DS Forums

 
 

Soap law


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-08-2014, 13:49
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152

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.
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-08-2014, 14:01
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
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.
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...
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 14:31
Oldnjaded
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
Oldnjaded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 14:33
J-B
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.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 14:52
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
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
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.
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 14:53
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
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
Sorry, didn't see the second bit. I haven't been following but very little surprises me these days.
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 15:27
jsmith99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
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.
Well, barry george and colin stagg went to their trials with not a shred of evidence against them. What could the three have n common? Oh yes, the victim was an attractive woman, so obviously somebody has to pay for it.
jsmith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 15:34
sorcha_healy27
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.
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 15:35
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,202
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.
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.
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 15:40
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
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.
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.
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:19
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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.
There is a prima facie case against him which basically means the burden of proof to bring a case is sufficient
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:20
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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...
You seriously dont believe alcohol is available in prison?
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:23
Sez_babe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 125,435
You seriously dont believe alcohol is available in prison?
Going by other dramas and TV shows, most things are available in prison - you have to know where to look.
Sez_babe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:23
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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
The fact he is going to trial soon is stupid as a murder trial with a not guilty plea normally takes 12 months to reach Crown Court.
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
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:26
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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.
What? That makes no sense at all.How would him being the brother of someone mean you should be considered a suspect?
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:26
jojoeno
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
jojoeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 16:28
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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.
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
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:17
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
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
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 ?
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:21
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,202
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 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.
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:23
trevor tiger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22,735
What? That makes no sense at all.How would him being the brother of someone mean you should be considered a suspect?
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.
trevor tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:24
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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 mean that and you know it.. The prosecution presents a case, the defence refutes it. The jury then decide if they can convict and find someone guilty beyond a 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.
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:25
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
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.
On what evidence ?
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:27
jackol
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,436
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.
Nope still dont get it. If your sisters husband was having an affair and the mistress got killed does that mean the police would come banging on your door? Highly unlikely
jackol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:29
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,012
What? That makes no sense at all.How would him being the brother of someone mean you should be considered a suspect?
A man who has a record and is the brother of the wronged woman.
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2014, 17:31
mo mouse
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.
mo mouse is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:27.