Miscarriages of justice when found not guilty

[Chris_Halkides]

It did not even go to trial.

But they were convicted, weren't they? The thread is supposed to be about people whose lives were destroyed even though they were acquitted.

No, they were not even tried. They were indicted in April and May of 2006 and were declared innocent by North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper in April of 2007. I thought that if we took the average of being wrongfully convicted and being wrongfully accused but not tried, that would equal being found not guilty and get this thread back on track (J/K).

They fit into the category of people whose lives were upended by a false accusation primarily on two grounds. One, they suffered great reputational harm. Their names and photographs were national news, and there was plenty of hate directed at them and their fellow players, thanks to people like Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy at the national level. In Durham itself, there were calls to castrate the players (it was a short-lived hysteria, fortunately). Two, each of the three families is believed to have spent between one and two million dollars toward their defense; however, the exact amounts are not known. Duke University settled with the three players for a sum that was probably greater than their legal bills, however, six million for each player. A (weighty in mass if not in substance) 2014 book tried to revive the case against the three and lamented that there had been no trial to test the evidence.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I think I was getting mixed up with a different case. That's absolutely a good example.

 

[fuelair]

Interesting topic. Having had some very up close and personal contact with Police Scotland detectives over the past three years my impression is that things are getting better and modern police training and methods is concentrating more on objective evidence and thorough investigation with an open mind.

On the other hand, I may be deluding myself.

Over here, I wish!!!!!

 

[Nessie]

I have it on good authority that the standard of recruit to Police Scotland is getting worse (senior police officer source). Then there is this lunacy

https://chiefsuptmcinulty.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/reasons-to-be-proud/

A blog by the Divisional Commander of Greater Glasgow Police Division, where he states about new recruits

"On the verge of going out to protect our communities, it is interesting that the question “how do we ensure that we don’t make a mistake?” always comes up. The easy answer to that is to stay at home. The complex range of issues that police officers deal with day in and day out means that we will make mistakes. As leaders, we must do everything we can to empower our officers to do the right thing and not to be afraid to make a mistake."

That can only be written by someone who has never been the victim of a "mistake". His message is a frightening one of, do not worry if you lock up the wrong person.

 

[Aber]

I have it on good authority that the standard of recruit to Police Scotland is getting worse (senior police officer source). Then there is this lunacy

https://chiefsuptmcinulty.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/reasons-to-be-proud/

A blog by the Divisional Commander of Greater Glasgow Police Division, where he states about new recruits

"On the verge of going out to protect our communities, it is interesting that the question “how do we ensure that we don’t make a mistake?” always comes up. The easy answer to that is to stay at home. The complex range of issues that police officers deal with day in and day out means that we will make mistakes. As leaders, we must do everything we can to empower our officers to do the right thing and not to be afraid to make a mistake."

That can only be written by someone who has never been the victim of a "mistake". His message is a frightening one of, do not worry if you lock up the wrong person.

It depends.

If the organisation has a culture where mistakes are freely admitted, root cause analysis done, and training improved to prevent the same mistake happening again, it's not a problem.

A culture where mistakes are denied and covered up however...

 

[Henri McPhee]

I'm really only interested in the Jeffrey MacDonald case, and the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Darlie Routier case in America, and some of these family court decisions where there has been an undiagnosed rare genetic disorder involved, and people lose their babies, or end up on death row..

There is an interesting opinion about all this on the internet, which is probably true:

By Olivia Goldhill
3:50PM BST 04 Sep 2014

Comment

“People think that miscarriages of justice are rare and exceptional,” says Dr Michael Naughton, founder of the UK Innocence Project. “But every single day, people are overturning convictions for criminal offences. Miscarriages of justice are routine, even mundane features of the criminal justice system. They are systemic.”

On Wednesday, two men were released from prison in North Carolina after DNA evidence overturned their convictions for rape and murder. Similar miscarriages of justice could happen in Britain – and have done, surprisingly recently.

As recently as last year, there were innocent men inside Britain's prisons - as these high-profile cases that were eventually ruled as wrongful convictions show.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Officialdom never admits a mistake in miscarriage of justice cases, probably because of problems over compensation. It was just the same with medical negligence claims several years ago, which are now a financial problem for the NHS in the UK, or trying to sue the banks now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Patrick Waring case in Australia

Patrick's father, Terry Waring, said his family had been torn apart for a year. His and his wife's belief in the justice system had been shattered."Shoddy work, cruelty and seeming vindictiveness cost us our house, financial security and a lifetime of savings for a three-week trial," he said.

"The emotional cost to the family has been incalculable. Personally, I have not cried as much since my brother was killed in Vietnam.""It's the finish of school for Patrick," Mr Waring said.

"He's lost virtually all of Year 11 and the start of Year 12 and he's had to grow up very fast. He lost his youth in there."We didn't tell anyone at school what had happened to him. He just disappeared. And now we couldn't send him back there to face the ramifications of this." link

The case of Patrick Waring is an interesting case because of some dubious DNA reporting as well.

 

[Rolfe]

Wow, that's a classic of the genre.

 

[Henri McPhee]

A gross miscarriage of justice is a serious matter.

 

[Samson]

A gross miscarriage of justice must be fully explained to the complacent. IT COULD BE THEIR DAUGHTER.

It was, as we know from Knox.

IT COULD BE THEIR SON.

It was as we know from Sollecito.

The families lose all their money, which really does matter more than people gloss over.

 

[Henri McPhee]

A gross miscarriage of justice must be fully explained to the complacent. IT COULD BE THEIR DAUGHTER.

It was, as we know from Knox.

IT COULD BE THEIR SON.

It was as we know from Sollecito.

The families lose all their money, which really does matter more than people gloss over.

It can land you in financial ruin.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the Patrick Waring case

"The Warings had to re-mortgage their house in Beldon to pay for the trial and they moved to Canning Vale to be close to the Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre so they could visit Patrick daily. Patrick's mother, Marie, resigned her nursing job at Joondalup Health Campus and his father took leave from the commonwealth public service to cope with the trauma." link2. I am not entirely confident that this blog is a good news source, but none of these details are too surprising, either.

"Patrick's 24-year-old brother, Michael, also lost a year of study for his degree in computer science and information systems because of the ordeal. His 25-year-old sister Danielle has changed her plans to study civil law and is studying criminal law at Notre Dame University." link2 Same caveat.

Sue Ellery replied to a question, "The questions reflect a misunderstanding of the DNA evidence used in the case by assuming that the DNA evidence in some way exonerated Mr Waring. In fact, the DNA evidence implicated him, so the three months’ delay in PathWest providing its report had no impact upon the period he was held in custody awaiting trial." link3 This may be the best thread to explore the intricacies of the DNA evidence of this case, but I am not sure that the Honorable Sue Ellery is correct. It might be CYA. Besides, her answer dodges the question of why Mr. Waring was initially held without bail.

 

[Nessie]

Those involved should be punished, sadly, that never happens.

 

[Samson]

Those involved should be punished, sadly, that never happens.

Here is a new judgement, well worth reading, where a man was arrested, held in custody for a murder, first there was a mistrial, then the crown abandoned the case. The judgement discusses various matters, especially the need for the police to be unfettered in their pursuit of criminals, whether getting to the right answer or not.. I am not saying more because I have only read it once, there are many intriguing twists in the judgement. Parts concerning dna may be helpful in the Mark Lundy case.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/king-v-attorney-general/@@images/fileDecision?r=748.716654565

 

[Planigale]

It depends.

If the organisation has a culture where mistakes are freely admitted, root cause analysis done, and training improved to prevent the same mistake happening again, it's not a problem.

A culture where mistakes are denied and covered up however...

I agree with this. If the police recognise and accept individuals make mistakes, have a system where those mistakes can be recognised and corrected that is far healthier than denying that mistakes can be made.

 

[Planigale]

Officialdom never admits a mistake in miscarriage of justice cases, probably because of problems over compensation. It was just the same with medical negligence claims several years ago, which are now a financial problem for the NHS in the UK, or trying to sue the banks now.

I would disagree the creation of the criminal cases review system (in England and Wales) that only comes into play once conventional legal appeal process has been exhausted is an official recognition that miscarriages of justice occur. What is shocking is the number of cases they identify as needing review.

 

[Planigale]

Patrick's father, Terry Waring, said his family had been torn apart for a year. His and his wife's belief in the justice system had been shattered."Shoddy work, cruelty and seeming vindictiveness cost us our house, financial security and a lifetime of savings for a three-week trial," he said.

"The emotional cost to the family has been incalculable. Personally, I have not cried as much since my brother was killed in Vietnam.""It's the finish of school for Patrick," Mr Waring said.

"He's lost virtually all of Year 11 and the start of Year 12 and he's had to grow up very fast. He lost his youth in there."We didn't tell anyone at school what had happened to him. He just disappeared. And now we couldn't send him back there to face the ramifications of this." link

The case of Patrick Waring is an interesting case because of some dubious DNA reporting as well.

While not ameliorating the trauma for the individual and family, in the UK as a child the accused would have been anonymous. Unfortunately this will continue to follow him through the internet, unless he changes his name.

 

[Nessie]

Here is a new judgement, well worth reading, where a man was arrested, held in custody for a murder, first there was a mistrial, then the crown abandoned the case. The judgement discusses various matters, especially the need for the police to be unfettered in their pursuit of criminals, whether getting to the right answer or not.. I am not saying more because I have only read it once, there are many intriguing twists in the judgement. Parts concerning dna may be helpful in the Mark Lundy case.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/king-v-attorney-general/@@images/fileDecision?r=748.716654565

It does not read well as the Judge comments on no duty of care by the police towards the suspect

 

[Samson]

It does not read well as the Judge comments on no duty of care by the police towards the suspect

Trials can ruin witnesses as well as wrongly accused, with loss of income and many other ramifications. Today North and south magazine described a witness in the Swedish tourist case in which incidentally they got the wrong man, David Tamihere, who spent 22 years in jail. I will try to get the passage from on line to illustrate.

 

[Nessie]

Here is another example of how the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty is ignored, this time by the Scottish National Party;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-takes-different-view-michelle-thomson-claim/

Nicola Sturgeon can "take a different view" all she wants. When MSP Michelle Thomson was accused of being part of an alleged mortgage fraud, she has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But no, she was removed from the party and lost her career as an MSP. The final result was

"Ms Thomson, who has always denied any wrongdoing, said last week she had been “completely exonerated” after the Crown Office disclosed there would be no criminal proceedings due to an absence of sufficient evidence."

 

[Rolfe]

Agree entirely. But it was a political decision and politics is a tough old business. The SNP's political opponents were going to get the result they wanted either way on this one. It was a lose-lose scenario.

 

[Samson]

Here is the passage I referred to in the murdered swedes case, in which I add, the police jailed the wrong man for22 years.

For Eddie Corbett, too, his sighting of the Subaru on that critical weekend in
April was to be only the start of his involvement in the case. Some days after
running into Cornish and his friends, Corbett noticed “a baggage ticket” with
the name Paakkonen on it, hanging from a string attached to the barbed wire
fence at the track entrance. “I just looked at it, wondered what it
was, and threw it down,” he told Tamihere’s trial in 1990. He also noticed what
he thought were rubbish bags along the fence line and over the bank towards
the creek.
When the media began publicising the Swedes’ disappearance on May 26, Corbett
recalled the name on the label. He told the court he returned to the spot,
found it where he’d discarded it in the long grass the month before, and took
it to the police station.

The case has taken a toll on Corbett, now 73, who says he lost countless
hours of work because of his commitments to the investigation and attending
court hearings. “It cost me my marriage, my whole life. It financially destroyed
me, not being able to work. It was a hell of a burden on the family. The stress
was unbelievable. Dealing with the cops; cops arriving in the middle of the night,
questioning the kids. No way I’d go through that **** again. I’d go to jail
before I’d be back at court..

 

[Nessie]

Agree entirely. But it was a political decision and politics is a tough old business. The SNP's political opponents were going to get the result they wanted either way on this one. It was a lose-lose scenario.

That the right to innocent until proven guilty is ignored for MSPs and it is just a political football, is why COPFS and Police Scotland feel safe ignoring it. It would have been a win if the SNP had made it very clear S6(2) of the Human Rights Act applies to ALL.

It is a different matter if an MSP (or any other official) decides themselves to step down during a criminal investigation. I am sure many would find the pressure and all the work required during a criminal investigation too much of an extra burden.

 

[Nessie]

Trials can ruin witnesses as well as wrongly accused, with loss of income and many other ramifications. Today North and south magazine described a witness in the Swedish tourist case in which incidentally they got the wrong man, David Tamihere, who spent 22 years in jail. I will try to get the passage from on line to illustrate.

The Tamihere case is not applicable to this thread. When found guilty there is an appeal/mis-trial etc process.

The point here is that when a person is accused of a crime and then the case is found to be bogus and it is dropped or they are found not guilty, there is no recourse for that person and any suffering caused to them. Those who made the accusation walk away, despite failing in their duty to ensure there is sufficient credible evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The point here is that when a person is accused of a crime and then the case is found to be bogus and it is dropped or they are found not guilty, there is no recourse for that person and any suffering caused to them. Those who made the accusation walk away, despite failing in their duty to ensure there is sufficient credible evidence.

Just as a general point, the whole purpose of an investigation is to determine if there is sufficient credible evidence.

How other people use that process as a political cudgel is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Nessie]

Just as a general point, the whole purpose of an investigation is to determine if there is sufficient credible evidence.

How other people use that process as a political cudgel is an entirely separate issue.

When even members of parliament are investigated as if they are guilty from the start, no wonder the culture in Scotland for the police and prosecution is to ignore Article 6 of our Human Rights.

 

[quadraginta]

When even members of parliament are investigated as if they are guilty from the start, no wonder the culture in Scotland for the police and prosecution is to ignore Article 6 of our Human Rights.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here.

I'm saying that investigation is part of the process to determine if there is reason to prosecute. It is the method by which evidence is collected. Obviously some indication that a crime may have been committed is a necessary precursor.

Otherwise, what would they be looking for?

Your concern seems to be not with the investigation itself, but the way other people are behaving.

 

[Nessie]

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here.

I'm saying that investigation is part of the process to determine if there is reason to prosecute. It is the method by which evidence is collected. Obviously some indication that a crime may have been committed is a necessary precursor.

Otherwise, what would they be looking for?

Your concern seems to be not with the investigation itself, but the way other people are behaving.

My concern is that the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon ignored the presumption of innocence for one of their own MSPs. She was treated as if she was guilty by suspending her.

 

[Rolfe]

Point of clarification. She wasn't suspended, she resigned "voluntarily". How hard her arm may have been twisted is another matter.

This is just part of the pernicious consequences of having almost the entire Scottish media virulently and venomously opposed to the Scottish government. It has been noted by independent commentators on the state of NHS Scotland that necessary/desirable reforms simply cannot be undertaken in this climate because the anti-SNP press would inevitably pillory the government mercilessly and in so doing talk down the NHS and its staff even further.

Similarly here, where the MP in question wasn't even under investigation. A solicitor she had used in connection with property transactions which took place several years before she was elected to parliament was investigated. She had resigned from the company she was with at the time these transactions took place, before she took her seat in the house. She was named as a possible witness, not a suspect.

Nevertheless the media reported that she was under investigation for mortgage fraud (untrue) and that the solicitor in question was her business partner (also untrue). They also started pillorying the woman over the actual deals she had done, which were the property equivalent of webuyanycar.com. She bought houses that were stuck on the market, tidied them up a bit and sold them at a profit when the market was more buoyant. Reporters traced a couple of the sellers, told them how much their houses had realised when they were sold on, and whipped them up into a frenzy of "we were cheated by that awful profiteering woman" fury, which they then reported.

There was no chance at all of the other side of the story getting an airing in the press or the broadcast media. The BBC itself was leading the charge, with this summary showing how it was done. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bad-losers/ It kept this up even after the investigation (into the solicitor) was dropped, larding the coverage with innuendo that she was really guilty of something.

The SNP had little option but to try to distance itself from her. If they'd stood by her, all that would have happened would have been that the party and the Scottish government were pilloried for defending someone guilty of fraud and who tricked poor people out of the true value of their homes.

The same thing happened in 2015 when a candidate at the general election (Neil Hay) was pilloried for a few pretty innocuous tweets made three years previously under a pseudonym. He was accused of saying that pensioners should be denied the vote, when all he'd done was muse about the paradox of people in the advanced stages of dementia ("don't even know what day of the week it is") having the right to vote. It was outrageous, but the SNP didn't say a word in his defence.

I agree, it's not a satisfactory state of affairs. It leads to gross injustice, as with Michelle Thomson who absolutely fits in the category being discussed in this thread. But it's the inevitable consequence of a media establishment that is rabidly against the SNP.

Now of course the new developments have also been turned into #SNPbad column inches. Isn't Nicola Sturgeon a bitch for not standing by Michelle Thomson who was of course innocent except she wasn't and we hung her out to dry at the time. Congratulations for leaping on to that bandwagon.

 

[Nessie]

Looks like much of the media are as lazy as many police officers and they do not even understand the very basic, you need to check that not only does it walk like a duck, it also has to quack like a duck, before it is a duck.

Here is another example which proves that Police Scotland has been on a witch hunt of police officers supposedly misusing police systems and how they have repeatedly failed to get sufficient evidence, yet they keep on sending reports to COPFS

https://rogerthepoliceman.wordpress...-data-protection-offences-by-police-officers/

"....out of 116,800 people subject to court proceedings, 99,950 were found guilty, a conviction rate of 85.6%. Rape, which is notoriously difficult to prove saw 216 people put to court and 104 convicted, which is a rate of 48%."

The conviction rate for police officers reported for Data Protection offences;

"....6 convictions out of approximately 83 cases in 2013 (a rate of only 7%)"

Apparently the Counter (now Anti) Corruption Unit have never secured a conviction for corruption. Ever.

 

[Rolfe]

There was no chance at all of the other side of the story getting an airing in the press or the broadcast media. The BBC itself was leading the charge, with this summary showing how it was done. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bad-losers/ It kept this up even after the investigation (into the solicitor) was dropped, larding the coverage with innuendo that she was really guilty of something.

Ironically, if that's the right word, it is now being done to Wings Over Scotland, who wrote the article I linked to about Michelle Thomson.

This time it seems genuinely sinister, with police making an arrest in connection with a year-old complaint by a journalist who thought that being called an "utter disgrace" on Twitter was abuse and harassment. (At the time the complaint seemed so groundless I thought she was drunk and wouldn't even go to the police.) Coincidentally the person arrested is suing the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland for defamation, and until his reputation was trashed by being arrested last Friday on suspicion of malicious communication and harassing and abusing a woman over a two-year period, he was widely expected to win.

Here is a good article about the whole phenomenon, including Thomson, where political opponents are neutralised by bringing allegations against them. The damage is done and by the time the files are marked "no proceedings" everyone has forgotten about it.

https://randompublicjournal.com/2017/08/22/the-soft-criminalisation-of-pro-independence-activism/

This is the sort of thing we associate with totalitarian dictatorships, but it seems to be happening here.

ETA: Come to think of it, this is not new. It was done to then-SNP-leader Arthur Donaldson in the 1940s when he was arrested and detained for a couple of days on suspicion of sympathising with Hitler, but was released without charge because there was no evidence. People are still tweeting about the SNP's "Nazi sympathising" past on the basis of this, and demanding that the party should discontinue the annual memorial lecture given in Donaldson's honour. Meanwhile Oswald Mosely was entirely innocent oh wait....

 

[Nessie]

That is a very interesting article,

"Soft criminalisation is when the impression of criminality is manufactured...."

That happens within the police as well. Think Shirley Mckie. Here is another;

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/ex-cop-cleared-attack-prisoner-8982485

A sergeant in charge of prisoners, during prisoner welfare checks, finds a prisoner who repeatedly tries to strangle himself. The sergeant, complying with his legal duty to preserve life, successfully stops the suicide attempts, without even injuring the prisoner.

Statements are then taken off the civilian custody witnesses and a case is manufactured to make it look like an assault on the prisoner. The Sheriff finds the witnesses to have no credibility and no crime was actually committed, but by then it is way too late. A career is ruined and brought to a premature end.

If police officers will do that to each other, it is no wonder they will happily go along with MPs and journalists who use that tactic.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting you should mention Shirley McKie. I was just thinking about talking to Shirley's dad about Stuart Campbell, and what the situation as regards police pressure is likely to have been.

On the other matter, do you understand now that whatever you think of Sturgeon and the SNP's response to the Michelle Thomson situation (and it's not something I'm comfortable about, by any means), that is so not the main issue? Sturgeon and the SNP did not create or propagate the smears against Michelle Thomson. That was done by the media, with the BBC playing a central role. The purpose was to neutralise an effective and articulate parliamentarian, and to smear her political party.

Even after it was all over, with Michelle Thomson exonerated (but with her political career ruined) the media decided to milk one last round of #SNPbad out of the affair and criticised Sturgeon and the SNP for not standing by her. Of course, if Sturgeon and the SNP had stood by her at the time, these same media outlets would have pilloried them too. That was kind of the point of the exercise.

Now I know you're a unionist and you don't like the SNP, but on a dispassionate reading of this situation, do you really think criticism of Sturgeon and the SNP is the most rational response?

Now we have a situation (Wings) which is genuinely chilling. Some Assistant Chief Constable (maybe all of them) has been instructed to find something to smear Stuart Campbell with. All they seem to have been able to find is a year-old late-night complaint by a journalist Stuart had criticised, that he was abusing her on Twitter. The tweets emanating from the journalist's account at the time suggest she was drunk. The tweet she complained about read, in its entirety, "What an utter disgrace Siobhan McFadyen is."

This is the sort of thing that gets sniggered at and ignored. And it was ignored for many months. But then Stuart Campbell sues Kezia Dugdale for defamation, and he is widely predicted to win the case. It is due to come to court in September. On 18th August the police knock on Stuart Campbell's door, arrest him, and hold him in custody for 15 hours. His computers, phones and tablets are all confiscated. He is held in unpleasant conditions and denied access to his medication. The press is informed that "Wings Over Scotland" has been arrested in connection with allegations of malicious communication relating to a complaint by a woman that he harassed her for two years. Obedient hacks then write the smear and innuendo-filled articles.

Stuart is released on bail. The timing is such that he'll still be on bail when the defamation case comes to court in Scotland. His computers are still confiscated. Informed commentators speculate that they might even charge him with something, to generate another round of even worse press articles. Eventually the charges will be dropped, but the mud will stick. The defamation case will fizzle out because you need a good name and a reputation to sue for defamation. Kezia Dugdale MSP, leader of the Labour party in Scotland, has had her bacon saved.

This is the sort of behaviour we associate with totalitarian dictatorships. East Germany, Soviet Russia and so on. It's happening right here.

 

[Nessie]

I never said that the SNP created the smears, you have misunderstood. The SNP's reaction to the media reports should have been to uphold the right of innocent until proven guilty. They did not, because there is a culture to ignore that right.

They would have been damned by the media if they had stood by her and damned if they had not. At least if they had stood by her, they would have been doing the right thing.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't like the way that female whistleblower in the Rotherham child sex scandal has been falsely accused of stirring up trouble and making money out of the case. it's obvious to me that the Local Authority and local police were involved in it, if not corrupt from top to bottom.

 

[Rolfe]

I never said that the SNP created the smears, you have misunderstood. The SNP's reaction to the media reports should have been to uphold the right of innocent until proven guilty. They did not, because there is a culture to ignore that right.

They would have been damned by the media if they had stood by her and damned if they had not. At least if they had stood by her, they would have been doing the right thing.

I'm inclined to agree with you there. And I never said you claimed the SNP had create the smears. I just feel it's not the main issue. The setting up of innocent people to be smeared by a police investigation, for political reasons, is the main issue.

In the case of Thomson, it's just possible the investigation into her solicitor and her being drawn into it were coincidental occurrences that were simply used for political gain when they happened. In the case of Stuart Campbell, it's absolutely clear that the police were instructed to find some dirt on him and arrest him for something, because of his defamation suit against Dugdale. This is absolutely chilling.

ETA: Here's the article, in what used to be a respectable broadsheet newspaper, smearing Campbell. The journalist doesn't name the complainant. I wonder why? Could it be because knowing the identity of the complainant immediately leads to the conclusion that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious and unfounded?

https://archive.is/pkq9g

Oh, and what the bloody blue blazes does his opinion that it was pushing Liverpool fans at the back of the Hillsborough crowd who were ultimately the cause of the deaths have to do with anything? (At least the paper had more sense than to print that he laughed at 9/11, which is a common smear bandied about based on a hyperbolic comment he posted on about page 100 of a thread on an obscure gaming forum some time in about 2009.)

 

[Nessie]

I don't like the way that female whistleblower in the Rotherham child sex scandal has been falsely accused of stirring up trouble and making money out of the case. it's obvious to me that the Local Authority and local police were involved in it, if not corrupt from top to bottom.

They don't like it when they are shown to be fools by an individual who is doing the right thing. So they go for a bit of revenge.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't know what Assange and Edward Snowden would think of this now with regard to their legal tangles:

Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications (October 1957):

(7) The interference with the privacy of the ordinary law-abiding citizen or with his individual liberty is infinitesimal and only arises as the inevitable result of intercepting the communications of some wrongdoer. It has produced no harmful consequences.

What about the bugging of Princess Diana then and phone hacking by the media?

 

[Henri McPhee]

In the past in the UK most of the miscarriages of justice happened in the magistrates courts, or the police courts as then was. It was then practically impossible to appeal. I am not sure how that matter applies now.