Police vow to find justice for Becky

This Is Wiltshire: Becky Godden-Edwards Becky Godden-Edwards

Police vowed today to bring the killer of Becky Godden to justice.

The pledge came after the man who had confessed to her murder was jailed for life for a separate killing.

Christopher Halliwell, 48, had taken police to where Miss Godden's remains had been left at a Cotswold beauty spot.

But the murder charge he faced was withdrawn after a judge ruled Halliwell's confession to her murder was inadmissible because a senior detective breached strict police interview rules.

With Halliwell's jailing, Wiltshire Police have promised to catch her killer and revealed the last positive sighting of her was by a police officer on December 27 2002 in the Manchester Road area of Swindon.

Detective Chief Superintendent Kier Pritchard, head of protective services, appealed for any sightings of the young woman on or around that date.

"This very much remains a live investigation for Wiltshire Police," Mr Pritchard said.

"I have a fresh senior investigating officer appointed to that inquiry and we will pursue all lines of inquiry that we can to secure justice for the family of Becky Godden.

"Her family have showed great dignity and courage throughout the last 18 months.

"Clearly that has been an extremely distressful period for them and I recognise that and I am sorry for the distress and anguish that this would have caused them.

"We recognise that. But that does not remain the end at this point.

"Clearly the Independent Police Complaints Commission are reviewing certain circumstances that have been referred to them by Wiltshire Police.

"But sitting alongside that there is a live murder investigation and it clearly is our intention to bring Becky's killer to justice."

Nick Hawkins, chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Wessex, said the most likely way of catching her killer would be if he confessed.

"We have explained to the family of Becky Godden that should further evidence in relation to her murder be brought to the attention of the police we will review this evidence again," he said.

"The investigation into her murder remains open.

"In reality the most likely compelling evidence that leads us to revisit it is if we had a legally admissible confession to somebody else.

"Forensic science goes a long way but we are dealing with a lady that was killed at least seven years ago.

"Had there been any forensic evidence that linked Mr Halliwell to Becky we would have used that already.

"We never know what advances there might be on forensic science."

Miss Godden was last seen alive more than eight years ago and her family thought she was living in the Bristol area.

It was not until police knocked on their door on what would have been her 29th birthday - April 4, 2011 - that they discovered the horrific truth.

Miss Godden, who had turned to prostitution after becoming addicted to heroin, had been murdered and buried in a field.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:44am Sat 20 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

I do find it incredible that any Judge could put an administrative/proce
dural error as the reason for omitting the evidence of how Becky's body was found.

The police at the time had no idea Halliwell was implicated in Becky's murder.

Common sense tells us that Halliwell knew the location of her body, how unless he was involved.

He is said to have admitted both murders, but that also ruled out.

Everyone must feel the deepest sympathy for the relatives of Becky, she and they deserve better.

Halliwell could ease their pain even now by admitting his involvement, not to do so is the ultimate evil.
I do find it incredible that any Judge could put an administrative/proce dural error as the reason for omitting the evidence of how Becky's body was found. The police at the time had no idea Halliwell was implicated in Becky's murder. Common sense tells us that Halliwell knew the location of her body, how unless he was involved. He is said to have admitted both murders, but that also ruled out. Everyone must feel the deepest sympathy for the relatives of Becky, she and they deserve better. Halliwell could ease their pain even now by admitting his involvement, not to do so is the ultimate evil. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling.
What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Sat 20 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Davey Gravey, I would suggest you actually read what happened, it's because the officer felt it was in the interests of the family to discover the where about's of Sian that he took Halliwell on this drive.

He had no idea at that stage what would transpire. In hindsight he is now being condemned for what most would see as compassion for the victims, as it turned out, and their families.

This trial should have been closure for both families, were it not for the Judge's decision to disallow what took place on the journey including the finding of the bodies.

Let us hope that Halliwell has an ounce of humanity left and he promptly 're-confesses' to Becky's murder, so both families can have closure.
Davey Gravey, I would suggest you actually read what happened, it's because the officer felt it was in the interests of the family to discover the where about's of Sian that he took Halliwell on this drive. He had no idea at that stage what would transpire. In hindsight he is now being condemned for what most would see as compassion for the victims, as it turned out, and their families. This trial should have been closure for both families, were it not for the Judge's decision to disallow what took place on the journey including the finding of the bodies. Let us hope that Halliwell has an ounce of humanity left and he promptly 're-confesses' to Becky's murder, so both families can have closure. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

RichardR1 wrote:
Davey Gravey, I would suggest you actually read what happened, it's because the officer felt it was in the interests of the family to discover the where about's of Sian that he took Halliwell on this drive.

He had no idea at that stage what would transpire. In hindsight he is now being condemned for what most would see as compassion for the victims, as it turned out, and their families.

This trial should have been closure for both families, were it not for the Judge's decision to disallow what took place on the journey including the finding of the bodies.

Let us hope that Halliwell has an ounce of humanity left and he promptly 're-confesses' to Becky's murder, so both families can have closure.
For once reign it in you cretin. I have no issue with him taking halliwell where he did. Its the balls up he made that is the problem.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Davey Gravey, I would suggest you actually read what happened, it's because the officer felt it was in the interests of the family to discover the where about's of Sian that he took Halliwell on this drive. He had no idea at that stage what would transpire. In hindsight he is now being condemned for what most would see as compassion for the victims, as it turned out, and their families. This trial should have been closure for both families, were it not for the Judge's decision to disallow what took place on the journey including the finding of the bodies. Let us hope that Halliwell has an ounce of humanity left and he promptly 're-confesses' to Becky's murder, so both families can have closure.[/p][/quote]For once reign it in you cretin. I have no issue with him taking halliwell where he did. Its the balls up he made that is the problem. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Wellfire says...

The judge has to administer the law as it is, not as he would like it to be. I hope a way can be found to give Becky's family the justice they are entitled to.
The judge has to administer the law as it is, not as he would like it to be. I hope a way can be found to give Becky's family the justice they are entitled to. Wellfire
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Pompey-Bound says...

Oh dear Robert you have no room to pontificate to others, do please remember that it was you that used the murder of Sian as a campaign trick in your failed local election campaign. Sc_m.
Oh dear Robert you have no room to pontificate to others, do please remember that it was you that used the murder of Sian as a campaign trick in your failed local election campaign. Sc_m. Pompey-Bound
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Sat 20 Oct 12

house on the hill says...

And why only a minimum of 25 years he could be out when he is 73, he should never be let out at all. I have never understood a justice system that gives killers a second chance but not their victims, if you take a life you should forfeit yours too either in a proper prison, not the holiday camps they are now or have them put down and save the tax payer a fortune. How would their families feel seeing this guy walking down the street in 25 years, would they really feel that it was justice for his crime? we are so soft in this country it is no wonder no one fears the law anymore. we have tried the soft option and it clearly doesnt work so you need to change it and soon.
And why only a minimum of 25 years he could be out when he is 73, he should never be let out at all. I have never understood a justice system that gives killers a second chance but not their victims, if you take a life you should forfeit yours too either in a proper prison, not the holiday camps they are now or have them put down and save the tax payer a fortune. How would their families feel seeing this guy walking down the street in 25 years, would they really feel that it was justice for his crime? we are so soft in this country it is no wonder no one fears the law anymore. we have tried the soft option and it clearly doesnt work so you need to change it and soon. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Al Smith says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling.
If normal procedure had been followed his lawyer could well have told him to keep quiet.

If that had happened there's a chance neither Sian's nor Becky's bodies would never have been found.

Ask yourself what has the defence lawyer in the April Jones case in Wales has said and if this why her body hasn't been found yet.

Time to change the law?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling.[/p][/quote]If normal procedure had been followed his lawyer could well have told him to keep quiet. If that had happened there's a chance neither Sian's nor Becky's bodies would never have been found. Ask yourself what has the defence lawyer in the April Jones case in Wales has said and if this why her body hasn't been found yet. Time to change the law? Al Smith
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Healthylady says...

This seems to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't " moment. Haliwell, no doubt showing off to his audience, revealed where the bodies were and then as soon as he had a lawyer refused to comment. Had he been cautioned earlier the family may never have known that Becky was not coming home and they have, at least, been able to hold a funeral . This Officer appears to have acted with the best intentions, With high court appeals going on at the moment against anybody being given more than a 25 year sentence it has to be considered would he have got any longer for killing twice? Probably not. All sympathies to the families involved but at least they have an answer and the murder is where he can do no more harm to young women.
This seems to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't " moment. Haliwell, no doubt showing off to his audience, revealed where the bodies were and then as soon as he had a lawyer refused to comment. Had he been cautioned earlier the family may never have known that Becky was not coming home and they have, at least, been able to hold a funeral . This Officer appears to have acted with the best intentions, With high court appeals going on at the moment against anybody being given more than a 25 year sentence it has to be considered would he have got any longer for killing twice? Probably not. All sympathies to the families involved but at least they have an answer and the murder is where he can do no more harm to young women. Healthylady
  • Score: 0

12:13am Sun 21 Oct 12

twasadawf says...

Al Smith wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling.
If normal procedure had been followed his lawyer could well have told him to keep quiet.

If that had happened there's a chance neither Sian's nor Becky's bodies would never have been found.

Ask yourself what has the defence lawyer in the April Jones case in Wales has said and if this why her body hasn't been found yet.

Time to change the law?
spot on Al smith if the detective had;nt used his best judgement who knows what have been the outcome
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: What a disgraceful shambles by the idiot copper concerned. Got a killer on a plate and even taken to the body by the individual, yet still cocked it up. Appalling.[/p][/quote]If normal procedure had been followed his lawyer could well have told him to keep quiet. If that had happened there's a chance neither Sian's nor Becky's bodies would never have been found. Ask yourself what has the defence lawyer in the April Jones case in Wales has said and if this why her body hasn't been found yet. Time to change the law?[/p][/quote]spot on Al smith if the detective had;nt used his best judgement who knows what have been the outcome twasadawf
  • Score: 0

9:26am Sun 21 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

"I do find it incredible that any Judge could put an administrative/proce

dural error as the reason for omitting the evidence of how Becky's body was found"

The Judge had no choice--that is the law.
Much as this is regretable all officers are fully aware of evidencial rules the senior officer as was shown- did not when advised put the suspect under caution.

"The police at the time had no idea Halliwell was implicated in Becky's murder"

Only partially true as at that time the suspect nor the police knew who they were looking for. The dig took place at Barbary Castle-there is no report of a body found there. Becky was actually found at another location.

The fact remains--as you claim--until he admits the murder under caution-he cannot be prosecuted--unless the CPS sanction a prosecution based on circircumstancial evidence where there are precedents.

I believe most feel deeply for the family of Becky and hope they get full justice.

Unlike the infamous Moors murderers.
"I do find it incredible that any Judge could put an administrative/proce dural error as the reason for omitting the evidence of how Becky's body was found" The Judge had no choice--that is the law. Much as this is regretable all officers are fully aware of evidencial rules the senior officer as was shown- did not when advised put the suspect under caution. "The police at the time had no idea Halliwell was implicated in Becky's murder" Only partially true as at that time the suspect nor the police knew who they were looking for. The dig took place at Barbary Castle-there is no report of a body found there. Becky was actually found at another location. The fact remains--as you claim--until he admits the murder under caution-he cannot be prosecuted--unless the CPS sanction a prosecution based on circircumstancial evidence where there are precedents. I believe most feel deeply for the family of Becky and hope they get full justice. Unlike the infamous Moors murderers. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sun 21 Oct 12

Robh says...

A criminal can admit to a crime before he has legal representation and then deny it later. The CPS still have to prove that he actually killed Becky but with no firm evidence that can be a problem. Until he admitted to her death neither the police or family knew she was dead.

It was better to drop the case now and look for more proof that he actually killed her. The police are in a position of knowing the answer and can investigate it further to find the proof.
A criminal can admit to a crime before he has legal representation and then deny it later. The CPS still have to prove that he actually killed Becky but with no firm evidence that can be a problem. Until he admitted to her death neither the police or family knew she was dead. It was better to drop the case now and look for more proof that he actually killed her. The police are in a position of knowing the answer and can investigate it further to find the proof. Robh
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Sun 21 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

Robh wrote:
A criminal can admit to a crime before he has legal representation and then deny it later. The CPS still have to prove that he actually killed Becky but with no firm evidence that can be a problem. Until he admitted to her death neither the police or family knew she was dead.

It was better to drop the case now and look for more proof that he actually killed her. The police are in a position of knowing the answer and can investigate it further to find the proof.
Spot on--as he told them-and showed them--i see no reason why they cannot bring Justice to the family.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: A criminal can admit to a crime before he has legal representation and then deny it later. The CPS still have to prove that he actually killed Becky but with no firm evidence that can be a problem. Until he admitted to her death neither the police or family knew she was dead. It was better to drop the case now and look for more proof that he actually killed her. The police are in a position of knowing the answer and can investigate it further to find the proof.[/p][/quote]Spot on--as he told them-and showed them--i see no reason why they cannot bring Justice to the family. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Mon 22 Oct 12

mjhudston says...

The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another.

In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them!

It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this.
The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another. In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them! It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this. mjhudston
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Mon 22 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

mjhudston wrote:
The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another.

In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them!

It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this.
Sometimes we should look at other countries judicial systems which do not favour the criminal--and look at their rights rather differently.
[quote][p][bold]mjhudston[/bold] wrote: The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another. In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them! It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this.[/p][/quote]Sometimes we should look at other countries judicial systems which do not favour the criminal--and look at their rights rather differently. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Phantom Poster says...

itsamess3 wrote:
mjhudston wrote:
The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another.

In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them!

It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this.
Sometimes we should look at other countries judicial systems which do not favour the criminal--and look at their rights rather differently.
The reason that the present rules are in place is due to miscarriages of justice in relation to the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4,

Is it better to have a justice system which results in Innocent people being imprisoned or one which occasionally regrettably lets criminals go free? In the end the guy got life - so he hasn't gone free.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mjhudston[/bold] wrote: The rules are there for a reason, if we abandon them, it makes us no better than the likes of IRAN. As much as it riles us all, that he appears to have got away with one murder, let us not forget, he is behind bars for another. In my view the police should arrest him again, read him his rights, then question him again, and those who made the mistakes, disciplined for them! It should also be, that LIFE should mean LIFE. This killer should never ever again see the light of day. I would also go to say, there is a case for Capital Punishment, for individuals like this.[/p][/quote]Sometimes we should look at other countries judicial systems which do not favour the criminal--and look at their rights rather differently.[/p][/quote]The reason that the present rules are in place is due to miscarriages of justice in relation to the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4, Is it better to have a justice system which results in Innocent people being imprisoned or one which occasionally regrettably lets criminals go free? In the end the guy got life - so he hasn't gone free. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 0

11:26am Tue 23 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.
Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Tue 23 Oct 12

I 2 Could B says...

@Phantom Poster: in virtually every high profile case where so-called 'innocent' people have eventually been released it is the case that they have no been prove innocent, simply that doubt has managed to be cast on their guilt - which is more than enough to enable guilty criminals to walk free (it happens every single day in courtrooms up and down the country).

Of course nobody wants to see innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit, but that's virtually impossible these days as the burden of evidence and proof is now so spectacularly massive that the CPS regularly downgrades charges simply so that any conviction at all might be won.

Our system favours the criminal far too much, and especially favours repeat criminals far too much.

Just consider yesterday's official figures... 1 murder every 10 days committed by a criminal granted bail by our increasingly disturbing judiciary. 180 crimes every single day committed by criminals granted bail.

Our courts are literally causing the deaths of 37 people a year by their undue leniece towards known violent offenders. It's a gamble that does not need to be taking place and should not be taking place.

You claim it's preferable to allow criminals to get away with their crimes than convict one innocent person... I would suggest it's far more preferable that a violent criminal is detained for a few weeks than see an innocent person murdered by them.

Criminals and their defence lawyers know they have the upper hand in every instance. Why do you think so many foreign criminals arrive here in order to commit crimes? Because they know they'll get away with them and even on the odd occasion they don't, prison will be an easy ride for them.

And when you know that 56% of criminals who receive custodial sentences reoffend and go back to prison within a year of their release, it becomes clear that prison is no longer considered either a deterrent or a punishment. Indeed, many prisoners go on record as saying they're more than happy to go back inside.

Our system's failed and needs urgent reform.
@Phantom Poster: in virtually every high profile case where so-called 'innocent' people have eventually been released it is the case that they have no been prove innocent, simply that doubt has managed to be cast on their guilt - which is more than enough to enable guilty criminals to walk free (it happens every single day in courtrooms up and down the country). [p] Of course nobody wants to see innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit, but that's virtually impossible these days as the burden of evidence and proof is now so spectacularly massive that the CPS regularly downgrades charges simply so that any conviction at all might be won. [p] Our system favours the criminal far too much, and especially favours repeat criminals far too much. [p] Just consider yesterday's official figures... 1 murder every 10 days committed by a criminal granted bail by our increasingly disturbing judiciary. 180 crimes every single day committed by criminals granted bail. [p] Our courts are literally causing the deaths of 37 people a year by their undue leniece towards known violent offenders. It's a gamble that does not need to be taking place and should not be taking place. [p] You claim it's preferable to allow criminals to get away with their crimes than convict one innocent person... I would suggest it's far more preferable that a violent criminal is detained for a few weeks than see an innocent person murdered by them. [p] Criminals and their defence lawyers know they have the upper hand in every instance. Why do you think so many foreign criminals arrive here in order to commit crimes? Because they know they'll get away with them and even on the odd occasion they don't, prison will be an easy ride for them. [p] And when you know that 56% of criminals who receive custodial sentences reoffend and go back to prison within a year of their release, it becomes clear that prison is no longer considered either a deterrent or a punishment. Indeed, many prisoners go on record as saying they're more than happy to go back inside. [p] Our system's failed and needs urgent reform. I 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 23 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

I 2 Could B you are absolutely right there simply is no effective deterrent.

Now it seems Cameron wants to have a system of 'private' rehabilitators paid on results.
I 2 Could B you are absolutely right there simply is no effective deterrent. Now it seems Cameron wants to have a system of 'private' rehabilitators paid on results. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

P.P.
The whole appeals system and police rules were only partially due to the facts found by Lord Chief Justice Lane.
A specialist team of detectives were formed to re-examine claims of miscarriages justice--one of which has appeared on these pages.
One of those detectives was examining a claim by Patrick Armstrong and came across both contemperanious notes and typed notes which forensic tests showed they had been tampered with and a full appeal then followed and the convictions overturned.
As result of numerous such cases the remit of the Home Secretary was removed as to deciding if after the appeals system had been exhausted an appeal could only be heard if new evidence was of sufficient quality to be heard--very few were granted.

The law was changed to ensure these things no longer happen and a suspect could only be tried on correctly gathered evidence and statements of suspects properly cautioned.
Sadly in this case the senior officer-who was previously in an elite team of
detectives failed to caution-despite lesser officers having raising doubts as to his actions.
Agreed he obtained the main conviction-but failed the family of Becky. True that teams across the country are looking at more cases again. However this shows how flawed our system is when a man can take the police to the site of the burial of Becky and could not prosecute.
It is all about closure for Beckies family--and of course if any more come to light.
P.P. The whole appeals system and police rules were only partially due to the facts found by Lord Chief Justice Lane. A specialist team of detectives were formed to re-examine claims of miscarriages justice--one of which has appeared on these pages. One of those detectives was examining a claim by Patrick Armstrong and came across both contemperanious notes and typed notes which forensic tests showed they had been tampered with and a full appeal then followed and the convictions overturned. As result of numerous such cases the remit of the Home Secretary was removed as to deciding if after the appeals system had been exhausted an appeal could only be heard if new evidence was of sufficient quality to be heard--very few were granted. The law was changed to ensure these things no longer happen and a suspect could only be tried on correctly gathered evidence and statements of suspects properly cautioned. Sadly in this case the senior officer-who was previously in an elite team of detectives failed to caution-despite lesser officers having raising doubts as to his actions. Agreed he obtained the main conviction-but failed the family of Becky. True that teams across the country are looking at more cases again. However this shows how flawed our system is when a man can take the police to the site of the burial of Becky and could not prosecute. It is all about closure for Beckies family--and of course if any more come to light. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

RichardR1 wrote:
Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.
Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve
r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.[/p][/quote]Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Tue 23 Oct 12

I 2 Could B says...

RichardR1 wrote:
I 2 Could B you are absolutely right there simply is no effective deterrent. Now it seems Cameron wants to have a system of 'private' rehabilitators paid on results.
I don't think the taxpayer has much to worry about with regards to paying private companies for successful rehabilitation. It simply doesn't work in the majority of cases. The 'experts' have experimented on hundreds of thousands of prisoners over the last 30 to 40 years and the reoffending rate has actually increased steadily - to a point where it's now 56%, ie, the majority.

When you consider how many criminals don't get caught for their crimes (82% of UK crime ends with nobody being charged with the crime), those criminals who emigrate/get deported and those who die in the meantime, it's clear to see that the vast majority of those who come out of prison will be guaranteed to reoffend. I really have no idea why we keep pretending it's anything other than that.

1 person is murdered every 10 days by criminals granted bail by our judges. Is that *really* the 'best' they can do? If so, their best really isn't good enough, it's not even remotely acceptable.

We have to stop pretending that criminals can somehow be 'cured' if only we were even nicer to them.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: I 2 Could B you are absolutely right there simply is no effective deterrent. Now it seems Cameron wants to have a system of 'private' rehabilitators paid on results.[/p][/quote]I don't think the taxpayer has much to worry about with regards to paying private companies for successful rehabilitation. It simply doesn't work in the majority of cases. The 'experts' have experimented on hundreds of thousands of prisoners over the last 30 to 40 years and the reoffending rate has actually increased steadily - to a point where it's now 56%, ie, the majority. [p] When you consider how many criminals don't get caught for their crimes (82% of UK crime ends with nobody being charged with the crime), those criminals who emigrate/get deported and those who die in the meantime, it's clear to see that the vast majority of those who come out of prison will be guaranteed to reoffend. I really have no idea why we keep pretending it's anything other than that. [p] 1 person is murdered every 10 days by criminals granted bail by our judges. Is that *really* the 'best' they can do? If so, their best really isn't good enough, it's not even remotely acceptable. [p] We have to stop pretending that criminals can somehow be 'cured' if only we were even nicer to them. I 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

itsamess3 wrote:
RichardR1 wrote:
Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.
Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve

r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland.
Further Mr Justice Donaldson suggested they should have been tried for treason--as then it still carried the Death penalty.
Considering that at the later trial of the Balcombe street gang they made it clear the Guildford 4 were innocent--which was why officers started to look closely at the evidence from which the appeal came about.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.[/p][/quote]Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland.[/p][/quote]Further Mr Justice Donaldson suggested they should have been tried for treason--as then it still carried the Death penalty. Considering that at the later trial of the Balcombe street gang they made it clear the Guildford 4 were innocent--which was why officers started to look closely at the evidence from which the appeal came about. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

itsamess3 wrote:
itsamess3 wrote:
RichardR1 wrote: Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.
Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland.
Further Mr Justice Donaldson suggested they should have been tried for treason--as then it still carried the Death penalty. Considering that at the later trial of the Balcombe street gang they made it clear the Guildford 4 were innocent--which was why officers started to look closely at the evidence from which the appeal came about.
You can quote yourself again and add a bit more after another look at wikipedia and google eh messy?
You and Bob are just so desperate to outdo each other,you'll try do whatever necessary to try to win an arguement. Rather amusing to read
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Phantom Poster, I think you will find that both cases you mention were never re-opened with the police effectively saying they weren't looking for anyone else.[/p][/quote]Sorry--that is ridiculous-after the successful appeal the cases were fully investigated--howeve r the 3 suspects were released on their original conviction under a specific agreement and returned to Ireland.[/p][/quote]Further Mr Justice Donaldson suggested they should have been tried for treason--as then it still carried the Death penalty. Considering that at the later trial of the Balcombe street gang they made it clear the Guildford 4 were innocent--which was why officers started to look closely at the evidence from which the appeal came about.[/p][/quote]You can quote yourself again and add a bit more after another look at wikipedia and google eh messy? You and Bob are just so desperate to outdo each other,you'll try do whatever necessary to try to win an arguement. Rather amusing to read Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

Far better knowing the right folk-perhaps you should read the disclaimer on wikipedia.
If you find injustice amusing-you certainly have deep problems.
Far better knowing the right folk-perhaps you should read the disclaimer on wikipedia. If you find injustice amusing-you certainly have deep problems. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

itsamess3 wrote:
Far better knowing the right folk-perhaps you should read the disclaimer on wikipedia. If you find injustice amusing-you certainly have deep problems.
Bit of a wild assumption that itsamess,considering I have said nothing about finding injustice amusing. And as usual your assumption would be wrong.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: Far better knowing the right folk-perhaps you should read the disclaimer on wikipedia. If you find injustice amusing-you certainly have deep problems.[/p][/quote]Bit of a wild assumption that itsamess,considering I have said nothing about finding injustice amusing. And as usual your assumption would be wrong. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree