UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Off Topic and General Discussions => Off topic, general discussions and the Wide Awake Club. => Topic started by: alphabet77 on July 18, 2017, 09:48:23 AM
-
It is 17 years ago today that Sarah Payne`s body was found by a farm labourer. Roy Whiting was subsequently arrested for the murder, yet hardly any evidence was found to convict him. I have read numerous articles which hint that he is innocent of this crime and evidence was fabricated. Is he guilty ?
-
It is 17 years ago today that Sarah Payne`s body was found by a farm labourer. Roy Whiting was subsequently arrested for the murder, yet hardly any evidence was found to convict him. I have read numerous articles which hint that he is innocent of this crime and evidence was fabricated. Is he guilty ?
Hi alphabet77, would you like to start a new topic on the subject?
-
Could my subject go onto the forum for people to comment ?
-
Could my subject go onto the forum for people to comment ?
Of course it can.
-
On 14 November 2001 at Lewes Crown Court, the jury heard from several witnesses. The key witnesses included Payne's oldest brother who had seen a 'scruffy-looking man with yellowish teeth' drive by. However, Lee Payne did not pick out Roy Whiting when he was selected for an identity parade. One of Payne's shoes was found by a member of the public in a country lane and forensic tests had found fibres from Whiting's van on the shoe. This was the only item of Payne's clothing to be recovered. A strand of blonde hair on a T-shirt was found in Whiting's van. A DNA test established there was a one-in-a-billion chance of it belonging to anyone other than Payne.
On 12 December 2001, after a four-week trial before Mr Justice Curtis and a jury, Whiting was convicted of the abduction and murder of Payne and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge said it was a rare case in which a life sentence should mean life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Payne
-
It is 17 years ago today that Sarah Payne`s body was found by a farm labourer. Roy Whiting was subsequently arrested for the murder, yet hardly any evidence was found to convict him. I have read numerous articles which hint that he is innocent of this crime and evidence was fabricated. Is he guilty ?
Can you point us in the direction of these articles, which hopefully don't include any Roy Whiting support group website. We've had enough of the "let's create a police conspiracy" theory with the Bamber cranks!
Some background... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-pzfLq10hg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-pzfLq10hg)
-
But imho, Roy Whiting was without question rightly found guilty. The first of his plethora of "No Comments" in police interviews was enough for me.
-
Here are a few links (and not necessarily suggesting that Roy Whiting is innocent). As far as I can see, there is no "Roy Whiting supporters page" !!!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-87793/Im-tell-truth.html
www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/roy-whiting
www.standard.co.uk/news/dna-proof-against-sarahs-killer-6335671.html
http://www.justjustice.org/cheshire.html
www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/06/childprotection.society
-
It is 17 years ago today that Sarah Payne`s body was found by a farm labourer. Roy Whiting was subsequently arrested for the murder, yet hardly any evidence was found to convict him. I have read numerous articles which hint that he is innocent of this crime and evidence was fabricated. Is he guilty ?
Roy Whiting was already in prison (for motoring offences) when he was questioned by police in connection with the murder of Sarah Payne.
He had previously been convicted of a sexual assault involving a child, and had been imprisoned, and placed on the sex offenders register. So, he would have been seen as a "prime suspect" for Sarah's murder, even though he admitted to having committed the first crime, but did not admit to having killed Sarah.
I don't think "no comment" interviews necessarily mean that someone is guilty: suspects are sometimes advised by their lawyers to remain silent.
Although the jury was not told about his "previous" until after the trial, I would imagine that having "previous" of this kind is seriously going to prejudice his chances if he tries to appeal. I don't believe that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt in the Sarah Payne trial.
This is serious, should he be innocent. He has a 40 year sentence.
-
Roy Whiting was already in prison (for motoring offences) when he was questioned by police in connection with the murder of Sarah Payne.
He had previously been convicted of a sexual assault involving a child, and had been imprisoned, and placed on the sex offenders register. So, he would have been seen as a "prime suspect" for Sarah's murder, even though he admitted to having committed the first crime, but did not admit to having killed Sarah.
I don't think "no comment" interviews necessarily mean that someone is guilty: suspects are sometimes advised by their lawyers to remain silent.
Although the jury was not told about his "previous" until after the trial, I would imagine that having "previous" of this kind is seriously going to prejudice his chances if he tries to appeal. I don't believe that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt in the Sarah Payne trial.
This is serious, should he be innocent. He has a 40 year sentence.
Lawyers?... Pah!!! "No comments" indicate that those questioned have something to hide! Anyone innocent should be more than willing to come clean, not obfuscate. Now why would that be in Whiting's case?
-
Lawyers?... Pah!!! "No comments" indicate that those questioned have something to hide! Anyone innocent should be more than willing to come clean, not obfuscate. Now why would that be in Whiting's case?
I'm sure that, in many cases , that is true, but don't suspects have a "right to silence"?
Same with defendants who choose not to give evidence in their own defence. Many such people are guilty, but we can't necessarily assume they are. Other evidence has to be taken into account, IMO.
-
I have been doing further research on this case today. I cannot find very much that suggests that Roy Whiting is innocent of the murder of Sarah Payne.
I try to look at things from all angles, but evidence suggests that Roy Whiting is not a very nice man!
I can understand why he was the prime suspect. Lee Payne had seen someone in a white van, and Roy Whiting had "form" (of the right sort) and a white van.
However, Lee did not see Sarah get into a white van, he did not see her in a white van, and nor was he able to pick out Roy Whiting in an identification parade. I know he was just a kid at the time------about 13, I believe. He felt guilty about his sister having disappeared, when he was supposed to have been watching her, and he loved his sister. He would have identified Whiting had he been able to.
I suspect they got the right man, yet I am somewhat disturbed that the only real evidence they had was DNA evidence. One hair? Fibres? Can we "prove" fibres? After all, clothing is mass produced, and I expect both Sarah and Roy Whiting were wearing the same kind of clothes as numerous other people. Does one hair prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
I believe Whiting was certainly capable of murdering Sarah, considering what he had done previously, and it's very likely that he did, but I'm afraid I am rather cynical regarding DNA.