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.
0
Comments
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.
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.
Complex my arse.
Then there is the contaminated blood scandal, the Horizon scandal and so on.
I guess we was only deciding on the future of the 2 men on trial so who cares about treating it seriously.
We all know we live amongst some absolute wronguns so they will be one of the 12 picked unfortunately.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.