Hardly likely, but almost politician-like in your brilliant get out :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

Cannot believe nobody's pointed out the obvious flaw in this question :dozey:



Doh!

---

Yeah, maybe tintin doesn't have a sister. :p :

(NOTE... I'm not prepared to trawl through the rest of the thread or his entire post history to establish whether the answer is here.)