Tv show tonight called Des about Dennis Nilsen

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date


stapler said:
1. That isn't evidence that was admissible in a court of law.

2. He was convicted. So why do you care?

3. The ITV series grossly overstated Nilsen's prospects of getting off at trial. It was a near foregone conclusion that he would be found guilty of murder. The depiction of the prosecution barrister as a timid, non-entity who thought they'd need direct evidence of Nilsen's actual state of mind is a fiction. In real life, the guy was a noted QC, at the top of his game, who would be appointed DPP a few years afterwards. He would have known that you don't need direct evidence of state of mind as juries can and do draw inferences from other primary facts.
Click to expand...
10-2 wasn’t it? That indicates it was far from a foregone conclusion.
 
Just seen the end now on the itvplayer.

Decent brain candy if nothing else to watch but nothing special, not really well made, could have been a lot better.
 
Select coaches said:
10-2 wasn’t it? That indicates it was far from a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. All it tells us is that after the trial closings 2 out of 10 jurors were not sure that he was guilty of murder. He wouldn't have got off if the jury couldn't reach a verdict. There would have been another trial. And another if necessary. And another. Etc. Until the inevitable guilty verdict was returned.

The chances of him persuading 10+ members of a jury that he wasn't responsible for his actions were the square root of nil, unless they started selecting juries from the inmates of Broadmoor.
 
HABA87 said:
Near the end, where the copper and someone else were in the flat.

Copper said "do you know what the worst bit is/was?".

What was the reply?
Click to expand...
"Thinking my KFC chicken wing tasted a bit off, and realising it was actually a severed finger from the evidence bag."
Clean Bristow said:
Cannot help but think he was a bit of a wrong un like...
Click to expand...
Job centre clerk, aye.
stapler said:
No it doesn't. All it tells us is that after the trial closings 2 out of 10 jurors were not sure that he was guilty of murder. He wouldn't have got off if the jury couldn't reach a verdict. There would have been another trial. And another if necessary. And another. Etc. Until the inevitable guilty verdict was returned.

The chances of him persuading 10+ members of a jury that he wasn't responsible for his actions were the square root of nil, unless they started selecting juries from the inmates of Broadmoor.
Click to expand...
Or Henry Fonda! If they'd actually said Not Guilty, do they have to try to rearrest him before he walks?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:

Back
Top