Peter Sullivan

Gisappointed · May 13

Released after DNA cleared him after 38 years of captivity. Why so long? Case was flimsy. Because he didnt admit guilt? This is not the 1st recent example of over-imprisonment.

I have friends and family of a murderer who supposedly fed his wife's body to his pigs, never admitted murder but I think got out after 16 or 18 years.

Why are some people incarcerated at our cost beyond any logical punishment?

And who pays for his compensation? Not the judiciary, but us.

North Lower Neil · May 13

Awful, poor bloke, can't imagine the torment of knowing you're innocent in that situation.

Such an awful no win situation too given you 'admit' guilt and show remorse etc and you're more likely to get out earlier, maintain your innocence and you're punished more.

MuttleyCAFC · May 13

It is certainly an argument against capital punishment but losing 38 years of your life is tragic. I wish him all the support he needs and a happier rest of days.

valleynick66 · May 13

Gisappointed said:

Released after DNA cleared him after 38 years of captivity. Why so long? Case was flimsy. Because he didnt admit guilt? This is not the 1st recent example of over-imprisonment.

I have friends and family of a murderer who supposedly fed his wife's body to his pigs, never admitted murder but I think got out after 16 or 18 years.

Why are some people incarcerated at our cost beyond any logical punishment?

And who pays for his compensation? Not the judiciary, but us.

Possibly because he refused to show remorse / admit guilt any parole was invalidated!?

I seem to recall that with the other case a couple of years back of a man released many years late after a successful appeal.

Gisappointed · May 13

valleynick66 said:

Gisappointed said:

Released after DNA cleared him after 38 years of captivity. Why so long? Case was flimsy. Because he didnt admit guilt? This is not the 1st recent example of over-imprisonment.

I have friends and family of a murderer who supposedly fed his wife's body to his pigs, never admitted murder but I think got out after 16 or 18 years.

Why are some people incarcerated at our cost beyond any logical punishment?

And who pays for his compensation? Not the judiciary, but us.

Possibly because he refused to show remorse / admit guilt any parole was invalidated!?

I seem to recall that with the other case a couple of years back of a man released many years late after a successful appeal.

Martin Baker was exactly that, no remorse, the added fact that he threatened to kill his ex and feed her to his pigs. Luckily I've never met him.

Huskaris · May 13

Whatever happened to @harveys_gardener?

AFKABartram · May 13

Huskaris said:

Whatever happened to @harveys_gardener?

Was you disappointed when he was banned?

Huskaris · May 13

AFKABartram said:

Huskaris said:

Whatever happened to @harveys_gardener?

Was you disappointed when he was banned?

I was Gisappointed...

Latimer · May 13

The humility of his statement following the decision is astonishing….

red10 · May 13

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

Radostanradical · May 13

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

golfaddick · May 14

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

Don't think you can blame the jury on this one. They can only try the case on the evidence presented. Over time science has greatly helped extract better / more conclusive DNA.

cfgs · May 14

All because he was a loaner and considered odd by many. He seems to such a forgiving human being, his thoughts going out to the victims family as well. Hope he has a long and comfortable dotage, as well over half his life so far has been horrific.

jose · May 14

He will now have to wait another 38 years for any compensation because the authorities will say you can’t rush these things, they’re complex.
Complex my arse.

Peter Sullivan ought to be given a cheque for 38 million quid, paid out of the (our) public purse, by midday today.
Then there is the contaminated blood scandal, the Horizon scandal and so on.

O-Randy-Hunt · May 14

Radostanradical said:

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

1 woman who I was doing jury service with was asleep most of the time while evidence was being shared in court. Then when it came to deliberating she was just constantly saying whatever.

I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.

Rizzo · May 14

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Radostanradical said:

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

1 woman who I was doing jury service with was asleep most of the time while evidence was being shared in court. Then when it came to deliberating she was just constantly saying whatever.

I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.

I've done jury service 4 times now and have experienced several jurors who should never have been let anywhere near a trial. One stated that she didn't care what the verdict was and would go with the majority because she wanted to get out of court so she could go shopping. Another said he would say not guilty on every defendant, on every charge because he hated the police.

fenaddick · May 14

Worth watching the show C4 did last year where they recreated a trial with 2 juries, as someone who hadn’t done jury service it was fascinating to see all the different approaches

O-Randy-Hunt · May 14

Rizzo said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Radostanradical said:

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

1 woman who I was doing jury service with was asleep most of the time while evidence was being shared in court. Then when it came to deliberating she was just constantly saying whatever.

I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.

I've done jury service 4 times now and have experienced several jurors who should never have been let anywhere near a trial. One stated that she didn't care what the verdict was and would go with the majority because she wanted to get out of court so she could go shopping. Another said he would say not guilty on every defendant, on every charge because he hated the police.

I was going to lol your post as it did bring back memories of me being on jury service but when i think about it its really not funny.

We all know we live amongst some absolute wronguns so they will be one of the 12 picked unfortunately.

Leroy Ambrose · May 14

Trial by jury is a ridiculous, anachronistic concept. Three times I've done jury service, on each occasion more than half the jurors on cases I've been a juror on have been either completely disengaged or actively displaying prejudice against either the police or the suspect.

Unfortunately, there isn't a better system - professional jurors sounds great, but it woukd cost an insane amount of money, and they'd still be subject to the same biases as non-professional jurors (plenty of biased magistrates out there, for instance).

soapboxsam · May 14

Rizzo said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Radostanradical said:

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

1 woman who I was doing jury service with was asleep most of the time while evidence was being shared in court. Then when it came to deliberating she was just constantly saying whatever.

I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.

I've done jury service 4 times now and have experienced several jurors who should never have been let anywhere near a trial. One stated that she didn't care what the verdict was and would go with the majority because she wanted to get out of court so she could go shopping. Another said he would say not guilty on every defendant, on every charge because he hated the police.

That doesn't surprise me. Only done Jury sentence the once but the difference with self employed who just wanted to get back to work and people who were getting their full pay was quite a contrast with their debating skills. I was the foreman and tried to get everyone involved and focused as it was always going to be a 8 to 10 year sentence if found guilty.
It was too important not to put one's own job situation on the back burner for the duration of the trial.

Rizzo · May 14

I've been fortunate that my employers have always been very supportive of jury service and have never kicked up a fuss about paying me or asking me to defer etc. For self-employed people, single parents etc I can imagine it being horrendous. And there's always the possibility of a long and/or complex trial. One occasion at Southwark, the jury in the court next to ours had been on their case for 8 months!

Lincsaddick · May 14

In the days before DNA analysis it was much 'easier' to fit up a so called suspect and develop (not to say fabricate) a case against them, especially in a case of someone like Sullivan who was described as ''vulnerable'.
As with Andy Malkinson, recently released from prison after serving 20 years for a murder he did not commit, improved methods of DNA analysis have finally convinced the Court of Appeal that both men are innocent.
However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the police and the appeal courts are all too often far too reluctant to give appellants the benefit of a thorough review of their case and/or a retrial if new evidence comes to light.
There is a lot in the news around the Lucy Letby case and possible perjury committed by a medical consultant as well as other biased 'evidence' given by medical ''experts'
I was brought up to believe that the English 'justice' system is the best in the world, it isn't.
Time perhaps to check out the French/Italian system where a police investigation is closely monitored by a judge/magistrate. Not perfect, but surely reduces the chance of gross errors, or indeed the framing/fit up of a suspect by the police or prosecutors

SoundAsa£ · May 14

I wonder how long the compensation judgment will stretch out for?
The guy is 68 FFS, not exactly a spring chicken …..if he’s to get reasonable long term benefit from the payment, it needs to get sorted pronto…….. if he’s to live long enough to fully enjoy the windfall.
If I’m not mistaken, these monetary compensation issues can drag on for a good few years.🙁
Personally, I think it should be in the region of £5,000.000 and paid out ASAP.

Chizz · May 14

The jury didn't get it wrong in this case. So, any debate about the efficacy or proficiency of jurors in this case, is misplaced. The judge didn't get it wrong.  The prosecution built and brought forward a convoluted case of mainly circumstantial evidence.

He was convicted because:
- The jury was given evidence of his confession
- The jury was presented with bite mark evidence, "scientifically" linked to him
- The jury wasn't given an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder

Given that set of evidence, a 10-2 guilty verdict was unsurprising.

There is no proof that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defence. But, Merseyside Police need to answer for some of their failings, such as the lack of diligence in going after other sustpects, the flawed (but, at the time, lawful) interrogation.

But, given the fact that the case was built on evidence, the evidence was presented in court, the jury examined the evidence and came up with a verdict and the judge handed down a sentence commensurate with the verdict, then, as harsh as it seems, I don't see why a compensation should be paid.

Had the evidence been treated, examined and judged on today's standards, I have no doubt he would have been found not guilty. But the case was held correctly as the rules existed at the time.

I hope Peter Sullivan goes on to live a long, healthy and happy life. I hope he's able to tell his story - and to cash in spectacularly if he wants to. I hope Merseyside Police are investigated to the fullest possible extent for their failings. And I hope that Diane Sindall's surviving family get the chance to see the real culprit brought to justice.

Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.

NornIrishAddick · May 14

jose said:

He will now have to wait another 38 years for any compensation because the authorities will say you can’t rush these things, they’re complex.
Complex my arse.
Peter Sullivan ought to be given a cheque for 38 million quid, paid out of the (our) public purse, by midday today.
Then there is the contaminated blood scandal, the Horizon scandal and so on.

If previous miscarriages of justice are anything to go by, The Home Office will probably try to deduct bed and board from any compensation payments...

Rizzo · May 14

Chizz said:

Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.

Sadly, there are people on these very boards who still support the death penalty, even in full knowledge of cases like this.

Lincsaddick · May 14

Lincsaddick said:

In the days before DNA analysis it was much 'easier' to fit up a so called suspect and develop (not to say fabricate) a case against them, especially in a case of someone like Sullivan who was described as ''vulnerable'.
As with Andy Malkinson, recently released from prison after serving 20 years for a murder he did not commit, improved methods of DNA analysis have finally convinced the Court of Appeal that both men are innocent.
However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the police and the appeal courts are all too often far too reluctant to give appellants the benefit of a thorough review of their case and/or a retrial if new evidence comes to light.
There is a lot in the news around the Lucy Letby case and possible perjury committed by a medical consultant as well as other biased 'evidence' given by medical ''experts'
I was brought up to believe that the English 'justice' system is the best in the world, it isn't.
Time perhaps to check out the French/Italian system where a police investigation is closely monitored by a judge/magistrate. Not perfect, but surely reduces the chance of gross errors, or indeed the framing/fit up of a suspect by the police or prosecutors

P S .. You think English 'justice is bad ? .. Read 'Framed' a recent 'true crime' book from John Grisham and Jim McCloskey

soapboxsam · May 14

Rizzo said:

Chizz said:

Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.

Sadly, there are people on these very boards who still support the death penalty, even in full knowledge of cases like this.

There appears to be Christians on the parole boards as well so that evens it up with their belief that you can be forgiven if you repent.

There is no debate on the death penalty and won't ever be again in the UK for a myriad of reasons. Ruth Ellis was a shocking case and the main reason the death penalty had to go
was James Hanratty as the media bandwagon said he was innocent after his hanging.

but Hanratty was the murderer and Rapist but this only became certain with the DNA evidence many decades later. Don't waste any sympathy on him but rather the woman he raped and crippled. Lord Longford used to make me vomit with his visits to Myra Hindley; co killer to the Child killer Ian Brady who was arrested just a month before the bill went through that saw the abolition of the Death penalty. Because of the slowness of the English courts Brady escaped the Rope in 66 despite the murders taking place between 63-65.

Wayne Couzens deserves to forfeit his life as does the living nightmare Axel Rudakubana who even in Prison attacks the warden.
The brother of the Manchester bomber was allowed in a kitchen and threw boiling water over Wardens.

No Death penalty but these evil characters should be treated like the feral beasts they are, not befriended by folk who think they can be redeemed.

soapboxsam · May 14

Peter Sullivan was innocent and the coercive methods of the Police at the time saw him locked up. Its because of cases like that from the past that we can't take that chance again because the camera can lie now.

LargeAddick · May 14

Rizzo said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Radostanradical said:

red10 said:

Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.

I've said this before and will say it again, we need professional jurors. I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the general public especially when the stakes are so high and in many cases legitimate expertise is required to understand the arguments.

1 woman who I was doing jury service with was asleep most of the time while evidence was being shared in court. Then when it came to deliberating she was just constantly saying whatever.

I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.

I've done jury service 4 times now and have experienced several jurors who should never have been let anywhere near a trial. One stated that she didn't care what the verdict was and would go with the majority because she wanted to get out of court so she could go shopping. Another said he would say not guilty on every defendant, on every charge because he hated the police.

Done it twice. On one a couple of jurors said they’d vote whichever way was best so we could all get out of there asap. Made me more determined to keep them there as long as possible. I do agree that we need professional juries, or at least people who want to be there not been ordered to be there.

LargeAddick · May 14

Chizz said:

The jury didn't get it wrong in this case. So, any debate about the efficacy or proficiency of jurors in this case, is misplaced. The judge didn't get it wrong.  The prosecution built and brought forward a convoluted case of mainly circumstantial evidence.

He was convicted because:
- The jury was given evidence of his confession
- The jury was presented with bite mark evidence, "scientifically" linked to him
- The jury wasn't given an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder

Given that set of evidence, a 10-2 guilty verdict was unsurprising.

There is no proof that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defence. But, Merseyside Police need to answer for some of their failings, such as the lack of diligence in going after other sustpects, the flawed (but, at the time, lawful) interrogation.

But, given the fact that the case was built on evidence, the evidence was presented in court, the jury examined the evidence and came up with a verdict and the judge handed down a sentence commensurate with the verdict, then, as harsh as it seems, I don't see why a compensation should be paid.

Had the evidence been treated, examined and judged on today's standards, I have no doubt he would have been found not guilty. But the case was held correctly as the rules existed at the time.

I hope Peter Sullivan goes on to live a long, healthy and happy life. I hope he's able to tell his story - and to cash in spectacularly if he wants to. I hope Merseyside Police are investigated to the fullest possible extent for their failings. And I hope that Diane Sindall's surviving family get the chance to see the real culprit brought to justice.

Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.

You don’t see why compensation should be paid? Wow.

Peter Sullivan

Comments

Categories