A harrowing day in court.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

I read this story today, I found it somewhat distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13908358

The family of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler have said they paid "too high a price" for the conviction of Levi Bellfield.

Bellfield was given a whole-life tariff for murdering Milly in Surrey in 2002.

Milly's father Bob Dowler said the trial had been "mentally scarring" and the justice system was loaded unfairly in favour of the criminal.

The director of public prosecutions said it raised "fundamental questions" about the treatment of victims.

Keir Starmer QC said: "Those questions require answers and we will be contributing to the review by the Ministry of Justice into all aspects of victim support."

She said the trial had been a "truly awful experience".

But she said "at last the man responsible for the cruel murder of our darling daughter" had been brought to justice.

Milly Dowler's remains were found six months after she disappeared
Bellfield had also faced a charge of attempting to abduct Rachel Cowles, who is now 21, but the jury was discharged and there will be no retrial.

Defence lawyers cited an "avalanche of adverse publicity" following Bellfield's conviction on Thursday for murdering Milly.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC is to consider whether there has been any possible contempt of court.

Speaking outside court Ms Cowles said she was hurt and angry by what she called media coverage which had "robbed her of justice".

Mrs Dowler said Milly was happy, vivacious and fun-loving, rather than the depressed girl described by Bellfield's defence team.

She added: "To actually see the man in court - a man capable of such a vile and inhuman crime has been grotesque and distressing for us.

"The length the system goes to protect his human rights seems so unfair compared to what we, as a family, have had to endure."

Mrs Dowler said the "pain and grief" of Milly's murder would never go away.

Mrs Dowler collapsed after giving evidence during the trial, which had heard letters and poems written by her daughter describing herself as a "disappointment".

Following this, the prosecution decided not to call Milly's sister Gemma to give evidence.

Details of the family's private life were also revealed in court, including the fact that Milly discovered pornography magazines at the family home.

It was also revealed that Mr Dowler was initially considered a suspect in her disappearance after police found bondage material at their family home.

During the prosecution's closing speeches, Brian Altman QC accused Bellfield of putting Milly's grieving parents on trial.

Mr Dowler said the trial had been a "truly horrifying ordeal for the family".

He said: "We have had to relive all the emotions and thoughts of nine years ago when Milly first went missing and was then found murdered.

"During our questioning my wife and I both felt as though we were on trial.

"The questioning of my wife was particularly cruel and inhuman, resulting in her collapsing after leaving the stand.

"We despair of a justice system which is so loaded in favour of the perpetrator of the crime."

Milly's sister, Gemma Dowler said: "I can honestly say that the day my mother and father were questioned by the defence QC Mr Samuels was the worst day of my life.

"It is hard to believe but it was worse than when I heard the news that the remains were that of my sister Milly.

Being a "sting them all up man" yet seeing the logic in human rights and the right to be innocent until proven guilty, Im at a loss to think of a solution to fix this issue.

Clearly the defence has to mount its best effort, and yet its well known that they will stoop to anything to get a result.. I mean, seriously, you have some porn in your house so we defame you in court when were dealing with your daughters murder?

It just seems screwed up, is there a solution whereby you could allow the defence team to mount a sterling defence whilst keeping some things.. off limits with regards to the other people involved emotionally with a crime? I genuinelly feel bad for the poor girls family in this instance.

This whole thing made me think..well.. If anything happened to my kids Id just kill the guy myself and bury him in my back yard!

**filbert**

I realise it got shouted down and rightly so because it was a pretty stupid idea, but this is an element that Ken Clarke's proposed sentencing law was supposed to help; the fact that if a defendant pleads guilty they get a reduced sentence and that is supposed to spare a rape victim a potentially harrowing trial ordeal. I don't agree with the sentence reduction thing but I do think more should be done to protect the rights of victims. What that is, I'm not sure - clearly the right to a trial by jury means by its very nature that a defending barrister will use any and all methods to pick holes in the prosecution's case - including sometimes taking some cheap shots at witnesses and character assassinations.

**Mr. Burning**

mattyrm wrote: I read this story today, I found it somewhat distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13908358

The family of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler have said they paid "too high a price" for the conviction of Levi Bellfield.

Bellfield was given a whole-life tariff for murdering Milly in Surrey in 2002.

Milly's father Bob Dowler said the trial had been "mentally scarring" and the justice system was loaded unfairly in favour of the criminal.

The director of public prosecutions said it raised "fundamental questions" about the treatment of victims.

Keir Starmer QC said: "Those questions require answers and we will be contributing to the review by the Ministry of Justice into all aspects of victim support."

She said the trial had been a "truly awful experience".

But she said "at last the man responsible for the cruel murder of our darling daughter" had been brought to justice.

Milly Dowler's remains were found six months after she disappeared
Bellfield had also faced a charge of attempting to abduct Rachel Cowles, who is now 21, but the jury was discharged and there will be no retrial.

Defence lawyers cited an "avalanche of adverse publicity" following Bellfield's conviction on Thursday for murdering Milly.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC is to consider whether there has been any possible contempt of court.

Speaking outside court Ms Cowles said she was hurt and angry by what she called media coverage which had "robbed her of justice".

Mrs Dowler said Milly was happy, vivacious and fun-loving, rather than the depressed girl described by Bellfield's defence team.

She added: "To actually see the man in court - a man capable of such a vile and inhuman crime has been grotesque and distressing for us.

"The length the system goes to protect his human rights seems so unfair compared to what we, as a family, have had to endure."

Mrs Dowler said the "pain and grief" of Milly's murder would never go away.

Mrs Dowler collapsed after giving evidence during the trial, which had heard letters and poems written by her daughter describing herself as a "disappointment".

Following this, the prosecution decided not to call Milly's sister Gemma to give evidence.

Details of the family's private life were also revealed in court, including the fact that Milly discovered pornography magazines at the family home.

It was also revealed that Mr Dowler was initially considered a suspect in her disappearance after police found bondage material at their family home.

During the prosecution's closing speeches, Brian Altman QC accused Bellfield of putting Milly's grieving parents on trial.

Mr Dowler said the trial had been a "truly horrifying ordeal for the family".

He said: "We have had to relive all the emotions and thoughts of nine years ago when Milly first went missing and was then found murdered.

"During our questioning my wife and I both felt as though we were on trial.

"The questioning of my wife was particularly cruel and inhuman, resulting in her collapsing after leaving the stand.

"We despair of a justice system which is so loaded in favour of the perpetrator of the crime."

Milly's sister, Gemma Dowler said: "I can honestly say that the day my mother and father were questioned by the defence QC Mr Samuels was the worst day of my life.

"It is hard to believe but it was worse than when I heard the news that the remains were that of my sister Milly.

Being a "sting them all up man" yet seeing the logic in human rights and the right to be innocent until proven guilty, Im at a loss to think of a solution to fix this issue.

Clearly the defence has to mount its best effort, and yet its well known that they will stoop to anything to get a result.. I mean, seriously, you have some porn in your house so we defame you in court when were dealing with your daughters murder?

It just seems screwed up, is there a solution whereby you could allow the defence team to mount a sterling defence whilst keeping some things.. off limits with regards to the other people involved emotionally with a crime? I genuinelly feel bad for the poor girls family in this instance.

This whole thing made me think..well.. If anything happened to my kids Id just kill the guy myself and bury him in my back yard!

I'm with you but have to say that if Bellfield didn't have a right to a total defence, then, the majority of us wouldn't either.

Still, from hearing Millie's mother talk on the news, I wouldn't worry too much, I'm sure some lag will take her words as a green light to do the bloke in.

**mattyrm**

I rather Like Ken Clarke, I'm presuming that there was an element of sense to his proposal, but as always, the masses and the tabloids just love to make things seem sensational and they get scrubbed out of hand.

**biccat**

Holy crap, I thought the BBC was supposed to be a good news source. That was a terribly written article.

I gathered that the case was about a murdered young girl and that the defendant brought up the family history...but the rest of the case escapes me.

Is there any helpful background information available?

**mattyrm**

Check the link mate, there's plenty of links to past stories related to the article.

**Ma55ter_fett**

From what I have read I don't really care for this woman...

Rant

Spoiler:

However it's a bad business no matter how you slice it.

**Frazzled**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:From what I have read I don't really care for this woman...

Rant

Spoiler:

I understand the family’s frustration but “Innocent until proven guilty” is one of the main pillars of the modern justice system. It does sound as though they had some rather unscrupulous lawyers on the defense but then again it’s their job to get their client off the hook. The prosecution tried to paint a picture of the ideal household and the happy go lucky little girl to make the accused supposed crimes more heinous. Of course the defense isn’t going to allow that to stand, no good lawyer would. So they find poems that made the girl seem like she was depressed and told the court how the father had a bondage fetish and a porn stash. Try to erode some of the natural sympathy the jury feels for the family.

It’s a largely one sided article however and doesn’t accomplish much, it’s a sob story for the sack of having a sob story. I find it rather ironic that the mother rails against the media for airing all the families’ dirty laundry while being interviewed for a BBC article.

However it's a bad business no matter how you slice it.

Whats interesting is how none of what you just said has anything with guilty until proven innocent.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Frazzled wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:From what I have read I don't really care for this woman...

Rant

Spoiler:

I understand the family’s frustration but “Innocent until proven guilty” is one of the main pillars of the modern justice system. It does sound as though they had some rather unscrupulous lawyers on the defense but then again it’s their job to get their client off the hook. The prosecution tried to paint a picture of the ideal household and the happy go lucky little girl to make the accused supposed crimes more heinous. Of course the defense isn’t going to allow that to stand, no good lawyer would. So they find poems that made the girl seem like she was depressed and told the court how the father had a bondage fetish and a porn stash. Try to erode some of the natural sympathy the jury feels for the family.

It’s a largely one sided article however and doesn’t accomplish much, it’s a sob story for the sack of having a sob story. I find it rather ironic that the mother rails against the media for airing all the families’ dirty laundry while being interviewed for a BBC article.

However it's a bad business no matter how you slice it.

Whats interesting is how none of what you just said has anything with guilty until proven innocent.

It’s a bit of a rant; as such it really doesn't have a cohesive theme to it.

**4M2A**

So the family are angry because they have to prove he was guilty before he was treated like a criminal?

During the court the guy was still innocent and deserved the same rights as everyone else. From our perspective it's easy to say he was clearly guilty but you can't make the call until after the court has made the decision.

Of course they would have to stand up and talk about themselves and there daughter. It isn't nice but you have to back up your accusations, the defending Lawyers were going to do everything possible to make him seem innocent. It's stupid to expect anyone to just sit there with their lawyers and take the accusations. It's not like it is one sided, the amount of times you hear the families saying how there lost child was perfect/always happy/ ect.. Both sides exagerate.

**Howard A Treesong**

It what they do to rape victims. Instead of trying to defend the rapist they go on the attack and rake up anything they can about the victim to damage their character.

What's this? You enjoy a drink/have seen porn/wear a short skirt/have kissed more than one boy? What a 'ho, can't possibly be rape m'lud, girls like that don't say 'no'.

**Ahtman**

Howard A Treesong wrote:It what they do to rape victims. Instead of trying to defend the rapist they go on the attack and rake up anything they can about the victim to damage their character.

What's this? You enjoy a drink/have seen porn/wear a short skirt/have kissed more than one boy? What a 'ho, can't possibly be rape m'lud, girls like that don't say 'no'.

Quoted from "Everything I needed to Know About Sex Crimes I Learned From Law and Order: SVU" coming this August from Penguin Classics.

**KingCracker**

Im with you mattyrm on that one. If that ever happened to my family, Id capture the guy, take many days for him to finally die of his wounds, and then Id bury him under my flower bed. That way every week Id get to remember how weak and pathetic the guy was before he finally went. That would give me some type of solice in it all.

**purplefood**

I agree with you Mattyrm...

**Kilkrazy**

FWIW the defendant Bellfield had already been convicted of two previous murders and an attempted murder, all of young blonde women in the south-west greater London area.

The man is clearly a serial killer of some type. He refused to plead at the Milly Dowler trial.

The evidence against him in the Dowler case was pretty solid. I don't think there can be any doubt in the verdict.

**Mr Mystery**

Come come.

This is 21st Century Britain don't you know! Innocent until wildly speculated Guilty in the gutter press is the norm!

**Howard A Treesong**

Ahtman wrote:Quoted from "Everything I needed to Know About Sex Crimes I Learned From Law and Order: SVU" coming this August from Penguin Classics.

It's true, if you accuse someone of rape expect your sexual history to be dragged through the mud in the most prejudiced manner.

**Quintinus**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Quoted from "Everything I needed to Know About Sex Crimes I Learned From Law and Order: SVU" coming this August from Penguin Classics.

It's true, if you accuse someone of rape expect your sexual history to be dragged through the mud in the most prejudiced manner.

I take it you've never heard of the Duke Lacrosse scandal then?

Too many girls have falsely accused someone of rape and the person who is falsely accused has their life ruined. And the girl gets away scot free for absolutely no reason, even if she's proven false.

Go figure.

If someone wants to accuse me of rape when I haven't done anything, you can bet your sweet @$$ they're going to have their sexual history dragged through the mud.

**Albatross**

biccat wrote:Holy crap, I thought the BBC was supposed to be a good news source. That was a terribly written article.

I can sympathise with you. As a fully paid-up Fox stormtrooper, it must be difficult for you to wade though all those pesky facts to find the crude appeals to emotion that you crave.

**Kilkrazy**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Quoted from "Everything I needed to Know About Sex Crimes I Learned From Law and Order: SVU" coming this August from Penguin Classics.

It's true, if you accuse someone of rape expect your sexual history to be dragged through the mud in the most prejudiced manner.

Actually that has been changing. This page is relevant and interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13913964

**Howard A Treesong**

Vladsimpaler wrote:I take it you've never heard of the Duke Lacrosse scandal then?

Too many girls have falsely accused someone of rape and the person who is falsely accused has their life ruined. And the girl gets away scot free for absolutely no reason, even if she's proven false.

My wife is a school teacher. I know exactly what the potential of a false accusation is. But frankly, the number of cases of malicious accusations of rape is overstated when considering the number of cases of genuine rape and the number that simply fail to reach a successful prosecution because of insufficient evidence and the continued trauma victims have to go through. There are cases where false accusations have resulted in prison sentences, so it's wrong to claim that nothing happens even when lies are proven.

You should be able to defend a case on its merits without smearing the character of the other person in order to make the jury swallow the "she was asking for it" defence. The defendant cannot have their character so easily questioned particular in relation to a track record of dubious/criminal behaviour, but witnesses are fair game and are attacked and humiliated to destroy their credibility.

Obviously rape trials and the like are very emotive, but I'd be surprised if I was in court faced with a malicious charge that the only thing I could rely upon was to smear the other person because no other evidence could argue my case. In the case of Bellfield the coward wouldn't even come to court. He lurked in his cell and sent his lawyer with instructions to rip apart the victim's family with innuendo and mudslinging.

**biccat**

Albatross wrote:
biccat wrote:Holy crap, I thought the BBC was supposed to be a good news source. That was a terribly written article.

I can sympathise with you. As a fully paid-up Fox stormtrooper, it must be difficult for you to wade though all those pesky facts to find the crude appeals to emotion that you crave.

Possible. I have paid all of the money Fox demanded of me.

But I just think that this is a case of bad writing. The author didn't provide any background information or a framework for the issue. Simply "crude emotional appeal" that is designed to inflame. I was led to believe that this was the sole realm of the Daily Mail.

It appears from some of the other articles that the guy's defense was either 1) the girl ran off on her own; or 2) the girl committed suicide. If that's his defense, then her state of mind is certainly relevant, assuming there was some initial showing that this was relevant.

**Mr Mystery**

I'd say not.

Saying that someone would top themselves just because they found their Dad's Bongo Mags...and then suggesting that ownership of Jazz Manuals would somehow suggest the next logical step being to slot your own kid? That's just completely and utterly irrelevant. I have two art pamphlets in my room, and do you know what? I'd rather relax with them in a Gentleman's manner, than go and kill someone.

When a child is murdered, it is only natural that the parents become suspects. After all, the majority of all murders are commited by someone close to the victim yes? But to use this as a defense for someone accused, well, that's just scummy low.

**Albatross**

Mr Mystery wrote:I'd say not.

Saying that someone would top themselves just because they found their Dad's Bongo Mags...and then suggesting that ownership of Jazz Manuals would somehow suggest the next logical step being to slot your own kid? That's just completely and utterly irrelevant. I have two art pamphlets in my room, and do you know what? I'd rather relax with them in a Gentleman's manner, than go and kill someone.

**Kilkrazy**

Back on topic, the solution to the problem of defence barristers overreaching themselves in pursuit of relatives, etc. is better handling by the judge.

I think we should bear in mind that one case, no matter how unpleasant, does not by itself warrant the revision of the criminal justice system.

**Orlanth**

Its fair.

Prosecution has its say first. They said Milly had a good home and had a good future and that could be reflected in sentencing. The effect her murder has on a family can be reflected in sentencing. If that part of a prosecutions case is flawed a good defence team, who speak second, could do what they can to counter it. This is in the clients best interests to make out the home life was less than stellar. To get a whole-life tarrif indicates they failed.

If the Dowler family didn't want her dads porn to be part of the trial they shouldn't give personal evidence about their family life in the prosecution, it wasn't necessary to the case anyway. Bellfield was caught out by forensic science, not because the Dowler family loved their daughter. As the information about the Dowlers personal life would otherwise not be relevant the prosecution could have called an objection and the judge had that line of questioning removed. If the question was stricken from the records it is also to be stricken from press record, and if journalists in the public gallery report on comments stricken from the record after they are in contempt of court. This is one reason why live cameras are not permitted.