|
||||||||
Soap law |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Soap law
We all know that Peter Barlow won't be found guilty of murder or even go to trial as Rob will give himself away before long. However, the Crown Prosecution Service doesn't know this. So why is he in prison charged with murder ? To find someone guilty of a civil offence, the person needs to be guilty on the balance of probability. In other words, it is more likely that they did it than they didn't. However, as I am sure everyone knows, in a criminal case, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. What evidence does the CPS have to demonstrate that Peter Barlow is a murderer beyond reasonable doubt. None, given that he didn't do it.
It suits the plot I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
We all know that Peter Barlow won't be found guilty of murder or even go to trial as Rob will give himself away before long. However, the Crown Prosecution Service doesn't know this. So why is he in prison charged with murder ? To find someone guilty of a civil offence, the person needs to be guilty on the balance of probability. In other words, it is more likely that they did it than they didn't. However, as I am sure everyone knows, in a criminal case, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. What evidence does the CPS have to demonstrate that Peter Barlow is a murderer beyond reasonable doubt. None, given that he didn't do it.
It suits the plot I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Losing the plot and not caring
Posts: 68,975
|
Actually Mo, AFAIK, Peter does go to trial, and fairly soon.
As to the total lack of serious evidence, which used to be needed to bring someone to trial, have you been following real life witch hunt trials recently? Imo this is one rare instance where a soap is following the tenets of real life, however ludicrous ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
|
It is a bit bizarre, isn't it? I can't remember what evidence they said they had, apart from them banging on about how drunk Peter was. Ergo, if you're too drunk to remember what happened, you most likely killed someone.
EDIT: Something about a bracelet being found in a backyard next to the ginnel too. But any customer in the Rovers could verify that they spent most nights going thirsty as Tina spent 90% of her shifts in the smoking area and ginnel. Anyone could have flung the bracelet there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Quote:
Actually Mo, AFAIK, Peter does go to trial, and fairly soon.
As to the total lack of serious evidence, which used to be needed to bring someone to trial, have you been following real life witch hunt trials recently? Imo this is one rare instance where a soap is following the tenets of real life, however ludicrous ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Quote:
Actually Mo, AFAIK, Peter does go to trial, and fairly soon.
As to the total lack of serious evidence, which used to be needed to bring someone to trial, have you been following real life witch hunt trials recently? Imo this is one rare instance where a soap is following the tenets of real life, however ludicrous ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
|
Quote:
Ah okay, I stand corrected. Actually makes it even more ridiculous though that they would proceed with no real evidence, no witnesses, no forensic, him denying it, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,012
|
it's so stupid that Rob isn't even on the police's radar given he is the brother of Carla. Also Peter confessed to the affair so he had no motive to kill Tina at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,202
|
Quote:
It is a bit bizarre, isn't it? I can't remember what evidence they said they had, apart from them banging on about how drunk Peter was. Ergo, if you're too drunk to remember what happened, you most likely killed someone.
EDIT: Something about a bracelet being found in a backyard next to the ginnel too. But any customer in the Rovers could verify that they spent most nights going thirsty as Tina spent 90% of her shifts in the smoking area and ginnel. Anyone could have flung the bracelet there. edit his motive being his mistress being about to tell his pregnant wife of their affair isnt it normal for people to be remanded in custody when up on a murder charge? I thought it was. as for the drinking in prison yes it would happen they make it out of all sorts it how he ends up nearly dead next week. they also manage to take drugs and have phones etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Quote:
I think his fingerprints were on the bracelet and the bracelet belonged to steph and was stolen with the other jewellery the night tina died. peter also admits arguing with her in the flat and roy say him leaving add to him being drunk with sketchy memory and added to his motive means that the cps would think they have enough evidenve for him to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
edit his motive being his mistress being about to tell his pregnant wife of their affair isnt it normal for people to be remanded in custody when up on a murder charge? I thought it was. as for the drinking in prison yes it would happen they make it out of all sorts it how he ends up nearly dead next week. they also manage to take drugs and have phones etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
We all know that Peter Barlow won't be found guilty of murder or even go to trial as Rob will give himself away before long. However, the Crown Prosecution Service doesn't know this. So why is he in prison charged with murder ? To find someone guilty of a civil offence, the person needs to be guilty on the balance of probability. In other words, it is more likely that they did it than they didn't. However, as I am sure everyone knows, in a criminal case, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. What evidence does the CPS have to demonstrate that Peter Barlow is a murderer beyond reasonable doubt. None, given that he didn't do it.
It suits the plot I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
You've lost me a bit, but the whole plot is just absolutely pathetic IMO, peter drinking in prison is ridiculous! Tina's pretty much forgotten about now, it's all just very poor writing, and I don't see what's so different to what Blackburn did at emmerdale with Cameron/chas/Carl, it's a terrible storyline, and I don't think anyone's bothered now... We all know rob will be found out, it's just so predictable...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 125,435
|
Quote:
You seriously dont believe alcohol is available in prison?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
Actually Mo, AFAIK, Peter does go to trial, and fairly soon.
As to the total lack of serious evidence, which used to be needed to bring someone to trial, have you been following real life witch hunt trials recently? Imo this is one rare instance where a soap is following the tenets of real life, however ludicrous ![]() ![]() There is sufficient evidence to bring Peter to trial.His relationship with Tina, his fingerprints on eveidence, no alibi for where he was at the time etc |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27;74441908[B
]it's so stupid that Rob isn't even on the police's radar given he is the brother of Carla[/b]. Also Peter confessed to the affair so he had no motive to kill Tina at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,774
|
Yes OP great point about Soap Law, some time ago I mentioned that no one seemed to ever get compo particularly after the tram crash and reading about Tyrone's ceiling collapse he would have a big claim against the builder for personal injury.
The amount of personal injury claims with all the soaps would make all the characters very well of, so much so I'm surprised there's not an ambulance chasing solicitor with an office under the arches. A bit like Call Saul in Corrie |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
Beyond reasonable doubt is a very stringent level of proof to satisfy. The case against Peter would be a non starter. All supposition and circumstantial regarding his relationship with Tina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Quote:
Youre not getting this. The state doesnt have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the job of the jury. The state has to present a case with sufficient evidence for a prosecution, they have done that
What evidence do you feel the prosecution has that should obtain a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,202
|
Quote:
The jury has to prove a case ? Are you serious ? The jury doesn't give evidence nor does it make legal argument.
What evidence do you feel the prosecution has that should obtain a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt ? based on the evidence there would be a strong chance of conviction or he wouldnt of been charged. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22,735
|
Quote:
What? That makes no sense at all.How would him being the brother of someone mean you should be considered a suspect?
![]() If you think about it Rob did end up murdering Tina as a result of her having an affair with his sister's husband so I suppose the police are indeed doing a poor job not to look into this further. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
The jury has to prove a case ? Are you serious ? The jury doesn't give evidence nor does it make legal argument.
What evidence do you feel the prosecution has that should obtain a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt ? I didnt say the prosecution have a strong case, i said they had a prima facie case, meaning they have presented evidence to show they can go to court. Again, the prosecution doesnt have to present a case beyond reasonable doubt like you said. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
Quote:
I think he means the jury have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of whether the defendant is guilty or not.
based on the evidence there would be a strong chance of conviction or he wouldnt of been charged. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
|
Quote:
Actually it makes eminent good sense considering it was him that did it
![]() If you think about it Rob did end up murdering Tina as a result of her having an affair with his sister's husband so I suppose the police are indeed doing a poor job not to look into this further. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,012
|
Quote:
What? That makes no sense at all.How would him being the brother of someone mean you should be considered a suspect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
|
For the record, the point of this thread is that, if I can see that there is no solid evidence to show that Peter is guilty, you would think that the Crown Prosecution Service would be able to see it as well.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:27.



Imo this is one rare instance where a soap is following the tenets of real life, however ludicrous 
