Jump to content

Milly Dowlers Mums comments


CliveH

Recommended Posts

I watched this brave ladies comments on the News tonight?

 

I understood the family’s anger and the Mums anguish totally. This from one of the reports:-

 

...................

 

"Mrs Dowler’s parenting was questioned. She had to deny that she favoured her eldest child, Gemma. And she was forced to defend against suggestions that she was unaware that Milly was suicidal.

 

Mr Dowler said that the experience was “too high a price” to pay for the conviction of his daughter’s killer.

 

The Dowlers also complained that they were forced to defend themselves against allegations while Bellfield said nothing. He was even able to refuse to turn up to court to hear his sentence yesterday.

 

The judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, branded him “a cruel and pitiless killer” who “has not had the courage to come into court to face his victims and to receive his sentence”.

 

Mr Starmer said “This trial has raised some fundamental questions about the treatment of victims and witnesses in the court process. Those questions require answers.”

 

The DPP said that Crown Prosecution Service will contribute to a forthcoming Ministry of Justice review of the criminal justice system which will consider “all aspects of victim support.

................

 

It seems that his "Human Rights" allowed him not to even attend the proceedings.

 

Anybody else as deeply concerned as I am about the obvious failings here and what this family went through compared to how the killers rights seems to have been given a higher rating than theirs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clive, I also watched the NEWS report and can sympathise with the family. There was also a statement made about 'A life For a Life' . Unfortunately, we have become such a Nanny state that Offenders, in all sorts of crimes not just this one, appear to have greater rights than the victims or the family of the victims.

 

I believe that a person who is accused of and charged with an offence should have to turn up in Court. They should not be given a choice as to whether they want to turn up or not, there was a sentence in the novel 'Oliver Twist" where someone said "If that is what the law says, then the Law is an Ass Sir !" I think that is very appropriate with a great deal of the decisions made by some of the Judiciary these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bellfield was in court for the entire hearing and until he was found guilty. He chose simply not to attend the sentencing hearing. For him it was pretty pointless as he knew that he will never leave prison.

Nevertheless, I do feel that people convicted of serious offences should not be able to opt out of the sentencing hearing. At least the victim or the victim's family have the satisfaction of seeing him receive his punishment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

The scales of justice have been progressively weighted in favour of the criminals for years................and its our justice system that has allowed it to happen.

 

Bellfields defence lawyer should hang his head in shame *-) ................just shows what a nasty grubby profession it is, to be able to stand up and try to protect someone he must know is guilty, but what the hell it pays well >:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bellfield's defence lawyer did what he was required to do and if anyone on this forum ever finds themselves on a serious charge of which they are innocent, they will thank God for a vigorous barrister who will defend them to the best of his ability.


Simplistic comments about what a nasty man he is simply do not wash. Yes, he may have been very harsh but it is the judge's job to stop the questioning if he thinks that counsel is overstepping the line, but here we have another problem. If a judge is seen to be too prescriptive in his instructions to defence counsel he then leaves the case wide open to appeal. This of course puts everyone, the family included, through it all over again, let alone the millions of pounds in costs borne by the taxpayer.

Yes, our adversarial system needs constant monitoring but it is still a necessary part of the judicial process.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
francisgraham - 2011-06-25 10:25 AMYes, our adversarial system needs constant monitoring but it is still a necessary part of the judicial process.

It don't need monitoring......... it wants knocking down and starting again ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not AT ALL convinced about the merits of our adversarial system. The point should be to get at the truth - did the defendant DO IT or not? - not what obscure point of law he/she can get off on.

 

I've been thinking about a hypothetical case:

 

I'm on a jury, and a key issue is the defendant's alibi.

He says: "I was in Macdonald's over that period, with Miss so-and-so."

Miss so-and-so duly confirms this.

 

Trouble is that it's a small town, and I, a juror, also happened to be in Macdonald's at the time. I recognised Miss so-and-so, but I remember that she was with someone else, and the defendant never set foot in the place.

 

But I can't tell my fellow-jurors this, as it wasn't part of the eveidence in the trial. I'm even supposed to try to ignore my knowledge myself, in reaching my verdict!

In fact, technically, I should probably tell the judge that I have separate knowledge, and be discharged (or depending on the stage in the proceedings, the whole trial may be scrapped!).

 

How sensible is that?

 

The aim of the trial should be to establish the TRUTH, however that is done (short of torture of course!) - not to see who "wins" according to the rules of the "game."

Someone has called it "a playground for lawyers," which is exactly what it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good point Tony.

 

What comes across to me is that rather than concentrating on the evidence - the defence team focused on how, supposedly, Millie was unhappy at home!!!

 

Anyone who has had that alien species "teenagers" know exactly how "unhappy" they can be but with no real reason apart from hormones.

 

To try to get your client off - despite his clear connection to this and other crimes - by character assassination of the innocent parents of the victim is NOT what I expect from UK law.

 

I am all for the adversarial system - and whilst Tony's example is a good one - I do believe that a juror in this situation could hold their hand up be excused - a retrial then takes place with the stronger evidence now being able to be heard. But the point is still valid in that jurors seem to have to throw common sense out of the window to fit the “rules”

 

I am not sure we have heard all of what went on in this particular trial - and in coming weeks we may well hear more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am in total agreement with the majority of most of what has been said. I do have to come to the defence of the defence lawyer who would have been 'instructed' to defend the accused. Everyone has a right to a defence and if they do not have a lawyer or barrister then one is assigned to them. The lawyer or barrister has a duty to act on behalf of their client whether they want to or not. So I do not lay any blame on the defence barrister as they were only doing their job, but the fault is within the whole judicial system especially where some sentences dished out by Judges do not in any way fit the crime that was committed, too lenient in my opinion and in the cases of Murder, including mass deaths via Terrorism once the guilt has been proven 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' then it should be the 'Death Penalty'. Start doing this and that would be a good enough incentive for some of these offenders to think twice about committing their crimes. I know that this will not be a popular view with some but there is currently no incentive against committing murder, the offender gets out with good behaviour without serving the 'life' sentence whilst the victim rots in a graveyard >:-(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...