Talk:Birmingham Six/Archive 1

Reason appeal failed?

Please can someone say why the first appeal failed; and give detilas of the second? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it somewhat... strange.... that only a few lines deal with the deaths of 21 people in the bombings, and a whole article deals with a miscarriage of justice?

Exile 21:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The article is about the Birmingham Six, not about the pub bombings. There is already an article about the pub bombings, which is the appropriate place for information about people who died in them. I have added links to that article from this one since there were none. If you know anything about the pub bombings, you are welcome to contribute to that article :) Alex 13:08, 29 August, 2005 (UTC)

The case when it first went to court resulted in the convictions, it went to appeal on the grounds of Bridge J's attitude towards the defendants and the way in which this was clearly displayed to the jury - i.e. not allowing the jury to reach their own decision on all the evidence. The 1977 appeal failed and the convictions were upheld. In criminal law the amount of times a case can be appealed is limited, i.e. there is no right to a second appeal. The only way a case can go back to the court of appeal again is if it is refered by the Home Secretary under the criminal appeal act 1978 s17(1)(a). However it must be noted that the Court of Appeal does not sit in cases such as this in its appelate role, it is limited to powrs of review as to the safety and satisfactory nature nature of the convictions. In 1987 such a reference was made, the reasons for which were: 1. fresh scientific evidence commissioned by the home office. 2. Allegations by former police officer Thomas Clarke, alleging that he witnessed intimidation of the appelants at Queens Road Police Station. However, the 1987 appeals were dismissed. The case was again refered back to the Appeal Court in 1990 as a result of further fresh evidence which had become availible since the 1987 hearing. This appeal was allowed and the case went back to hearing. I hope this information is helpful. Stef x

Nitrite

I have seen it reported that some of the Birmingham Six may have tested positive for explosives due to handling nitrated sausages. Anyone know if this can be verified? 68.147.242.17 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were tested with a Greiss test which isn't very specific to explosives - from my memory of the case, they were playing cards and the coating on the cards could give a false positive. Autarch 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium nitrite is used for the curing meat because it prevents bacterial growth. Frank Skuse used the Griess test which detects Nitrite ions NO₂⁻ Aatomic1 07:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also E249 Potassium nitrite Aatomic1 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been the suggestion that traces were picked up from eating processed meat pies on the train. Valiant Son (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Looks like someone sprinkled the word "penis" throughout this article. Aparantly the word "penis" is hilarious to this immature person. Anyways, I am new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how to revert back to the old version. Can someone help? Thanks! Urban48 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatings in police custody

Shouldn't that be 'were allegedly beaten'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.174.195 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 February 2007

It was part of the appeal case and wasn't disputed. Nick Cooper 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing alleged about it. There have been several witness accounts that support this and, as stated above, the issue was not disputed in the Appeal Court hearings. Valiant Son (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Blom-Cooper

The link referenced to the article, stating the contents of the book, is toast. I have found the article : [1] There is no mention of the book or its contents at all. Aatomic1 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsafe convictions

I distinctly remember the convictions of the Birmingham 6 being declared UNSAFE by the Judiciary at that time. This is different from QUASHED . Unsafe often refers to the tampering of evidence or other irregularities of procedure ( beating suspects forced confessions etc) nowadays covered by PACE. ( Americans have MIRANDA )

Put it another way - If I were convicted of a crime and later had the conviction declared UNSAFE I would not be a happy bunny !!

To have my conviction QUASHED or declared WRONG would mean that I should have been found NOT GUILTY in the first place. In this category I would feel happiest.

Unsafe conviction means that they ( The Judiciary ) believe I probably did the crime I was accused of but because the police obtained the evidence to convict me by punching me all over and getting me to sign a confession to stop the "torture" the whole process of law was thereby brought into disrepute.

We can't have that so convictions that are achieved in that manner are usually declared unsafe particularly when the original evidence is so badly tainted it would be impossible to re-try the suspect(s).

In America it is a bit like "getting off on a technicality" and in the case of the Birmingham six there were just too many technicalities.

Serious readers are advised to research UNSAFE Convictions via any decent LAW BOOK or ask a friendly Barrister ( I hope you never need one !!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domnal5 (talk • contribs) 15:48:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

...er the article does not say 'quashed' anywhere

If it did I might use the Verbatim quote from the judges in R v Ward

...the convictions were all unsafe and unsatisfactory. We therefore allow the appeal and quash the convictions of Miss Ward on all counts

Aatomic1 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unsafe conviction is one where the conviction cannot be upheld on the strength of the evidence. It is not a pejorative term and the Court of Appeal made no comment about whether or not the Judges believed the men to be guilty. You seem a little unclear about the nature of conviction in English law. You cannot be found guilty if there is reasonable doubt. If a conviction is unsafe then there is reasonable doubt. Therefore you are not guilty.

You seem to have an agenda to muddy the name of these men who served 16 years in prison for a crime which they did not commit. Valiant Son (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange then that no one else has ever been questioned since about these crimes then isn't it? There is difference between technical guilt and real guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.38 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsafe - Quashed

Perhaps we can have this verbatim quote in the main article and any others that confirm the due process.

As it is the article is in danger of showing too much bias.

Someone else has made a comment on the discussion page of Guildford 4

That needs an answer too. !!

Domnal5 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting seems long on personal opinion and short on verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your opinion. Domnal5 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these men didnt commit the crime you english fool... the only liars in these tragic miscarraiges of justice were the whole of the british legal system... i lived next door to mcilkenny in celbridge, co.kildare and talked at length of his abuse and mistreatment... who are you to question innocent men you pig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.89.7 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me English !! Does The Irish Gaelic Spelling Domnal not give you a clue . I am sure you need at least one !!Domnal5 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange then that no one else has ever been questioned since about these crimes then isn't it? There is difference between technical guilt and real guilt. The British legal system is objectively one of the fairest in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.38 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References removed

I'm reverting the changes made by 212.219.252.209 that you all managed to miss. You'll notice he's been banned, presumably for various acts of immature vandalism. If there's some reason that one should remove references from an article that I'm not in on as a non-wikipedian, please don't just revert my edit because it also fixes some text that he messed up in the "trial" section. Gordon. 94.195.137.115 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]