Steve70 Posted July 2, 2010 Author Share Posted July 2, 2010 they walked because...!!1 ! the person that said had done'it. overdosed in a park. lucky for them Hm I think that might be a little bit of hearsay or just rumours I mean if some one had said he had done it surly he would be in police custody so couldnt overdose ! And if he said they had done it - then overdosed could a drug abuser be believed ? i am sure once an investigation in to how the police handled the case has been carried out then we will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superstar1 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 they walked because...!!1 ! the person that said had done'it. overdosed in a park. lucky for them This could be the reason that the men have been released Sheffield Star 2/7/10 The court heard the CPS and the police "misled" the court and the defendants, and failed to disclose 20 pieces of evidence to the defendants' lawyers before the trial. Mr Justice Sweeney QC said the evidence included three different sources who claimed the shooting was intended as a warning, but the shooter had gone too far and ended up killing Mr Jahangir by mistake. The judge said: "It's obvious law that the charge of conspiracy to murder requires proof of an intention to kill, and that that had admissibility consequences." He said two of the three sources had got their information from rumours, rather than from individuals. Another source had received parts of his information from prosecution witnesses at the start of the trial and from a member of Mr Jahangir's family. But, branding the case a "disaster for the criminal justice system", the judge said there had been "systemic disclosure failures on a disturbing scale". Not much more to say ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runningman Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Dear citizens of Sheffield, yes you the general public of this world. We are all at a disadvantage in learning about such stories from what we have read in a paper. There are always underlying elements which are never disclosed, facts which are slightly twisted. It's always been like that and will of course continue to be so. Any comments please from someone who knew the poor guy who was murdered or does anyone know any of those who stood trial. I bet members of the Jury are looking at this thread with interest. Better stop there, I can hear the Mods finger approaching the dreaded button !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 This could be the reason that the men have been released Sheffield Star 2/7/10 The court heard the CPS and the police "misled" the court and the defendants, and failed to disclose 20 pieces of evidence to the defendants' lawyers before the trial. Mr Justice Sweeney QC said the evidence included three different sources who claimed the shooting was intended as a warning, but the shooter had gone too far and ended up killing Mr Jahangir by mistake. The judge said: "It's obvious law that the charge of conspiracy to murder requires proof of an intention to kill, and that that had admissibility consequences." He said two of the three sources had got their information from rumours, rather than from individuals. Another source had received parts of his information from prosecution witnesses at the start of the trial and from a member of Mr Jahangir's family. But, branding the case a "disaster for the criminal justice system", the judge said there had been "systemic disclosure failures on a disturbing scale". Not much more to say ! What this translates to is= 1=There was evidence pointing to all the accused being involved. 2=There was evidence to say that it was a case of the victim was to be shot but not killed. 3= The police/cps decided to go for the more serious charge of conspiracy to murder and decided not to disclose the evidence that could have put the charge of conspiracy to murder in doubt and were subsequently found out therefore disrupting the course of justice. This is a sad state of affairs because the victims family have not seen justice done. The police are doing this on a regular basis, ie charging people with a higher crime than is required and this time they have been caught. The worst thing is that if they had laid a charge of manslaughter which the hidden evidence was pointing to the accused, if found guilty could still have got a life sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritishProud Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 90 Witnesses and the case gets dropped. SHOCKING!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefkicker Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 90 Witnesses and the case gets dropped. SHOCKING!!!! Sounds like it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 90 Witnesses and the case gets dropped. SHOCKING!!!! Sounds like it too! What relevance is the number of witnesses? Forty five of them might have been defence ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastair Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Nowhere in this thread is there any information or link to what this case was about. Anyone care to explain what this thread is about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Nowhere in this thread is there any information or link to what this case was about. Anyone care to explain what this thread is about? here you go= http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news2/LATEST-Motorist-shot-dead-with.5600996.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastair Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 here you go= http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news2/LATEST-Motorist-shot-dead-with.5600996.jp Ta, I now know what case this thread is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.