A criminal case where you think the guilty person is innocent.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
Wise Man Says said:
I watched a couple of the other Millionaire UK winner shows yesterday. One Irish bloke and one pretty elderly English bloke. Both came across really well. And their games were so smooth. Clearly nothing untoward going on.

And then watch the Major. So different. He’s all over the place. The Craig David question alone is dodgy as fuck. “Oh, I’m sure it’s A1, never even heard of Craig David. Mmmmm, Craig David. [wife coughs] OK, Craig David, final answer.”

Haway man :lol:
Click to expand...
You will find those other two were quiz fanatics who were basically professional quizzers, whereas the major hated it.
niceonemarra said:
So the police do set people up for major crimes?
Click to expand...
It was less a case of setting him up than trying to prove what they thought to be true. The similarity of him to the witness descriptions, and the actual killer, is uncanny. On top of which, Stagg was local and Napper was from the other side of London.
 
Last edited:


niceonemarra said:
I wish it was just in my empty head mate, I cant ignore facts and hard evidence though. An innocent man is in jail for life but its not the first time that has happened unfortunately and wont be the last.
Click to expand...
So the jury that convicted him on the facts presented in court were incorrect? His defence team never thought to introduce this damning evidence?
 
In real life, I was never happy about the torso in the tank case, Ernest Adolphus Clarke, I think was the name of the man. I spoke to someone close to the case and he said that they had nothing of substance on Clarke. He was black and it became a matter for the Rough Justice programme. I also know someone who was falsely accused of something, also a black lad. How the case got to crown court I will never know. It did and was thrown out in minutes, that was very recent. Anyone reading the case notes might think that things have not changed since the days when Clarke was convicted.
 
Last edited:
zinedine said:
I've just googled that and read some of the reasons that he believes Mair is innocent.
The police knew and used his name when he was arrested minutes after the killing. Nobody at the murder scene recognised and gave a name so the police couldn't have known it.
The timings of the murder and all events after are all wrong according to Hall. The killer in the cctv pictures walking away has completely different movements and body language to Mair including a limp.
His mixed race half brother and other people who knew him said they knew nothing of his far right leanings.
But why would the police frame an innocent man knowing that a real killer is going to go free? That's the question I ask when the police are accused of a stitch up. It doesn't make sense and why did they pick on Mair? Why did the judge and jury dismiss all the evidence that Hall says means Mair is innocent?
Click to expand...
Because that's what they've always done historically? Find someone who fits the bill and give the public their killer, saves f***ing hours on police work and immediately relieves pressure. Don't know the ins and outs of this case at all to be honest just replying to that one sentence I've highlighted.
 
weebil64 said:
So the jury that convicted him on the facts presented in court were incorrect? His defence team never thought to introduce this damning evidence?
Click to expand...
Like with all cases if the police are setting them up they stand no chance of a fair trial.
 
I wrote up many a Home Office Summary of the Case back in my Lifer Group days. There was one in particular where the bloke was convicted of murder after a stabbing in a pub.

I can’t remember his name and wouldn’t write it here anyway to be honest but his actions afterwards were the opposite of guilty people. He was a middle aged black fella who when the coppers came round asked if it was about the welfare of his daughter, hadn’t changed or washed clothes. It was just all wrong. The only thing they had was a comment between him and the dead fella regarding a comment to the dead fella’s lass but it was so out of place.

I’ve never felt so uncomfortable writing stuff up. I only did murderers beginning with B so if that helps. Hope he’s out. This was over 20 years ago.
 
Bamber. They will not allow the original Ballistics evidence to be exposed for what it was, a fabrication. They've fought in court last week, to hold on to 27 documents, some of which relate to the Ballistics evidence. If there was no risk to the conviction being undermined, they would simply release the documents.
 
Roker Skate said:
Bamber. They will not allow the original Ballistics evidence to be exposed for what it was, a fabrication. They've fought in court last week, to hold on to 27 documents, some of which relate to the Ballistics evidence. If there was no risk to the conviction being undermined, they would simply release the documents.
Click to expand...

Alreet Jeremy.
 
Tuono said:
Colin Stagg, he lived in the same street as me and everyone knew he was innocent, even the police but that didn't stop him being found guilty. He did get out eventually though.
Click to expand...

He was never found guilty.

Just read his book and he's a creepy oddball like, especially where women are concerned.
 
Roker Skate said:
Bamber. They will not allow the original Ballistics evidence to be exposed for what it was, a fabrication. They've fought in court last week, to hold on to 27 documents, some of which relate to the Ballistics evidence. If there was no risk to the conviction being undermined, they would simply release the documents.
Click to expand...
The evidence that convicted him was found by the family who then inherited the £500k estate. They've refused to comment since.
 

Back
Top