Vincent Tabak found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates

I have been very worried by this problem for the last 20 years.There have been very many high profile cases that I do not consider that the defendants truly had a fair trial because the case had been examined,speculated over and prejudged by journalists and papers readers all in the public eye.

Sadly I don't see the situation improving unless the Attorney General redefines what is acceptable news coverage in such cases and makes it stick.

[Russ]

The thing is to sell copies the newspapers love to play up to people's stereotypes. They love to tell you that Muslims wants to impose Sharia Law in the UK. They love to tell you that some work-shy couple with 10 kids are moaning that their 8 bedroom council house isn't big enough. And they love to tell you an odd-looking and strange-acting man who apparently makes some females feel uncomfortable is guilty of killing a 25 year oild woman living in his property.

Originally Posted by Russ

The thing is to sell copies the newspapers love to play up to people's stereotypes. They love to tell you that Muslims wants to impose Sharia Law in the UK. They love to tell you that some work-shy couple with 10 kids are moaning that their 8 bedroom council house isn't big enough. And they love to tell you an odd-looking and strange-acting man who apparently makes some females feel uncomfortable is guilty of killing a 25 year oild woman living in his property.

Doesn't make it right though Russ and to endanger someone's human rights and freedoms to sell newspapers is no excuse for poor journalism.

[Russ]

Oh absolutely and I'm not suggesting it's right. Just pointing out that many journos have no morals whatsoever when it means getting a story and selling papers.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I firmly believe that papers do a good job in one sense, but do a bad job in another.

What do right, is to alirt people to the fact that there is a killer in there area, and dig up as much evidence as possible for the police, which they don't tell us about, What they should be allowed to do, is to tell us if there are people that have commited serious crimes in your area.

On the bad side, they do blow things up.

But in this crime, l have follwed various papers and they all have the same, and that is concerning the school master and a nieghbour - could they be linked, the most amaxing thing l have found is WHY, nothing has come up with anything on the CCTV on the bridge - or are they covering that up ?

They could just be investigating the evidence, Arthur - we (the public) don't actually have a right to know all the details, especially if by giving away the details, the culprit may evade capture.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Arthurgray50@blu;35146361]I firmly believe that papers do a good job in one sense, but do a bad job in another.

the one's you read are good for keeping chips warm and checking the lotto results
most papers are full of exaggerated drivel its what sells .

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

What do right, is to alirt people to the fact that there is a killer in there area, and dig up as much evidence as possible for the police, which they don't tell us about, What they should be allowed to do, is to tell us if there are people that have commited serious crimes in your area.

The problem is arthur when the press get the idea that a killer of pedophile is in a certain area they are more likely to spark vigilante justice.

But in this crime, l have follwed various papers and they all have the same, and that is concerning the school master and a nieghbour - could they be linked, the most amaxing thing l have found is WHY, nothing has come up with anything on the CCTV on the bridge - or are they covering that up ?

That is most likely because it is evidence ,and releasing evidence to the general public before a trial will be prejudicial to any trial .also the police will always withhold some facts about a crime simply so they can verify if someone is telling the truth should they confess

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

dig up as much evidence as possible for the police

Or more accurately, "make up"?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

l have found is WHY, nothing has come up with anything on the CCTV on the bridge - or are they covering that up ?

Driving across a bridge isn't a crime. *IF* the landlord was filmed driving over the bridge you can't prove he had a body in the boot.

If he denied crossing it then CCTV came to light showing driving over then that could be seen as attempting to cover up the fact he was driving over.

Originally Posted by Derek

Driving across a bridge isn't a crime. *IF* the landlord was filmed driving over the bridge you can't prove he had a body in the boot.

If he denied crossing it then CCTV came to light showing driving over then that could be seen as attempting to cover up the fact he was driving over.

Or he denied it because he thought it might make him a suspect.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

What IF the killer was walking over the bridge with Joanna, as according to the landlord, she was with TWO adults.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

What IF the killer was walking over the bridge with Joanna, as according to the landlord, she was with TWO adults.

Then i'm sure the police will take that into account whilst carrying out their investigations

[punky]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

What IF the killer was walking over the bridge with Joanna, as according to the landlord, she was with TWO adults.

I appreciate your concern but I really don't want either the Daily Star or you conducting murder investigations.

Originally Posted by punky

I appreciate your concern but I really don't want either the Daily Star or you conducting murder investigations.

true

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...9i9pwPuAi17C5l