| Clydach murders on 15:25 - Oct 21 with 2310 views | trampie |
The conduct of the police directly involved in this case is unbelievable, if somebody else had been put on trial for these murders before Morris was would that other person (persons) had been found guilty ???
I know a lot won't understand that paragraph, others were in the frame probably before Morris, from what I had read some would say there was an equally if not stronger case against others, if one of them had been put on trial before Morris for the same crimes, then one of them might have been found guilty of the same crimes he was, as some individuals were not able to give reasons for their whereabouts, behaviour etc and some would say that there would have been more motive on the part of others than there was on Morris part.
It all underlines that the process is a game, a legal game, lots of innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit, I'm not saying that is the case here but from the legal game point of view, was he guilty beyond reasonable doubt ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 15:32]
|  |
|  |
| Clydach murders on 16:01 - Oct 21 with 2284 views | trampie |
Just noticed the name of the programme the Beeb are putting out about it tomorrow, it's called :- The Clydach Murders: Beyond Reasonable Doubt. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 16:09 - Oct 21 with 2275 views | Andy1300 |
| Clydach murders on 15:25 - Oct 21 by trampie |
The conduct of the police directly involved in this case is unbelievable, if somebody else had been put on trial for these murders before Morris was would that other person (persons) had been found guilty ???
I know a lot won't understand that paragraph, others were in the frame probably before Morris, from what I had read some would say there was an equally if not stronger case against others, if one of them had been put on trial before Morris for the same crimes, then one of them might have been found guilty of the same crimes he was, as some individuals were not able to give reasons for their whereabouts, behaviour etc and some would say that there would have been more motive on the part of others than there was on Morris part.
It all underlines that the process is a game, a legal game, lots of innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit, I'm not saying that is the case here but from the legal game point of view, was he guilty beyond reasonable doubt ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 15:32]
|
No he wasn’t guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The one who most believe is the real killer, is now in a completely different job where nobody is allowed to ask of his previous job [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 16:13]
|  |
| |
| Clydach murders on 16:10 - Oct 21 with 2275 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 15:07 - Oct 21 by trampie |
Beyond reasonable doubt ?, that is the test, has that standard been met in this case ?, from what I've read I would say it hasn't, that doesn't mean the convicted is innocent of the crime just that it's not beyond reasonable doubt and therefore should not have been found guilty.
Court cases are a game, it's not about finding the truth, whether somebody was guilty or not guilty but who has the best barristers or at least which side can persuade the jury on any given case.
As regards been found guilty twice, in the first case there was a conflict of interest, in the second case the jury probably knew the outcome of the first case.
As regards multiple retrials and appeals it doesn't necessarily underline the original verdict, as new evidence has to be introduced, so if the jury got it wrong then it's doubly hard for somebody to get it overturned, multiple cases and appeals might mean the case is more unsafe than the person definitely done it. |
From what you read isnt necessarily right. The police put a case for perversion of the course of justice again the Lewis family to the Crown Prosecution Service who rejected it. This wasnt for murder. Some who intensely dislike the Police use that to say they were involved in the murder.
The case against Morris was whether he committed murder. It had nothing to do with the Lewis family although his defence team tried to make them the guilty party. He was told by one of his legal team he couldnt represent him because he had represented one of the Lewis family. Morris still wanted the solicitor to represent him even though he knew about the conflict of interest and the solicitor did so.
The bottom line is we werent there. 2 juries were and the trials used judges outside Wales. The Dawson/Power family also sat through the trials and they are also convinced of him being guilty. No book or TV programme is going to change that. |  | | |
| Clydach murders on 16:24 - Oct 21 with 2261 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 16:10 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
From what you read isnt necessarily right. The police put a case for perversion of the course of justice again the Lewis family to the Crown Prosecution Service who rejected it. This wasnt for murder. Some who intensely dislike the Police use that to say they were involved in the murder.
The case against Morris was whether he committed murder. It had nothing to do with the Lewis family although his defence team tried to make them the guilty party. He was told by one of his legal team he couldnt represent him because he had represented one of the Lewis family. Morris still wanted the solicitor to represent him even though he knew about the conflict of interest and the solicitor did so.
The bottom line is we werent there. 2 juries were and the trials used judges outside Wales. The Dawson/Power family also sat through the trials and they are also convinced of him being guilty. No book or TV programme is going to change that. |
What I've read isn't necessarily right and what you've read is right is it ?, oh aye.
The question is did he do it beyond reasonable doubt ?
That is not to say he did or didn't do it, but did he do it beyond reasonable doubt ?, that is the fuss around the case. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 16:49]
| |
| |
| Clydach murders on 16:49 - Oct 21 with 2247 views | Joe_bradshaw |
We can only judge the verdicts if we’ve heard all the evidence put before the court. Every scrap of it because the devil is sometimes in the detail. Not just the “sexy” bits in the press or the books written from a biased standpoint and in order to make money.
Two juries have decided he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They have heard the complete evidence. |  |
| |
| Clydach murders on 17:04 - Oct 21 with 2243 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 16:24 - Oct 21 by trampie |
What I've read isn't necessarily right and what you've read is right is it ?, oh aye.
The question is did he do it beyond reasonable doubt ?
That is not to say he did or didn't do it, but did he do it beyond reasonable doubt ?, that is the fuss around the case. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 16:49]
|
2 juries who heard all the evidence decided unanimously on 2 separate occasions it was guilty. Each and every member of the 23 who sat felt it was beyond reasonable doubt or they wouldn't have found him guilty. That speaks volumes yet those who read books or see TV programmes and didnt hear all the evidence believe otherwise.
I dont think anybody other than those who sat through the trial are in a better position to decide otherwise on what is basically hearsay. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 19:55 - Oct 21 with 2441 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 17:04 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
2 juries who heard all the evidence decided unanimously on 2 separate occasions it was guilty. Each and every member of the 23 who sat felt it was beyond reasonable doubt or they wouldn't have found him guilty. That speaks volumes yet those who read books or see TV programmes and didnt hear all the evidence believe otherwise.
I dont think anybody other than those who sat through the trial are in a better position to decide otherwise on what is basically hearsay. |
I watched the English nanny case, they convicted her of murder and that was educated jurors (not ordinary members of the public) with a so called top judge, I strongly felt at the time seeing the same evidence as the jurors that it was not proved that she had done it, she might have, but I didn't think it was proved that she had and I was not alone in that, in fact somebody I knew really well had also watched the live case for hours and hours everyday and came to the exact same conclusion as me, we spoke when the jury was out and we both thought that she was going to get done not because they proved it, they didn't in our view but because of the way everything went, the barristers behaviour, the way the judge handled it.
Apparently now expert witnesses for the prosecution have changed their mind, jurors are said to have changed their mind, they were for acquittal but to 2 or 3 that was initially for a guilty verdict happened to be the stronger personalities and persuaded the others, the top judge was shocking allowing jurors to rehear prosecution evidence but not defence evidence, if I remember right the alternate jurors smashed the place up when they heard the verdict the judge went white (probably realising his part) and without looking things up he retired on the spot after sentencing, no death penalty, time served I believe, the family thought her guilty and wanted the maximum sentence, by the way the American system was based on our system.
Juries often get it wrong, because a jury finds somebody guilty it doesn't mean they are guilty in reality, when there are eye witnesses ,forensic evidence, strong motive etc fine but when those things are missing or flimsy then it should not be easy to get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction, in this case not only is it not open and shut there are others in the picture as well.
Like I previously said, once convicted it becomes hard to overturn but should he have been convicted in the first place based on the known evidence. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clydach murders on 20:31 - Oct 21 with 2413 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 19:55 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I watched the English nanny case, they convicted her of murder and that was educated jurors (not ordinary members of the public) with a so called top judge, I strongly felt at the time seeing the same evidence as the jurors that it was not proved that she had done it, she might have, but I didn't think it was proved that she had and I was not alone in that, in fact somebody I knew really well had also watched the live case for hours and hours everyday and came to the exact same conclusion as me, we spoke when the jury was out and we both thought that she was going to get done not because they proved it, they didn't in our view but because of the way everything went, the barristers behaviour, the way the judge handled it.
Apparently now expert witnesses for the prosecution have changed their mind, jurors are said to have changed their mind, they were for acquittal but to 2 or 3 that was initially for a guilty verdict happened to be the stronger personalities and persuaded the others, the top judge was shocking allowing jurors to rehear prosecution evidence but not defence evidence, if I remember right the alternate jurors smashed the place up when they heard the verdict the judge went white (probably realising his part) and without looking things up he retired on the spot after sentencing, no death penalty, time served I believe, the family thought her guilty and wanted the maximum sentence, by the way the American system was based on our system.
Juries often get it wrong, because a jury finds somebody guilty it doesn't mean they are guilty in reality, when there are eye witnesses ,forensic evidence, strong motive etc fine but when those things are missing or flimsy then it should not be easy to get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction, in this case not only is it not open and shut there are others in the picture as well.
Like I previously said, once convicted it becomes hard to overturn but should he have been convicted in the first place based on the known evidence. |
So you dont accept the jury's verdict. Were you there. How much of the evidence did you see. What do you want to replace the Jury with.
The fact is that every juror backed this verdict. The family who sat through these trials believe the verdict was right. I had a discussion years ago with the father of one of the press team covering the trial. She sat through the trial and could only see one verdict. Her senior reporter at the time was convinced of his guilt. A friend of mine who was a full time defence solicitor said to me he was guilty and gave me the reason why and he defended people every day. All these people must be wrong and you right based on a book or TV programme. If the jury had any doubt they would need to acquit but not one of them did. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 20:39 - Oct 21 with 2408 views | onehunglow |
When people ay they want justice ,it means they want the verdict to see their friend etc found not guilty or guilty as the case may be to suit them. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 20:51 - Oct 21 with 2398 views | Dr_Winston |
Let's be honest, there are a lot of people who subscribe to the view that "ACAB" and there's nothing you can do to convince them that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice.
Two trials, numerous appeals and the opinion of people who saw all the evidence don't register with them. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Clydach murders on 20:58 - Oct 21 with 2386 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 20:31 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
So you dont accept the jury's verdict. Were you there. How much of the evidence did you see. What do you want to replace the Jury with.
The fact is that every juror backed this verdict. The family who sat through these trials believe the verdict was right. I had a discussion years ago with the father of one of the press team covering the trial. She sat through the trial and could only see one verdict. Her senior reporter at the time was convinced of his guilt. A friend of mine who was a full time defence solicitor said to me he was guilty and gave me the reason why and he defended people every day. All these people must be wrong and you right based on a book or TV programme. If the jury had any doubt they would need to acquit but not one of them did. |
I seen all of the nanny case, as regards the Morris case I accept the verdict whether they should have reached that verdict is another matter., I wouldn't replace trial by jury. as no system is perfect.
Two questions for you.
1) do you think juries always get it right ?
2) put a percentage on how certain you are that Morris is guilty, do you think Morris in your own mind for example 51% guilty of the crimes, 75% guilty, 100% guilty ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 21:08]
| |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:00 - Oct 21 with 2382 views | onehunglow |
On the money there Doc.
Some bad apples do not a rotten orchard make.
Corruption is nothing like it was in the 50s/60s when Police were paid a pittance .
The advent of mobile phones has meant working officers ,even faced with overwheming shytes, have to be careful to stick to rules and procedures chapter and verse.
There are far more corrupt group of "professionals " stating with politicians who pass the rules /laws in the first place | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:07 - Oct 21 with 2370 views | Dr_Winston |
Even as far as the 80's. There have been coppers who gleefully bragged about looking forward to smacking around people on a peaceful night out.
Thankfully that Neanderthal breed of Copper are largely extinct. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:09 - Oct 21 with 2366 views | majorraglan |
| Clydach murders on 20:51 - Oct 21 by Dr_Winston |
Let's be honest, there are a lot of people who subscribe to the view that "ACAB" and there's nothing you can do to convince them that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice.
Two trials, numerous appeals and the opinion of people who saw all the evidence don't register with them. |
Good post.
Some will always believe there been a miscarriage of justice and others are convinced he’s guilty.
The fact his DNA wasn’t found isn’t really pivotal, the use of bleach was documented, on top of that the place was set on fire and after that I am sure the fire service would have doused the place in hundreds of gallons of water. Lots of evidence would potentially have been burnt of washed away.
I keep an open mind in relation to books and TV, because they can be couched in such away as to promote a particular view or opinion - we are seeing that with the US election where all the channels are pursuing their own agenda. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 21:10 - Oct 21 with 2361 views | onehunglow |
I certainly did not do that. If that's a reference to me .I post for effect ,as you well know. It s like bashing miners . Its like ...y know.
Certainly ,Ive laid out many but only when faced with odds that would see my missus getting one of those calls at home from a Superintendent and a female Family Liaison officer. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:11 - Oct 21 with 2360 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 20:58 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I seen all of the nanny case, as regards the Morris case I accept the verdict whether they should have reached that verdict is another matter., I wouldn't replace trial by jury. as no system is perfect.
Two questions for you.
1) do you think juries always get it right ?
2) put a percentage on how certain you are that Morris is guilty, do you think Morris in your own mind for example 51% guilty of the crimes, 75% guilty, 100% guilty ? [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 21:08]
|
Juries dont always get it right but they usually find not guilty verdicts instead of guilty rather than the other way around as they give the benefit of doubt and most often have anti police element anyway.
I believe 2 juries, families, press who sat through the case and all believe it. I believe 100% that he did it. There are serious questions why nobody noticed he didnt have the chain that night in the pub if he had left it the previous night. How he could walk from the New Inn to Llangyfelach and back and nobody saw him. How he changed his story about the chain just before the trial when the prosecution advised the defence of its evidence but at the end of the day I wasnt at the trial. The juries were and they heard all the evidence and were convinced. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 with 2347 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:11 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
Juries dont always get it right but they usually find not guilty verdicts instead of guilty rather than the other way around as they give the benefit of doubt and most often have anti police element anyway.
I believe 2 juries, families, press who sat through the case and all believe it. I believe 100% that he did it. There are serious questions why nobody noticed he didnt have the chain that night in the pub if he had left it the previous night. How he could walk from the New Inn to Llangyfelach and back and nobody saw him. How he changed his story about the chain just before the trial when the prosecution advised the defence of its evidence but at the end of the day I wasnt at the trial. The juries were and they heard all the evidence and were convinced. |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:31 - Oct 21 with 2338 views | Andy1300 |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 by trampie |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. |
He’s always right, haven’t you gathered that yet? | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:39 - Oct 21 with 2334 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 21:25 - Oct 21 by trampie |
Oh so juries don't always get it right, but this one does is it.
And juries are anti police as well are they.
How can you be 100% certain this guy is guilty with no direct evidence of guilt, no eye witnesses, no video footage, a lack of forensic evidence and others in the frame, yet you are 100% certain he did it, interesting. |
Because unlike you I dont think I know better than people who spent weeks hearing the evidence. I dont base it on a book I read either. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 with 2322 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:39 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
Because unlike you I dont think I know better than people who spent weeks hearing the evidence. I dont base it on a book I read either. |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:50 - Oct 21 with 2313 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. |
The jury heard all the evidence presented to the court. That is the only evidence that they can consider. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 21:51 - Oct 21 with 2310 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 21:50 - Oct 21 by Joe_bradshaw |
The jury heard all the evidence presented to the court. That is the only evidence that they can consider. |
Yes exactly. | |
| |
| Clydach murders on 22:09 - Oct 21 with 2295 views | exhmrc1 |
| Clydach murders on 21:45 - Oct 21 by trampie |
I haven't read a book, you don't know if they heard all the evidence, in the nanny case they didn't, pre existing injuries before her time, the hot shot yank lawyers thought it might look as if it was blaming other Americans close to the dead baby, big mistake but it just shows the jury didn't hear all the available evidence, you don't know if this jury heard all the evidence, you just think they did. |
They sat weeks hearing and considering evidence and at the end decided he was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT twice. Separate jurors, different judges in other places. If there was reasonable doubt they would have acquitted. That term sometimes leads to defendant's who have committed crimes being found not guilty. It is necessary so that you are sure before you convict but at the end of the day some are not found guilty even though they have done it and that sometimes happens so juries dont get the right verdict for understandable reasons. | | | |
| Clydach murders on 22:14 - Oct 21 with 2286 views | trampie |
| Clydach murders on 22:09 - Oct 21 by exhmrc1 |
They sat weeks hearing and considering evidence and at the end decided he was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT twice. Separate jurors, different judges in other places. If there was reasonable doubt they would have acquitted. That term sometimes leads to defendant's who have committed crimes being found not guilty. It is necessary so that you are sure before you convict but at the end of the day some are not found guilty even though they have done it and that sometimes happens so juries dont get the right verdict for understandable reasons. |
They have sat for weeks in other cases and come up with what proved to be the wrong verdict. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
