Responsibility for the framing of Barry George

McArmalite

Now some people may rightly say this should be in a legal forum, but my point is, surely their needs political initiative so those members of the police who framed up this innocent and very vulnerable man should be the ones now to face trial on perverting the course of justice and receive the proper punishment ??

This doesn't matter whether it happens to be in Britain, Ireland |( eg the McBrearty's, Nicky Kelly ) or America or God knows where else. Surely if we live in a fair society that those who are supposed to serve us in upholding the law should also have to abide by that same law and suffer it's consequnces if they break it ??

Maybe someone else has a better background in legal matters, but would greater prosecution powers or something should be given to the Ombudsman for example ?? But ofcourse that's depending on the political will to do it, I know, but surely something must be done to protetct completely innocent people from such a pervertion.

seamus

Without having bothered to read much around this - surely in order to do anything about a "frame-up", one would need to prove that it occured in the first place?

Did the retrial show that he was framed (i.e. that evidence was fabricated), or did it simply show that there was insufficient evidence to have secured the initial conviction?

McArmalite

seamus wrote: »

Without having bothered to read much around this - surely in order to do anything about a "frame-up", one would need to prove that it occured in the first place?

Did the retrial show that he was framed (i.e. that evidence was fabricated), or did it simply show that there was insufficient evidence to have secured the initial conviction?

I suppose my posting has been the typical gut reaction of an ordinary memeber of the public, I mean this man had obvious psychological promblems, ( claimed to be the cousin of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen, and to have been a member of the SAS ) those who led the investigation knew so and made a scapegoat out of the poor fellow as far as I can see.

From what I can make of the trial, and I'll be the first to admit I'm just a layman and don't know the finer points of finding a conviction etc, central to his conviction was a tiny amount of gunpowder residue found on his trousers. More analysis led to doubts about its importance and since this evidence could'nt hold up he was granted a retrial and found innocent.

But the fact is he has been found to have iq of 75 which is the lowest 5% of adults and a past record of bizarre and irrational behaviour - a easy target to frame up. But that's just the opinion of a Joe Bloggs. Maybe you can shed light on the legal difficulties of the case and how the govt's could introduce better legislation to protect people from abuses by the agencies of the state.

I know my post may sound naive, but that's my view.

Fratton Fred

I am pretty sure that the Met police watch dog will be having a good look at this to see if he was framed, or if it was a simple (and obviously very sad) miscarriage of justice. The met themselves are holding an internal inquiry.
its tragic that when this sort of thing happens, a miscarriage of justice only adds to the victims.

there was so much media coverage and speculation at the time, the media need to shoulder some of the blame as well.

seamus

McArmalite wrote: »

But the fact is he has been found to have iq of 75 which is the lowest 5% of adults and a past record of bizarre and irrational behaviour - a easy target to frame up.

You could also view him as a prime candidate for such a killing. Whatever about the "village idiot" aspect, that doesn't necessarily make him harmless.

My opinion of the whole thing was that there was significant pressure to get a conviction and have the whole thing done over with. The British media exert a lot of pressure on their politicians, so when they manage to whip up a frenzy over a "beloved" TV personality, the politicians feel that they need to get a result and they need to get it quickly, in order to save face with their electorate.

It was probably a case of the police having a "feeling" that they were sure Barry George was the killer, so they were determined to find whatever they could on him to secure a conviction and satisfy the politicians breathing down their necks.

With the British public still very raw over the whole thing, and the British media very vocal about the whole thing, I imagine they could have presented a rubber chicken as evidence and Barry George would still have been found guilty.

But that's just the opinion of a Joe Bloggs. Maybe you can shed light on the legal difficulties of the case and how the govt's could introduce better legislation to protect people from abuses by the agencies of the state.

Hey, I'm a Joe Bloggs too.
There's a fine line between protecting the people from the state and protecting the state from the people.

That is, if you restrict or red-tape your law enforcement agencies too much, then the criminals win and the state (the innocent civilian) suffers. If you give them too much leeway, the innocent civilian suffers again.

TBH, I have a tough time coming up with any kind of "best effort" system. Silencing the press - preventing them from reporting on an ongoing investigation/case - flies in the face of what most of us consider a free society. Of course, we've all seen the result of a free press allowed to run amok and say whatever they want.

So how do you draw the line? I think it's more of a question for a sociologist.

Fratton Fred

seamus wrote: »

Silencing the press - preventing them from reporting on an ongoing investigation/case - flies in the face of what most of us consider a free society. Of course, we've all seen the result of a free press allowed to run amok and say whatever they want.

So how do you draw the line? I think it's more of a question for a sociologist.

The press should have a certain amount of freedom, but they should respect the basic innocent until proven guilty concept.

The trouble with the press, is that they no longer tell news, by the time we read our morning papers we have either read it the day before on the internet or listened to the morning news on TV or radio, so they need to sensationalise news to make people buy papers.

24 hour news channels are the same, its all about infotainment rather than news.

I think you have summed up the Barry George case nicely though, Jill Dando was a very popular media personality and there was public pressure to get the bastard that shot her.

Barry George kind of looked like the right sort of guy and the poor sod ended up carrying the can.