Falsely convicted .. any distinction?

[LS]

Conviction was in 2006 but tbh I've put it out of my mind as much as I can that what was given to the appeal sols to ask their barrister has been largely forgotten, so I couldn't tell you for certain what was thought to be a potential ground (and then discounted) and what wasn't. Because of the way this whole thing has been handled, I've come to the conclusion that I'm never going to get this either appealed or undone by going through the courts of a such corrupt country.
Sorry, it's not a dig at you, it's just that the criteria for getting an unjust conviction undone is so narrow as to be unjust in itself. If you need further info, pm me as I can't put much more in public.
Thanks
LS

[LS]

PS I am aware that you either have to base any grounds for appeal on either the conduct of the Judge, for example, or have fresh evidence, ie evidence which wasn't available at the time of the trial.

For me, having the conviction annulled on the Judge's conduct is nothing more than "getting off on a technicality," whereas the only way of getting Fresh Evidence is out of the question, as I don't travel in the same circles as the "victim" or her family. Although information does come to me about their conduct, it is highly unlikely that should "victim" ever confess to anyone that she lied, it is also highly unlikely if not unrealistic to hope that it wouldn't be buried immediately. The kind of people she is related to and associates with are not known for being honest, and to them it's far easier to tell her to "forget it" if her conscience ever troubled her.

I haven't seen any evidence to date that she even has a conscience, let alone likely to be troubled by such.

[RFLH]

If you want to pm Rights Fighter it may be a while before she gets back to you as she's extremely busy with appeals at the moment.

[LS]

That's ok RFLH, I wasn't expecting anything instant and I only suggested if she wanted to know more to pm me as I can't really put anything further on here.

As I say, I've kind of given up the Appeal idea because it's just a non-starter. I've seen that from day one, which is why one day I'll go public with it instead.

[Casehardened]

I consider that sexual assault cases are not well served by the jury system, as we know from personal accounts on this forum, there are injustices both ways.

Research says that people form their opinions about others within a few minutes of first meeting them and if the accused looks like Uncle Fester (I'm speaking in general rather than specific terms here) and the 'victim' is a sweet, angelic looking, teenager tearfully hiding behind a screen or video link, then any evidence, or lack of it, either way is probably irrelevant.

What to replace it with is the problem, one investigating judge, sitting alone, is probably as bad, three would be too expensive and over the top.

The real answer is to drop the dubious cases right at the start but this needs political will and, as we know, the political will from Harrier Harman is to increase the rape conviction case, and the guidelines for police and CPS have been revamped to ensure this, so all cases have to be fully investigated.

I don't know what the solution might be, I've written to my MP along these lines and, whilst I got a sympathetic and soothing reply, I don't suppose it will make any difference at all. The only real hope is the financial aspect in that someone will consider how much these investigations are costing the country and be a little more rigorous about which they take on.

[LS]

The whole thing needs a complete overhaul. The moment you have any part of it filled with idiots the whole sense of justice and purpose goes out the window. You've only got to look in the redtops to see we're cheek to jowl with inbreds, screaming for return of the death penalty. It's the mentality of the Middle Ages coupled with nimby-ism. It's okay to instil it on others when you're sure it can't possibly happen to you.
I hope the chickens come home to roost for many with that attitude.
For me I can't be bothered to take part in the charade. I know I'm innocent, and if certain people want to go around referring to me as a "convicted so and so" I'm more than happy to inform them quite publicly that my trial was a farce, an insult to intelligence, and that any conviction was not based or gained on truth, honesty or fairness. To be honest, I don't place any worth on the verdict of any court in such a corrupt country, so that's why I really can't be bothered with going for an appeal - the inbreds will still say "well, you got off on a technicality."
The whole bloody case was a technicality, and until someone changes the system, the whole bloody system is a technicality to me.

[LS]

...and I've already had a taste of what "help" my MP can give me. When probation blackmailed me and my family when I was on licence, I complained to my MP (via his secretary). He spoke to probation, without even speaking to me, and then rang me and said I wasn't being blackmailed and wasn't prepared to help.

Somehow he seemed ignorant of the fact that I felt I was being blackmailed, and that that was what I was complaining about. He wasn't even prepared to listen, let alone help. Again, more tape-recorded evidence to put out one day.

In this country there's a Third Class system and I'm in it, I've discovered.

[Casehardened]

LS,

I'm afraid that for better or worse we live in a 'democracy' and whilst the masses bay for blood nothing in the legal system will change. As you rightly say the red tops inflame public opinion and make a point of waiting outside courts with their cameras.

If we eventually drop to 'third world' status we won't be able afford the luxury of spending £0,000's on foolish investigations initiated by malevolence or £000,000's on trials, never mind the cost to the economy of locking up a formerly productive member of society.