Thursday, September 30, 2010

Innocence is No Defence/Under Arrest?/Former Jurors Can Speak!

Here is an article I found in MOJUK (Miscarriages of JusticeUK (MOJUK) News Service) This makes a lot of judicial conundrums simple.

From http://www.miscarriageofjustice.org/

Innocence is No Defence

In fact, being innocent is one of the biggest handicaps to the defence of an innocent person, because their ignorance of the system and how it works is used against them, time and time again.


For many people, being questioned in relation to a serious crime is not, initially, something to be afraid of. They proceed on the basis of the old maxim "I've done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear." What these people don't realise is that a police investigation does not, necessarily, exist to clear the innocent and find the guilty. It exists to allow the police access to enough information to secure a conviction. There is a big difference.

If the police have decided, often quite arbitrarily, on a "suspect," they will systematically gather information which backs up their decision, even if that person is innocent. Information, for example, pointing to other suspects, will either be ignored or discounted as "irrelevant" because it does not fit with the picture the police are trying to piece together. Indeed, in many cases, the "investigation" becomes an exercise in finding "evidence" to back up only one line of "suspicion", and other areas are simply not investigated at all.

Innocent people try very hard to help the police by giving them as much information, however small or seemingly innocuous, believing that nothing they say can in any way incriminate them, because they haven't done anything wrong in the first place. They will backtrack, remembering small detailsŠ. "I went from the house to Joe's, and then onto Billy's at eight o'clock." Later, they might say, "No, wait, I've just remembered, after Joe's, I had to come back here because I'd left my phone at home."

The first sense of unease may begin when the police start to question this "change" in the story. Why did you tell us you went straight to Billy's? Why didn't you tell us you'd gone home? Was anybody in your house to confirm that you went there? The only answer an innocent person can give is "I forgot," but the police won't accept that. Still trying to explain themselves, an innocent person may then go on to try to provide explanations as to why they forgot, digging themselves into a deeper hole from the police perspective.

Still, though, people believe that the system will, sooner or later, highlight their innocence, and even if they have become a little uneasy about the line the police questioning is taking, they are still fairly confident that someone, somewhere will realise the police are on the wrong track, and it's all just a big mistake.

Then they are arrested. At this stage, the shock and bewilderment are overwhelming. Many wrongfully convicted people can't wait for the trial. The police, they reason, have got it all totally wrong, and a trial will show it. When the evidence comes out in court, it will become clear that the police constructed a case against the wrong person.

What they don't realise is that the information the police have gathered may very well "substantiate" the prosecution claims. That being the case, questions will not be asked in court about other possible areas of investigation, or other possible suspects, because neither of those have anything to do with the case being tried in court.

Only when the foreman of the jury stands up and says "Guilty" do these people realise that no-one is coming to rescue them. No-one cares that the wrong person is in the dock, or that an innocent person has just been convicted. All that matters is that a conviction has been secured.

Innocence is no defence. In fact, being innocent is one of the biggest handicaps to the defence of an innocent person, because their ignorance of the system and how it works is used against them, time and time again.

by Sandra Lean - June 2008


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Under Arrest?

We all know and recognise the famous "caution" -

"Joe Bloggs, you are being arrested for the murder of Jack Black. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be taken down and used in evidence against you."

You'd think, then, that anyone who has been arrested would know they had been arrested, and would have the right not to answer any questions until they have a solicitor present.

Well, if the caution was delivered exactly as it's shown here, that would be the case. But there are two significant problems with this.

Firstly, it's rarely delivered as clearly, or as obviously. Often the caution is hidden within a whole bunch of "information" fired at the "suspect" (who probably has no idea he is a suspect) by the arresting officer or officers.
Secondly, many people who are taken into a police station for questioning "under caution" have not actually been arrested.

In Scotland, there are two circumstances in which a person will be cautioned, held and questioned without actually having been arrested.

The first is as a "Voluntary Attender." Most people believe, at this stage, they are witnesses, helping the police with their enquiries. What they do not understand is that they are already a suspect, and anything they say may be used against them.

Consider the following, from a real life case:
The police officer first explains why they are in the police station, saying they need more information about the deceased from her "immediate friends" and a clearer understanding of the witness's "observations at that time." It's all very innocuous, with no hint that the "witness" is in any way "under suspicion." The officer then asks the witness to complete and sign a declaration of "Voluntary Attendance" which says "I agree to remain with police for interview regardingŠŠ" and then "I understand I may terminate this interview at any time."

This might seem self evident - once there's nothing more you can tell the police, the interview will naturally come to an endŠ. won't it? But then, after all this softly, softly introduction, and after the form is signed, the officer states, "OK, in fairnessŠ it's a procedural thingŠ I have to caution you that you're not bound to answer any of these questions we put to you today, but if you do, your answers will be recorded, may be noted, and may be used in evidence."

Helping the police with their enquiries as a witness, you may believe the fact that it's just a "procedural thing" because the officer didn't say "may be used in evidence against you." There would be no point in obtaining information if it wasn't going to be used in evidence - it's the omission of the critical words "against you" that keeps the person believing he only a witness.

Weeks later comes "Detention under Section 14." Here the "witness" is told he is being detained for questioning. He is told "OK, you're going to be asked questions about the murder of X, you're not bound to answer these but if you do, your answers will be recorded and may be used in evidence." Once again, the words "against you" are omitted. This time, though, he is not free to terminate the interview - he must stay with the police for the full duration allowed by Section 14, after which the police must either arrest him, or set him free. But this is not explained to him by the police. He is still not told he is a suspect, and worse, he is not entitled to have a solicitor present, either as a Voluntary Attender or under Section 14.

He asks if he has been arrested and is told "No." He asks if he is being accused of the murder and is told "No."

Put yourself in that position. You haven't been arrested, you haven't heard the proper version of "the caution," you're not being accused of anything and you haven't been told that your answers may be used in evidence against you. What would you think had happened to you?

If you ever find yourself in a police station, helping police with their enquiries and are told that your evidence may be used "in evidence," beware. Your witness status has just turned to suspect status, and you won't even know it.

by Sandra Lean - July 2008


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Former Jurors Can Speak!


It is illegal in this country to approach anyone who has served on a jury and ask them questions about how they came to their verdict. It is not, however, illegal for people who have served on a jury to talk about their experiences after the event.

Given that so many jury decisions seem to fly in the face of the evidence before them, the only way these decisions can be studied, and the underlying reasons for such strange decisions identified, is if people voluntarily discuss their experiences.

Any study of the causes of wrongful convictions must, of necessity, remain incomplete when researchers are forbidden to approach jurors, and also when police officers, people working in the CPS, etc, are unable to discuss their concerns for fear of losing their jobs, or breaking rules of "confidentiality."

Any researcher, myself included, can accept information which is voluntarily offered, and can, and will, assure anonymity for those who are willing to offer such information.Without it, we can never truly understand how our criminal justice system gets it so wrong, so often.

Also, our current system means there is no support or assistance for people who have served on a jury which has wrongfully convicted someone, when that conviction is overturned, or for people who have worked on an obviously flawed case. It's not hard to imagine how people must feel, discovering that they were duped into believing they were hearing "all of the evidence," or that they assisted in locking up a completely innocent person, yet all we can do is imagine, because, once again, we have no means of asking directly. Only if people in that position willingly and voluntarily discuss their feelings do we have any real way of knowing.

by Sandra Lean - August 2008


End of Bulletin


Source for this message:
http://www.miscarriageofjustice.org/


Contact sandra@miscarriageofjustice.org




I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

You And your Health

What do you think about these 12 statements? Do you think they re correct?

1: Cardio is One of the Best Types of Exercise
2: Vaccines are Safe and Effective and Prevent Disease
3: Fluoride in Your Water Lowers Your Risk of Cavities
4: GMOs Crops are Safe, Well Tested and Economically Beneficial
5: Sun Causes Skin Cancer
6: Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease
7: Artificial Sweeteners are Safe, Well Tested and Help Promote Weight Loss
8: Soy is a Health Food
9: Whole Grains are Good for Everyone
10: All Plant Based Supplements are as Good as Animal Supplements
11: Milk Does Your Body Good
12: Low-Fat Diets are Healthy

If you said no to all of them you are a well read person. Othewise read this.




I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!

Friday, September 24, 2010

Random Number Theories

The phe­nom­e­non we com­monly re­fer to as chance is merely a re­sult of a lack of knowl­edge. If we knew the loca­t­ion, speed and oth­er char­ac­ter­is­tics of all of the par­t­i­cles in the uni­verse with ab­so­lute cer­tainty, ac­cord­ing to clas­si­cal phys­ics we could pre­dict eve­ry­thing, in­clud­ing di­ce throws and lot­tery re­sults.

By the same to­ken, computer-gen­er­ated ran­dom num­bers “sim­u­late ran­domness, but with the help of suit­a­ble tests and a suf­fi­cient vol­ume of da­ta, a pat­tern can usu­ally be iden­ti­fied,” said re­searcher Christoph Mar­quardt of the Max Planck In­sti­tute for the Phys­ics of Light in Er­lan­gen, Ger­ma­ny.


From http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100912_random




I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!

Friday, September 03, 2010

plants acting Funny?

as you know if you have read any of my posts that I am a believer in understanding more and simplifying facts of life. If I get attacked by someone bigger than me I always call the Police. what will a Tobacco plant do? Ha Ha.

according to this article, when the tobacco plant find itself attacked by a caterpillar it gives out a chemical called green leaf volatiles, or GLVs. If you’ve smelled freshly cut grass, you’ve smelled GLVs.

It is very unlikely the tobacco plant has labs to do tests to find out. So the boffins are at it.

The rest of it here


I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!

How To Be An early Riser

Ahhh the life long problem I have lived with. Boom Boom lazyness. I wake up around 6 to 7 AM as my body says take your bloody pain killers. I dutefully take them, go for a leak and, hai karamba I am in snoozyland. I tried and tried in vain to get up and get along with something interesting to do.

I came across this simple 5 ways to get up and go. I will do it next few weeks and will write about what I discover. Boy will I stay in bed with the woman below or not?





1) Choose to get up before you go to sleep. You’re not very good at making decisions when you’ve just woken up. This is not the time to be making decisions about whether or not you should stay in bed! If you want to be a consistently early riser, try making your decision to rise at a specific time before you go to sleep the night before.

2.)Have a plan for your extra time. Let’s say you’ve actually made it out of bed 2 hours before you normally would. If you don’t have something planned to do with your extra time, you risk falling for the temptation of a “morning nap” that wipes out all the work you put into getting up.

3.)Make rising early a social activity. Wouldn’t it be great to join an early breakfast club, running group, or play chess in the park at 5 AM?

4.)Don’t use an alarm that makes you angry. If we’re all wired differently, why do we all insist on torturing ourselves with the same sort of alarm each morning? Experiment a bit and see what works best for you. Light, sound, smells, temperature, or even some contraption that dumps water on you might be more pleasant than your old alarm clock.

5.)Get your blood flowing right after waking. It doesn’t take much to get your blood flowing and chase the sleep from your head. Just pick something you don’t mind doing and go through the motions until your heart rate is up. Jumping rope, push-ups, crunches, or a few minutes of yoga are typically enough to do the trick.


From this article




I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Laboratories Of Bacteria

Some time back I published a post and there are more revelations about them to make the intelligence of bacteria, a bit more understood.

If you have limited time; I will go through the post.

"The bacteria are the smallest living creature in this world. They do the same things humans do with the setup they have. They use chemicle signal system to know about things, like the sex of another, and do things as 'aving it party or otherwise. So they are intelligent in their own way."

They cooperate with each other and feel altruism for others in the colony. No difference from us.

"If a food particle brushes against the cell, then a molecular chain reaction occurs to perform the task of enveloping the food particle to digest it."

Self explanatory.

Learning

When there is plenty food they put chemical signals to attract the piece of food to itself and replicate faster, so tht the replicates know about the food; or it can send chemical signals to others where the food is. wow the size of the particle of food and can I share it?

Then again when there is a food shortage they signal to eachother and secrete and harden a cell outside the colony, untill they feel there is a food supply.

Yep as usual the boffins want to replicate the same system the bacteria use to make a better computer. Wicked. i hope they solve it out before I die.

And then again I wrote a post here.

And a bit earlier when I was a bit younger I said this.

Drug-resistant germs found to help their brethren through the attack

This article made me feel wonderba. It is right into me little soul.

I will try to elucidate what the article says in a way I understood. You might see it different.

Confronting at­tack by an­ti­bi­otics, some bac­te­ria help each oth­er out—and un­for­tu­nately for us, they’re bet­ter off for it, re­search­ers have found.


It starts making my invicible hair on my knape go crazy. Felt like a bloody horse.

Normal wisdom according to the teory of evolution; some bacteria become super bugs, who are immune to the antibiotc, produce more and more superbugs and the other bacteria die out. that leaves the super bug in "evolution".

But now the boffins have found out otherwise.

But the new stu­dy, to ap­pear in the Sept. 2 is­sue of the re­search jour­nal Na­ture, in­di­cates there are al­so popula­t­ion-wide changes in the bac­te­ri­al com­mun­ity at work. Faced with an on­slaught of an­ti­bi­otics, re­sistant Esch­e­rich­i­chia coli mi­crobes pro­duce—at an en­er­gy cost to them­selves—a pro­tein mol­e­cule that seeps in­to the com­munal broth and trig­gers a slew of pro­tec­tive mech­a­nisms in their non-re­sistant neigh­bors.


Read further









I am a selfish person.If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!