Levi Bellfield - can I believe what I am reading??

[Mercy1]

Just reading the awful court story of Levi Bellfield and Milly Dowler. Of all the ****-ups that have emerged in this case, the most amazing is that he was allowed the option "not to turn up" for sentencing.
Excuse me, this is a man who has already been convicted of two murders of young girls. This is a man already in jail - and HE is deciding whether or not he should attend court to be sentenced for killing a third girl.
Sorry if I got this wrong, but I always thought that if you committed an offence, you were brought before a court - not brought before a court "if you feel like it".
Am I missing something??

 

[Gucci]

I thought it odd too - but I suppose this "man" was left in his cell where he belongs. I can't imagine the family would benefit from seeing his evil pug face again. I also like to think he doesn't deserve the right to hear a court decide his additional sentence. Total low life scum who deserves a hard time in prison.

 

[Dryce]

Just reading the awful court story of Levi Bellfield and Milly Dowler.

So Bellifield kills their daughter and British legal system rapes them.

I don't think by comparison his appearance or non-appearance in court counts for much.

 

[martin_a]

Him and Peter Tobin. Cold blooded killers who will never be released but still do the not guilty plead, put the families through it all again and just shrug at the end because they know it is the right result.

Time prison for these people involved 20 hours a day sat on a traffic cone.

m.

 

[Colin_b]

Everyone is innocent until proved guilty, however vile they appear. They have a right to examine the evidence in court. I don't have a problem with that, justice is supposed to be blind.

In this case the defendants legal team crossed the line between examining evidence and intimidating witnesses.

The defence team acted immorally, and the judge was unwise to allow that to happen to that degree.

It harmed the bereaved parents, and more importantly the perception of justice having been equitably done.

 

[trapperjohn]

I have to agreee the judge was way out of order.

 

[Mercy1]

I don't think by comparison his appearance or non-appearance in court counts for much.

Sorry, but I think it counts for everything. We are all responsible for our own actions and when we do wrong there should surely be a day of reckoning.
These people find it easy to hide behind the "no comment" option when they are confronted by their deeds. They find it easy to close their eyes to what they have done as if they had never done it.
Surely, when they are finally brought to book, there should be NOWHERE for them to hide. They should be subjected to the full force of the law and hear their fate - even if that is nowhere near enough for the victim's family's distraught relatives.
But my main point is, how can it be that a person found guilty of a heinous crime can call the tune on his court appearances? Is he before the court or isn't he? Who is in charge here - the vile perpetrator or our judicial system?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The fact that he is in prison already and has been found guilty of a crime is the reason he doesn't have to show his ugly mug.

Although I understand your frustration, I would direct that passion to having people like this strung up.

 

[Dryce]

Sorry, but I think it counts for everything. We are all responsible for our own actions and when we do wrong there should surely be a day of reckoning.
These people find it easy to hide behind the "no comment" option when they are confronted by their deeds. They find it easy to close their eyes to what they have done as if they had never done it.

Frankly? I think it's irrelevant outside of the movies - it's the result that counts - not the intangible moment when sentence is passed.

There are much more substantial questions and issues raised by the way this case was conducted and the convicted defendant is not worthy of our attention.

 

[Dryce]

I have to agreee the judge was way out of order.

It's a matter of perspective.

I think there are times when the senior judiciary should be asked hard questions about their perspective - and their responsibilities to the UK public and society as a whole and not just their own rather more closed world.

 

[Mercy1]

Frankly? I think it's irrelevant outside of the movies - it's the result that counts - not the intangible moment when sentence is passed.

Well that certainly blows out of the water the perceived current thinking that convicted criminals should be made to confront their victims and see the consequences of their crime.

(I don't think you will find anyone who has ever been involved in the judiciary, describing the passing of a sentence as an "intangible moment"!)

 

[moonloops]

Well that certainly blows out of the water the perceived current thinking that convicted criminals should be made to confront their victims and see the consequences of their crime.

(I don't think you will find anyone who has ever been involved in the judiciary, describing the passing of a sentence as an "intangible moment"!)

It is quite hard getting murderers to confront their victims...

 

[trapperjohn]

It is quite hard getting murderers to confront their victims...

Good quip. Cheap shot if you think a bit deeper.

 

[Dryce]

Well that certainly blows out of the water the perceived current thinking that convicted criminals should be made to confront their victims and see the consequences of their crime.

I think safely convicting criminals is the priority.

And your average serial killer is a bit past the point where 'see the consequences' is likely to be that meaningful. And in this type of case they may even get some final satisfaction from the 'moment'.

So I'm happy for it to be blown out of the water in this situation.

 

[finisterre]

There isn't much point in traipsing a chap to court who will not be released. A waste of diesel. Then there is administrative inconvenience, labour, having to have an extra cell on site, prison vans, whatever. He shouldn't even get the choice to attend.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I have to agreee the judge was way out of order.

Can you elaborate on this, TJ? As I understand it, if the defence counsel oversteps the mark, either the judge can intervene directly or the prosecution counsel can raise an objection on which the judge can rule. This should provide sufficient safeguard against purely vexatious questioning, let alone the kind of "intimidation" the family claim they were subjected to.

I'm left wondering whether they went into the trial expecting tea and sympathy and were just taken aback by the cut and thrust of the proceedings. They really didn't seem up to much in the statements I saw them giving to the Press outside the court.

 

[renault12ts]

They were ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, which most of us will never have to face.

 

[trapperjohn]

MOCAŠ;1239700]Can you elaborate on this, TJ? As I understand the judge can intervene directly[/QUOTE]

This is what I was getting at. Why did the judge let the questioning get so militant and personal or is this quite normal in high court. Perhaps I have been duped by the popular press Certainly the line of questioning and the hectoring that went with it were most distasteful to me. And did it really add anything to the case or the end result.

 

[brucemillar]

My understanding is this...

The defense tried to build a case around the fact that:

a) Their client said he didn't do it - So not should not be on trial.

b) That Milly was an unhappy child in a disfunctional family who had or may have run away from home.

To make their case the defense introduced highly personal family details that many believe (hence the high profile protests) had no real relevance to the case. This included reading out a personal letter from Milly to her parents and making public the fact that her father had been looking at some "porn" magazines.

This was/is a very high profile case so we are seeing and hearing all of this detail. Believe me (and I speak from personal experience). This is not uncommon. The defendant (once they have made the decision to plead not guilty) has nothing left but to try and desperately try to find a way out. The defense team are suppossed to explore every opportunity to help them do exactly that.

The Judge can and should arbitrate if either side is straying over the line and introducing facts that have no relevance. But this is high risk and can lead to miss-trial if the judge is seen to be leading the jury/court unfairly.

For Milly's parents this must surely have been gut wrenching. They knew that they had done no wrong and should not be on trial.

The alternative (and I mean legal) would be to get the defendant to plead guilty straight off the mark. I believe that is what Kenneth Clarke was attempting to do. But then we see the backlash caused there.

I hope that Milly's parents are able to move on and get some semblance of normality back into their lives. I suspect that will be very long process.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The thing is in this case Bruce was that he was already doing life, so why make it easier for the victims family and plead guilty?

So in his twisted mind he has got a kick out of mentally torturing Millys family again.


Looking at this whole situation, I sometimes despair of mankind.