Mrs WOAR has drawn our attention to an Internet proposition that someone other than Huntley and Carr was responsible for the Soham murders and we will take a look at this, over the weekend.
The Metropolitan police officer who clubbed Mr Ian Tomlinson to the ground, causing his death was not prosecuted on the flimsy grounds that one of the pathologists involved in post mortems was of dubious reliability; that the other two pathologists are held in high professional esteem seemed irrelevant to Keir Starmer, QC, head of the CPS and government stooge. Starmer's deliberate delay in this matter also prevented the officer from being charged with the offence of assault, which is clearly visible in videotape seen all around the world.
The papers in the case of the Dunblane Children's massacre remain sealed for seventy years to "protect the murdered children's families," although the families desperately want the papers to be made public.
The papers in the case of the death of Dr David Kelly, despite a change of government, remain sealed for seventy years. The official enquiry concluded that the late Dr Kelly killed himself by opening the ulna artery in his arm with a penknife; this type of wound to a minor artery cannot usually result in sufficient loss of blood to cause death; there was little, virtually no blood found at the scene, paramedics at the scene have always insisted that Kelly did not bleed to death and a group of thirteen independent pathologists has disputed the official findings.
This, above, is a tiny slideshow of everyday injustice in HMP Britain.
The case of Sion Jenkins has this week aroused further concern about the workings of English jurisprudence and we reproduce this, below, from his own website:
The Press Association piece below makes it abundantly clear that Siôn Jenkins’ primary concern is for Sussex Police to re-investigate the case so that Billie=Jo’s killer can be found
For some reason it has just been announced that Siôn Jenkins will not receive any compensation for the six years in which he was imprisoned for a murder he did not commit.
This is perhaps unsurprising at a time when the government’s explicit intention is to save public funding. What is more, the Jenkins case was estimated to have cost an unprecendented sum of public money in the three high-profile trials which took place over a period of years.
The irony is that the original investigation was woefully flawed and that fact has never been confronted.
The Ministry of Justice’s insidious statement that it would not comment on individual cases, ‘but that damages for wrongful imprisonment were paid only when a person is shown to be “clearly innocent”’ is disturbingly imprecise and disingenuous. Despite its coy assertion that it would not comment on an individual case this is precisely what it has done.
In which universe does ‘not guilty’ mean ‘not clearly innocent’?
The issue of compensation is in fact specified by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which states:
“S.133 Compensation for miscarriages of justice
(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, when a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State shall pay compensation for the miscarriage of justice to the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction or, if he is dead, to his personal representatives, unless the non-disclosure of the unknown fact was wholly or partly attributable to the person convicted."