If he was lying, then his mistake wasn't honest. The jury clearly didn't think he was lying. There is no proof he was lying, so what are the Appeal Judges going to do?
We'll see.
The issue is the nature of the proof required. It should have been made clear to the jury that they can accept he was being purposefully untruthful on the balance of probabilities.
Given not a single word he uttered could have been true, I'd say this is significant.
And I believe you WERE one of the people who misunderstood what was meant by 'permission for judicial review'.
The issue is the nature of the proof required. It should have been made clear to the jury that they can accept he was being purposefully untruthful on the balance of probabilities.
Given not a single word he uttered could have been true, I'd say this is significant.
And I believe you WERE one of the people who misunderstood what was meant by 'permission for judicial review'.
I believe you are an anti authority figure who makes ridiculous claims, without proof, against anyone you don't like, yet you'll defend to the hilt a gun carrying criminal, and write him off as a bit of a rogue who didn't know what he was doing, despite the evidence of his connections, and backgrounds.
I wonder if you spend your time in your academic prison world stirring things up. What exactly is an academic role in prison anyway?
The issue is the nature of the proof required. It should have been made clear to the jury that they can accept he was being purposefully untruthful on the balance of probabilities.
Given not a single word he uttered could have been true, I'd say this is significant.
And I believe you WERE one of the people who misunderstood what was meant by 'permission for judicial review'.
But that doesn't mean that the Jury would have agreed with it. It is far more likely that they already considered that in any case, hence the conclusion that they reached.
But that doesn't mean that the Jury would have agreed with it. It is far more likely that they already considered that in any case, hence the conclusion that they reached.
It seems pretty obvious that if they'd believed he was lying, they would not have given the lawful killing verdict. If they had any doubts, there was an Open verdict available for such situations.
The issue is the nature of the proof required. It should have been made clear to the jury that they can accept he was being purposefully untruthful on the balance of probabilities.
Given not a single word he uttered could have been true, I'd say this is significant.
And I believe you WERE one of the people who misunderstood what was meant by 'permission for judicial review'.
Were you so candid about whose side you actually appear to be on when it comes to the law and criminals ( sorry victims ) when you got your job ? because on this thread it is all too clear
Were you so candid about whose side you actually appear to be on when it comes to the law and criminals ( sorry victims ) when you got your job ? because on this thread it is all too clear
Quite worrying isn't it. I cant imagine a sense of balance being present with such anti establishment views.
Were you so candid about whose side you actually appear to be on when it comes to the law and criminals ( sorry victims ) when you got your job ? because on this thread it is all too clear
I've said something no-one has disagreed with.
That none of V53's statement can be true. I'm not even sure saying that is controversial.
As for 'sides', that's for silly people who have very infantile concepts of 'good' -vs- 'bad' like some kind of Star Wars movie.
I believe you are an anti authority figure who makes ridiculous claims, without proof, against anyone you don't like, yet you'll defend to the hilt a gun carrying criminal, and write him off as a bit of a rogue who didn't know what he was doing, despite the evidence of his connections, and backgrounds.
I wonder if you spend your time in your academic prison world stirring things up. What exactly is an academic role in prison anyway?
I've not 'defended' anyone or spoken of Duggan in these terms. That is more dishonesty.
As for 'academic role', I don't sit in prisons being an academic. My research brings me into prisons sometimes. My current research is actually focused on offender risk assessments and their validity within certain contexts. So not as sexy or interesting as people might think.
And here I thought the limited application for JR was granted because of a misdirection by the Coronor and absolutely noting to do with whether V53 lied or not. Why else is the family re-applying on the other points that they raised?
Personally, I thought the application was granted because somebody was worried that a bunch of yobs would start setting fire to shit again if lovely ol' antie Carole started whining about how they were being mistreated by da' man.
It seems pretty obvious that if they'd believed he was lying, they would not have given the lawful killing verdict. If they had any doubts, there was an Open verdict available for such situations.
As for 'academic role', I don't sit in prisons being an academic. My research brings me into prisons sometimes. My current research is actually focused on offender risk assessments and their validity within certain contexts. So not as sexy or interesting as people might think.
What do you call it if I make a mistake, I know I made a mistake and I tell you that I didn't?
If you know you made a mistake and said you didn't then you would be lieing, if you made a mistake but honestly believed you didn't then you wouldn't be lieing but mistaken.
I suppose the MoJ can be thankful for that at least if not worried.
They aren't remotely 'worried'. Criminologists are a people with a fairly wide range of views and it would be stupid and intellectually redundant to make sure you pick a certain 'type' when you ask for research on a certain topic.
It's basically saying to someone, 'these are the results I want you to 'discover' - make sure that is what your research shows'.
My specialities are risk management within the penal system (looking at the efficacy of various modelling tools) and juvenile justice.
It's quite specific so I'm perfectly at liberty to hold whatever views of the police I like - they barely feature in my research.
If you know you made a mistake and said you didn't then you would be lieing, if you made a mistake but honestly believed you didn't then you wouldn't be lieing but mistaken.
Good. Now, what if you knew I was lying, but you also believed the mistake I made was reasonable?
Yeah, we all thought it was sexy and interesting till you said that...
Sarcasm aside, it is amazing how many people assume I spend my time in Category A prisons having tea with serial killers rather than ploughing my way through risk scores and statistics on recidivism.
(And 'sexy' of course was meant in a mocking fashion - clearly lost on you).
Why my employment status is of relevance, I don't know.
You may not have realised but sometimes people on the internet tend to exaggerate a bit.
I mean, somebody could be self-published author, working out of their spare bedroom who writes anti-establishment junk for extremist websites and claims to be an "academic working in the field of criminal psychology" because they think it'll give them credibility.
Course, beyond that you get people who just flat-out make shit up if they think it'll serve a similar purpose as well.
You may not have realised but sometimes people on the internet tend to exaggerate a bit.
I mean, somebody could be self-published author, working out of their spare bedroom who writes anti-establishment junk for extremist websites and claims to be an "academic working in the field of criminal psychology" because they think it'll give them credibility.
Course, beyond that you get people who just flat-out make shit up if they think it'll serve a similar purpose as well.
You see that's just coming across as quite desperate on your part.
(I have nothing to do with 'criminal psychology' by the way - so bad luck there).
Comments
We'll see.
The issue is the nature of the proof required. It should have been made clear to the jury that they can accept he was being purposefully untruthful on the balance of probabilities.
Given not a single word he uttered could have been true, I'd say this is significant.
And I believe you WERE one of the people who misunderstood what was meant by 'permission for judicial review'.
I believe you are an anti authority figure who makes ridiculous claims, without proof, against anyone you don't like, yet you'll defend to the hilt a gun carrying criminal, and write him off as a bit of a rogue who didn't know what he was doing, despite the evidence of his connections, and backgrounds.
I wonder if you spend your time in your academic prison world stirring things up. What exactly is an academic role in prison anyway?
But that doesn't mean that the Jury would have agreed with it. It is far more likely that they already considered that in any case, hence the conclusion that they reached.
It seems pretty obvious that if they'd believed he was lying, they would not have given the lawful killing verdict. If they had any doubts, there was an Open verdict available for such situations.
Were you so candid about whose side you actually appear to be on when it comes to the law and criminals ( sorry victims ) when you got your job ? because on this thread it is all too clear
Quite worrying isn't it. I cant imagine a sense of balance being present with such anti establishment views.
I've said something no-one has disagreed with.
That none of V53's statement can be true. I'm not even sure saying that is controversial.
As for 'sides', that's for silly people who have very infantile concepts of 'good' -vs- 'bad' like some kind of Star Wars movie.
And I could equally say it's quite worrying that you won't even countenance the possibility that V53 lied.
Disturbing in fact. Because it is precisely this attitude that has allowed so many abuses in the past.
What do you call it if I make a mistake, I know I made a mistake and I tell you that I didn't?
I've not 'defended' anyone or spoken of Duggan in these terms. That is more dishonesty.
As for 'academic role', I don't sit in prisons being an academic. My research brings me into prisons sometimes. My current research is actually focused on offender risk assessments and their validity within certain contexts. So not as sexy or interesting as people might think.
Personally, I thought the application was granted because somebody was worried that a bunch of yobs would start setting fire to shit again if lovely ol' antie Carole started whining about how they were being mistreated by da' man.
Nail firmly on head.
Isn't that exactly what the jury did?
Can I ask who you actually work for?
And exactly what you've been doing on this topic.
Talking about evidence... police removing the gun from the taxi?
My main employer is a university (and no, I'm not telling you which one) but the research I am currently doing has been commissioned by NOMS.
Why my employment status is of relevance, I don't know.
I should say though that I have MoJ clearance for contact with exceptionally high risk prisoners in maximum security settings.
And I will also say that nothing I say online is privileged. All opinions are my own.
If you know you made a mistake and said you didn't then you would be lieing, if you made a mistake but honestly believed you didn't then you wouldn't be lieing but mistaken.
I suppose the MoJ can be thankful for that at least if not worried.
They aren't remotely 'worried'. Criminologists are a people with a fairly wide range of views and it would be stupid and intellectually redundant to make sure you pick a certain 'type' when you ask for research on a certain topic.
It's basically saying to someone, 'these are the results I want you to 'discover' - make sure that is what your research shows'.
My specialities are risk management within the penal system (looking at the efficacy of various modelling tools) and juvenile justice.
It's quite specific so I'm perfectly at liberty to hold whatever views of the police I like - they barely feature in my research.
Good. Now, what if you knew I was lying, but you also believed the mistake I made was reasonable?
Sarcasm aside, it is amazing how many people assume I spend my time in Category A prisons having tea with serial killers rather than ploughing my way through risk scores and statistics on recidivism.
(And 'sexy' of course was meant in a mocking fashion - clearly lost on you).
You may not have realised but sometimes people on the internet tend to exaggerate a bit.
I mean, somebody could be self-published author, working out of their spare bedroom who writes anti-establishment junk for extremist websites and claims to be an "academic working in the field of criminal psychology" because they think it'll give them credibility.
Course, beyond that you get people who just flat-out make shit up if they think it'll serve a similar purpose as well.
You see that's just coming across as quite desperate on your part.
(I have nothing to do with 'criminal psychology' by the way - so bad luck there).
Bit defensive there.
Surely you didn't think I was implying anything about you?
Not really defensive - an observation.
I think it perfectly obvious what your implication was and I'll repeat - it is desperate. And a bit immature.