cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Confession

gleneagles
Community Veteran
Posts: 10,712
Thanks: 2,222
Fixes: 16
Registered: ‎02-08-2007

Confession

Has anyone else been watching that series on itv on a Monday.....Confession.

It's based on a true story of how charges could not proceed against Halliwell despite the clear evidence he was guilty of one murder, fortunately he was charged with a second murder and got 25 years.

The problem was caused by the correct proceedures not being followed, in this case no caution was given when he told police about a second victim.

There have been numerous less serious cases of people who were clearly guilty of something but a clever solicitor has found some loophole in the law.

Should the law be more flexible where there is clear evidence of someones guilt but a minor error has been made in recording evidence ?

What do you think ?

We are born into history and history is born into us.
10 REPLIES 10
Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 13,293
Thanks: 5,052
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Confession

No watched it m'self @gleneagles but I' be rather cautious about the law being 'flexible' in order to compensate for a mistake made by the police. And clearly guilty maybe, but the letter of the law must be followed otherwise all else falls.

Let's not blame a clever solicitor who is after all only doing his job, let's blame the police who should be doing their job by not screwing it up.


Don't limit the friends you haven't met with arguments you'll never have.
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Confession

I'll own up to not watching it either. Wink

wotsup
Seasoned Champion
Posts: 1,809
Thanks: 1,341
Registered: ‎21-11-2018

Re: Confession

Have been watching it and am absolutely horrified by the senior police who would rather see a very good and dedicated police officer suffer than back him up.  It is such a shame that the police service value procedure over putting criminals off the streets,  no wonder police morale is so low.  I like the reply of the policeman who was accused of not reading the suspect his rights because he was getting information from him about other victims that he would not get after reading him his rights  ( where the crim could have just said 'no comment' to everything - and no further information would have been gathered ) - he just said to tribunal ' that is where theory and practice part company'.  It is absolutely vital that no one is 'fast tracked' in the police service,  it is so important for people who will be chief constables and superintendents to have experience of how hard it can be on the front line, and not be blind to the choices and decisions people dealing with the public have to make on a minute by minute basis.   It often seems that the rights of criminals come before the rights of victims.

To treat a very good detective in the way Steve was treated is scandalous - can't wait for final episode next Monday, 9 PM.

Minesapint
Pro
Posts: 297
Thanks: 198
Registered: ‎10-11-2015

Re: Confession

No, I haven't watched it either, but I'd echo Minivanman in saying I'd be careful what I wished for.

There are always going to be loopholes in any reasonable system, and the danger is that if you try to make people automatically guilty of crimes they have "obviously" committed, your moving into the area of opinion rather than evidential proof.  

Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Confession

Judging by the comments it may well be worth while watching this on Catch-up or even DVD.

Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 13,293
Thanks: 5,052
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Confession

I would watch it @Anonymous but I can only see Martin Freeman as either Bilbo Baggins, or as Tim Canterbury from 'The Office' - which rather spoils it especially as in the latter he played such an excellent character.

As for getting any backup @wotsup  from senior officers (or even fellow officers come to that)  that is as true in real life as in fiction going from the first hand stories I've been told. 

 


Don't limit the friends you haven't met with arguments you'll never have.
Alex
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,055
Thanks: 760
Fixes: 12
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Confession

All I can say is it has happened to me (not personally).

When I did jury service the case got thrown out. Why? Because the defence realised an signed official document was a copy and the originals could not be found.

Also in a separate case have given evidence in court. Not allowed to go into it here, I'll have the Police coming over. To say it wasn't pleasant is an understatement.

From experience (for which I didn't ask for), all I can say are courts are nasty places.

gleneagles
Community Veteran
Posts: 10,712
Thanks: 2,222
Fixes: 16
Registered: ‎02-08-2007

Re: Confession


@Minesapint wrote:

No, I haven't watched it either, but I'd echo Minivanman in saying I'd be careful what I wished for.

There are always going to be loopholes in any reasonable system, and the danger is that if you try to make people automatically guilty of crimes they have "obviously" committed, your moving into the area of opinion rather than evidential proof.  


There was little doubt he actually killed this girl as he took police to where he had buried her, imagine how the family must have felt knowing he did this yet could not be charged.

So whilst I agree with those who express concern about making the law more flexible I would argue where no doubt exists that a person has committed a crime they should not be allowed to get off without charge.

I accept it's difficult to comment if you have not watched it but it's actually based on a true story ......recommended viewing !

Smiley

We are born into history and history is born into us.
RobPN
Hero
Posts: 3,743
Thanks: 1,669
Fixes: 5
Registered: ‎17-05-2013

Re: Confession


@gleneagles wrote:
 

There was little doubt he actually killed this girl as he took police to where he had buried her, imagine how the family must have felt knowing he did this yet could not be charged.

 


But taking an impassionate view,  let's face it, even if the offender was charged and found guilty it's unlikely he would have spent any longer in jail, what with concurrent sentences etc.  Now if there was the possibility of consecutive sentencing it would be a different matter.

wotsup
Seasoned Champion
Posts: 1,809
Thanks: 1,341
Registered: ‎21-11-2018

Re: Confession


@gleneagles wrote:

@Minesapint wrote:

No, I haven't watched it either, but I'd echo Minivanman in saying I'd be careful what I wished for.

There are always going to be loopholes in any reasonable system, and the danger is that if you try to make people automatically guilty of crimes they have "obviously" committed, your moving into the area of opinion rather than evidential proof.  


There was little doubt he actually killed this girl as he took police to where he had buried her, imagine how the family must have felt knowing he did this yet could not be charged.

So whilst I agree with those who express concern about making the law more flexible I would argue where no doubt exists that a person has committed a crime they should not be allowed to get off without charge.

 


 

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-09-30/what-does-the-real-steve-fulcher-think-of-itvs-a-confe...

 

There was no doubt that this bloke had killed the girl ( as you said he showed police where she was buried ) and by his slightly delaying the 'reading his rights' process the detective got clues to at least one and it looks like many more murders, which would not have happened if he had stuck rigidly to the rule of 'emergency interview' and cautioned him straight away after he admitted the first one. The guy wasn't framed or set up or anything as dodgy as that, he was just encouraged to talk before being cautioned.... There were other officers present while this was going on so they witnessed why it was being done,  but that counted for nothing because a totally rigid and archaic process 'was not followed to the last letter and full stop' - as I say, no room for any free thought in the system and the senior officers probably went and had a darned good lunch ( at taxpayers expense) after ruining the career of a brilliant officer.  Reminds me of WW1 when Generals sipping port and brandy miles back from front line moved another few lead soldiers on a map and sent another few thousand valiant troops to charge against machine guns - total stupidity by people hiding behind 'regulations'..