It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/met-police-cleared-racial-abuse

"A Metropolitan police officer was today acquitted of racially
assaulting two teenage boys who had accused him of taking them into
the back of a police van and shouting abuse about their ethnic
backgrounds in front of his colleagues.

Mark Jones, 42, a member of the Met's territorial support group (TSG),
was cleared of subjecting the two 16-year-olds to a physical and
verbal attack after stopping them near Edgware Road, west London.

During the trial, one of the youths accused Jones of placing him in a
neck-hold. Five other TSG officers who were on patrol with Jones, and
were alleged to have covered up the attack, were acquitted of
misfeasance charges.

A black officer who was in the van at the time of the alleged assaults
in June 2007 turned "whistleblower", giving evidence against Jones and
the others during the trial. All seven officers were stationed at the
Paddington Green branch of the TSG.

The conclusion of the trial at Kingston crown court means Jones can be
identified as one of six TSG officers – also from Paddington Greeen –
involved in a separate, "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack on
a Muslim man who brought a successful civil case against the Met.

During that case, the high court was told that Jones, a former Royal
Marine, had had more than 30 complaints lodged against him, mostly by
black or Asian men.

Babar Ahmad, 34, a terror suspect, was punched, kicked, stamped on and
strangled during his arrest by officers at his home in December 2003.
In March the Met conceded that its officers had subjected Ahmad to
sustained violence and paid him £60,000 in damages.

The court heard how officers stamped on Ahmad's feet and repeatedly
punched him in the head in his home in Tooting, south London, before
he was forced into the Muslim prayer position, when they shouted:
"Where is your God now? Pray to him."

Ahmad was forced into the back of a police van, where he was again
beaten and punched. Jones was referred to in the civil case as
"Officer X". In court he was identified by Ahmad's lawyers as the man
who placed him in an "extremely dangerous" neck-hold that "could only
have been intended to cause [Ahmad] to experience a state of utter
terror at the thought that he was about to die".

Around this time Ahmad heard an unidentified officer say: "You fucking
cunt, you'll remember this day for the rest of your life, do you
understand me, you fucking bastard?"

The case led to revelations about the history of allegations made
against Jones and the five other officers involved in Ahmad's arrest,
after the judge ordered the Met to disclose unsubstantiated complaints
made against them between 1993 and 2007. The six were the subject of
77 complaints in total, only one of which was substantiated.

When lawyers for Ahmad asked for details of the allegations, the Met
said they had "lost" several large mail sacks containing at least 30
complaints. Lawyers for Ahmad, who analysed the complaints, told the
court they revealed Jones had 31 complaints lodged against him.
Twenty-six were assault allegations, most of which had been lodged by
black or Asian men, and none were substantiated.

They included a complaint from a man detained during a drug search in
2007 who, Ahmad's lawyers told the court, accused Jones of forcing him
into the back of a TSG van, before placing him on his knees, grabbing
his neck and spraying CS gas into his face.

Ahmad's legal team said the details of his attack were "strikingly
similar" to allegations made by teenagers in the 2007 incident in west
London. The jury that acquitted Jones today was not told about his
role in the Ahmad case or made aware of any unsubstantiated complaints
made against him.

During the four-week trial, the court heard how Jones and six
colleagues were on duty on 1 June 2007 when they came across a group
of teenagers on Edgware Road mouthing obscenities. The teenagers were
stopped and searched, and one – Ahmed Hegazy, then 17 – was restrained
after becoming aggressive and taken into a police van.

Two 16-year-old teenagers said they were also taken into the van one
by one and racially abused by Jones. Omar Mohidin claimed Jones
repeatedly made him stand up and sit down while handcuffed, and
reacted aggressively after discovering he was from Kuwait, allegedly
saying: "Iraq, fucking Iraq, I got mates back there getting killed by
fuckers like you."

Basil Khan accused Jones of placing him in a hold at the rear of the
van, which he described as a "headlock" that prevented him from
breathing properly. He said Jones punched him several times on the top
of the head while calling him an "Arab cunt".

Jones and five officers present during the incident denied any officer
had assaulted or shouted racist abuse at the youths. They told the
court some in the group of teenagers had become aggressive when
stopped and had threatened to kill officers.

A seventh officer, PC Amechi Onwugbonu, who lodged an official
complaint hours after returning to the station on the night of the
incident, gave evidence against his colleagues during the trial. He
supported the allegations of racial assault made by the teenagers and
said Jones had later told him the treatment had been justified because
the TSG were "vigilantes".

Jones denied having said that and, under almost a week of
cross-examination, Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
contradicted his accounts.

Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
Jones were "not best buddies".

Jones was cleared of racially aggravated common assault against
Mohidin and Khan. PC Neil Brown, 33, was cleared of misfeasance in
public office, along with Sergeant William Wilson, 52, PC Steven
White, 31, and PC Giles Kitchener, 31. PC Simon Prout, 33, was cleared
of the same charge in October. Brown was earlier found not guilty of
racially aggravated threatening behaviour toward Hegazy.

Colin Reynolds, the solicitor representing the cleared men, said
outside court: "On behalf of all five officers, I am instructed to
express their appreciation to the jury for the way they have clearly,
so carefully and conscientiously considered the evidence over the past
four weeks and returned these verdicts. At the present time, neither
they or I on their behalf have anything more to say.""


the times takes a similar slant but includes a bit more detail

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6901957.ece

"The jury at Kingston was also not told that Inspector Paul Davis, the
officer who gave Mr Jones a glowing character reference in court, was
the senior officer who supervised the raid at Mr Ahmad’s home and was
said to have witnessed the assaults.

In the Kingston trial the prosecution claimed that Mr Jones subjected
two youths to a physical and verbal attack in June 2007, accusing a
16-year-old Kuwaiti of “robbing people while British soldiers are
getting killed in Iraq”. In a statement, Mr Ahmad’s family said that
they were disappointed with the verdict, and called for Mr Jones to be
tried over the attack on Mr Ahmad.

They said that although the Metropolitan Police had admitted the
brutality of the attack, no officers had been prosecuted, adding:
“This is reflective of a culture that exists in the UK whereby police
officers are able to behave as brutally as they wish with full
knowledge that they will not be held to account by the authorities.”"

"AlanG"  wrote in message 
news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>
> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>

It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12 who have 
heard *all* the evidence.

"Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
contradicted his accounts.

Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
Jones were "not best buddies".

Mentalguy2k8  posted
>
>"Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
>contradicted his accounts.

I thought that was feeble. It's just the sort of thing anyone would 
misremember.

My wife and I went to see a house at the weekend. We spent an hour going 
over it and took a load of photos. Thirty minutes later we sat down in a 
pub and tried to sketch a floor plan of the house.  We were in complete 
disagreement about many of the features - even the position of the 
staircase!

On the other hand, I'd remember if I'd seen somebody being called a cunt 
and sprayed with CS gas in the lounge.

>Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
>failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
>Jones were "not best buddies".

I don't see that that's got anything whatsoever to do with anything.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:d6c9HgKkkW8KFwSI@obviously.invalid...
> Mentalguy2k8  posted
>>
>>"Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>>and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>>arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
>>contradicted his accounts.
>
> I thought that was feeble. It's just the sort of thing anyone would 
> misremember.
>
> My wife and I went to see a house at the weekend. We spent an hour going 
> over it and took a load of photos. Thirty minutes later we sat down in a 
> pub and tried to sketch a floor plan of the house.  We were in complete 
> disagreement about many of the features - even the position of the 
> staircase!
>
> On the other hand, I'd remember if I'd seen somebody being called a cunt 
> and sprayed with CS gas in the lounge.
>
>>Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>>Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
>>failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
>>Jones were "not best buddies".
>
> I don't see that that's got anything whatsoever to do with anything.

I'd have thought that previous friction between two people giving 
conflicting evidence would be quite relevant.

Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
> "AlanG"  wrote in message
> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>
>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>
>
> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>
> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
> contradicted his accounts.
>
> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
> failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
> Jones were "not best buddies".

We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for police 
officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are found NG, he wont 
accept it.

He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would satisfy 
him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow police haters, 
followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>
>>
>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
>> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>
>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
>> contradicted his accounts.
>>
>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
>> failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
>> Jones were "not best buddies".
> 
> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for 
> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are found 
> NG, he wont accept it.
> 

Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem to 
be defending bent coppers (as usual)

Still the case can always be reopened when the fuckers attack another 
person.




> He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would 
> satisfy him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow police 
> haters, followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.
>

No just justice is what is needed and it hasn't happened here.


>

Geoff wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>> 
>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
>>> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>> 
>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>>> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>>> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court
>>> that contradicted his accounts.
>>> 
>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>>> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after
>>> he failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
>>> Jones were "not best buddies".
>> 
>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for
>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are found
>> NG, he wont accept it.
>> 
> 
> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem
> to be defending bent coppers (as usual).

I take it that you have had access to evidence that the jury did not see?

--snip obscenity--

>> He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would
>> satisfy him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow
>> police haters, followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.
>> 
> 
> No just justice is what is needed and it hasn't happened here.

And you know that - how?

Kev

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0000, Geoff 
wrote:

>Ret. wrote:
>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
>>> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>>
>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>>> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>>> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court that
>>> contradicted his accounts.
>>>
>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>>> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after he
>>> failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he and
>>> Jones were "not best buddies".
>> 
>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for 
>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are found 
>> NG, he wont accept it.
>> 
>
>Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem to 
>be defending bent coppers (as usual)

In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature was
not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well have
been different. I never commented on the case until it was over and if
the details of his record had not been published I would not have
bothered posting anything.

The police (taxpayer) had already paid out £60000 in damages for a
previous racial assault by one of these police officers. His superior
was present during that assault. None of them were punished despite
the metropolitan police accepting blame. 

We are now in the region of actions that came after the Soham murders.
Huntley had previous allegations against him that were never proven in
court yet the inquiry held that they should have been taken into
account by his employer. If acceptable for school caretakers it should
be accptable for police. 
>
>Still the case can always be reopened when the fuckers attack another 
>person.
>
>
>
>
>> He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would 
>> satisfy him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow police 
>> haters, followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.
>>
>
>No just justice is what is needed and it hasn't happened here.
>
Nope. Justice according to law is what happened. But on his record the
police would be foolish not to be looking at keeping a close watch on
him or dispensing with his services altogether. He strikes me as the
sort of man who could easily incite civil unrest to the extent some
other plod like Blakelock gets dead because of his actions.

>
>>

AlanG wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0000, Geoff 
> wrote:
>
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
>>>> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>>>> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>>>> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court
>>>> that contradicted his accounts.
>>>>
>>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>>>> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after
>>>> he failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he
>>>> and Jones were "not best buddies".
>>>
>>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for
>>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are
>>> found NG, he wont accept it.
>>>
>>
>> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You
>> seem to be defending bent coppers (as usual)
>
> In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature was
> not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well have
> been different. I never commented on the case until it was over and if
> the details of his record had not been published I would not have
> bothered posting anything.

I wonder why you bother demanding that police officers are put before the 
courts. You clearly have no faith in our justice system so it would be a 
waste of time wouldn't it?

Kev

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:21:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0000, Geoff 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of 12
>>>>> who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts inconsistent,
>>>>> and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about the seating
>>>>> arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown to the court
>>>>> that contradicted his accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge against
>>>>> Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his locker after
>>>>> he failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in court that he
>>>>> and Jones were "not best buddies".
>>>>
>>>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for
>>>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are
>>>> found NG, he wont accept it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You
>>> seem to be defending bent coppers (as usual)
>>
>> In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature was
>> not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well have
>> been different. I never commented on the case until it was over and if
>> the details of his record had not been published I would not have
>> bothered posting anything.
>
>I wonder why you bother demanding that police officers are put before the 
>courts. You clearly have no faith in our justice system so it would be a 
>waste of time wouldn't it?
>
The justice system does it's best. There are always some guilty who
escape and even some innocent who are punished. You, OTOH seem to want
anyone in a police uniform to have freedom to assault and murder
anyone he likes without comment from anyone. 

- -

"If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They train for that."

AlanG wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:21:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0000, Geoff 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of
>>>>>> 12 who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>>>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts
>>>>>> inconsistent, and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about
>>>>>> the seating arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown
>>>>>> to the court that contradicted his accounts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge
>>>>>> against Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his
>>>>>> locker after he failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in
>>>>>> court that he and Jones were "not best buddies".
>>>>>
>>>>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for
>>>>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are
>>>>> found NG, he wont accept it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You
>>>> seem to be defending bent coppers (as usual)
>>>
>>> In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature
>>> was not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well
>>> have been different. I never commented on the case until it was
>>> over and if the details of his record had not been published I
>>> would not have bothered posting anything.
>>
>> I wonder why you bother demanding that police officers are put
>> before the courts. You clearly have no faith in our justice system
>> so it would be a waste of time wouldn't it?
>>
> The justice system does it's best. There are always some guilty who
> escape and even some innocent who are punished. You, OTOH seem to want
> anyone in a police uniform to have freedom to assault and murder
> anyone he likes without comment from anyone.

As Alex Heney has pointed out to you. You seem to lose all rationality when 
responding to my posts...

Kev

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for 
>police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are found 
>NG, he wont accept it.
>
>He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would 
>satisfy him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow police 
>haters, followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.

Once again, you seem to confuse a desire for actual justice with someone 
advocating mob rule.  This, of course, is all one might expect of a 
caravanner who reads the Daily Mail.

Had those policemen been prosecuted properly, other cases would also 
have been presented to the jury and the result might have been very 
different.  However, the prosecution was woefully inept, just as it 
usually (always or almost always) is when a policeman is on trial.

Can you cite any cases other than the recent case of a speeding cop 
killing someone when a policeman has been convicted?

-- 
< Paul >

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Geoff wrote:
>>  Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You 
>>seem  to be defending bent coppers (as usual).
>
>I take it that you have had access to evidence that the jury did not see?

I take it that you did not bother to read about all the other "darkies" 
that the former constable was alleged to have beaten up?

>--snip obscenity--

And reinstated, amended so you can read it:

 >> Still the case can always be reopened when the [nice, kind,
 >> wonderful policemen] attack another person.

They will attack again, won't they?

-- 
< Paul >

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:51:07 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:21:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0000, Geoff 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>>>> "AlanG"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:oo82f5t3jh584ha41diacsnqkvlb2i9qe0@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears to be a case where the jury got it wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would, wouldn't it? Still, I'd place more trust in a jury of
>>>>>>> 12 who have heard *all* the evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Onwugbonu was presented as an unreliable witness.
>>>>>>> He was shown to have given evidence that was in parts
>>>>>>> inconsistent, and was forced to admit he had been "wrong" about
>>>>>>> the seating arrangement in the van after CCTV footage was shown
>>>>>>> to the court that contradicted his accounts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Defence barristers accused Onwugbonu of harbouring a grudge
>>>>>>> against Jones, whom he accused of placing a dead mouse in his
>>>>>>> locker after he failed a firearms course. Onwugbonu conceded in
>>>>>>> court that he and Jones were "not best buddies".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're fighting a losing battle here.  Alang consistently calls for
>>>>>> police officers to face juries - but even when they do, and are
>>>>>> found NG, he wont accept it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You
>>>>> seem to be defending bent coppers (as usual)
>>>>
>>>> In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature
>>>> was not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well
>>>> have been different. I never commented on the case until it was
>>>> over and if the details of his record had not been published I
>>>> would not have bothered posting anything.
>>>
>>> I wonder why you bother demanding that police officers are put
>>> before the courts. You clearly have no faith in our justice system
>>> so it would be a waste of time wouldn't it?
>>>
>> The justice system does it's best. There are always some guilty who
>> escape and even some innocent who are punished. You, OTOH seem to want
>> anyone in a police uniform to have freedom to assault and murder
>> anyone he likes without comment from anyone.
>
>As Alex Heney has pointed out to you. You seem to lose all rationality when 
>responding to my posts...
>
You really aren't worth bothering with but just to put the record
straight here's the bits you snipped and ignored

"In this case the evidence of previous assaults of a racial nature was
not in front of the jury. Had it been then the verdict may well have
been different. I never commented on the case until it was over and if
the details of his record had not been published I would not have
bothered posting anything.
**
**The police (taxpayer) had already paid out £60000 in damages for a
previous racial assault by one of these police officers. His superior
was present during that assault. None of them were punished despite
the metropolitan police accepting blame. 
**
**We are now in the region of actions that came after the Soham
murders. Huntley had previous allegations against him that were never
proven in court yet the inquiry held that they should have been taken
into account by his employer. If acceptable for school caretakers it
should be acceptable for police. 
**>
**>Still the case can always be reopened when the fuckers attack
another 
**>person.
**>
**>
**>
**>
**>> He is so biased against the police that the only thing that would
**>> satisfy him is a kangaroo court comprised of him and his fellow
police 
**>> haters, followed by a lynch mob comprised of the same people.
**>>
**>
**>No just justice is what is needed and it hasn't happened here.
**>
**Nope. Justice according to law is what happened. But on his record
the police would be foolish not to be looking at keeping a close watch
on him or dispensing with his services altogether. He strikes me as
the sort of man who could easily incite civil unrest to the extent
some other plod like Blakelock gets dead because of his actions.
"

You don't seem to care about the likelihood of this rogue cop inciting
another riot and the death of some ordinary plod just trying to do his
best?

In message , AlanG 
 writes
>**Nope. Justice according to law is what happened. But on his record
>the police would be foolish not to be looking at keeping a close watch
>on him or dispensing with his services altogether. He strikes me as
>the sort of man who could easily incite civil unrest to the extent
>some other plod like Blakelock gets dead because of his actions.
>"
>
>You don't seem to care about the likelihood of this rogue cop inciting
>another riot and the death of some ordinary plod just trying to do his
>best?

I seem to recall reading, in an earlier report of the trial, that the 
saintly Mark Jones had quit the police in September.  Is he still in the 
police farce?

-- 
< Paul >

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:31:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem
>> to be defending bent coppers (as usual).

>I take it that you have had access to evidence that the jury did not see?

Yes, he has.  As do all of us.  What was reported *after* the trial,
but which the jury were not permitted to know, is that the defendent
has had *many* very similar accusations made against him in the past
by people completely unconnected with each other and the alleged
victims in this case.  Which makes it *far* more likely that the
prosecution witnesses were tellling the truth.

Whilst I do not personally agree that past allegations and convictions
should be brought to the attention of the jury, I have no idea why the
defendent's past record was not brought to the attention of the jury
in this case now that the rules have been changed to allow it.

Given the defendent's past record, I now believe that it is almost
certain that he is guilty, but without that knowlege there would be
sufficient doubt cast by the fact that prosecution witnesses all had
personal reasons to conspire in a lie to make a not guilty verdict
perfectly proper.

-- 
Cynic

On 5 Nov, 15:18, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:31:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem
> >> to be defending bent coppers (as usual).
> >I take it that you have had access to evidence that the jury did not see> Yes, he has.  As do all of us.  What was reported *after* the trial,
> but which the jury were not permitted to know, is that the defendent
> has had *many* very similar accusations made against him in the past
> by people completely unconnected with each other and the alleged
> victims in this case.  Which makes it *far* more likely that the
> prosecution witnesses were tellling the truth.
>
> Whilst I do not personally agree that past allegations and convictions
> should be brought to the attention of the jury, I have no idea why the
> defendent's past record was not brought to the attention of the jury
> in this case now that the rules have been changed to allow it.
>
> Given the defendent's past record, I now believe that it is almost
> certain that he is guilty, but without that knowlege there would be
> sufficient doubt cast by the fact that prosecution witnesses all had
> personal reasons to conspire in a lie to make a not guilty verdict
> perfectly proper.
>
> --
> Cynic

Hmmm,

what's to stop a juror googling the defendant ? Whereas in the past,
searching libraries and newspaper archives would have made gaining
"unauthorised" knowledge unlikely, nowadays it's a click away ....

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:19:35 -0800 (PST), Jethro
 wrote:

>Hmmm,

>what's to stop a juror googling the defendant ? Whereas in the past,
>searching libraries and newspaper archives would have made gaining
>"unauthorised" knowledge unlikely, nowadays it's a click away ....

Very true.  Jurors are disallowed from doing so, and it would
constitute contempt of court to do so, but I am certain that it is
done.

The big problem is that Googling may turn up blogs and less reputable
sites that paint a highly slanted picture and have even set out
completely fictitious facts about the defendant and the alleged crime.

-- 
Cynic

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:ac65270d-679e-4d0e-83ae-6635fd00cb44@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 5 Nov, 15:18, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:31:48 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Alan has every right to say that a jury is hopelessly wrong. You seem
> >> to be defending bent coppers (as usual).
> >I take it that you have had access to evidence that the jury did not see?
>
> Yes, he has. As do all of us. What was reported *after* the trial,
> but which the jury were not permitted to know, is that the defendent
> has had *many* very similar accusations made against him in the past
> by people completely unconnected with each other and the alleged
> victims in this case. Which makes it *far* more likely that the
> prosecution witnesses were tellling the truth.
>
> Whilst I do not personally agree that past allegations and convictions
> should be brought to the attention of the jury, I have no idea why the
> defendent's past record was not brought to the attention of the jury
> in this case now that the rules have been changed to allow it.
>
> Given the defendent's past record, I now believe that it is almost
> certain that he is guilty, but without that knowlege there would be
> sufficient doubt cast by the fact that prosecution witnesses all had
> personal reasons to conspire in a lie to make a not guilty verdict
> perfectly proper.
>
> --
> Cynic

Hmmm,

what's to stop a juror googling the defendant ? Whereas in the past,
searching libraries and newspaper archives would have made gaining
"unauthorised" knowledge unlikely, nowadays it's a click away ....

---------------------------

The law? Due process?

Any such information would result in the a conviction for being a multiple 
accusee rather than for the alleged crime for which he was being tried.

PDR

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:42:47 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie"
 wrote:

>In message , AlanG 
> writes
>>**Nope. Justice according to law is what happened. But on his record
>>the police would be foolish not to be looking at keeping a close watch
>>on him or dispensing with his services altogether. He strikes me as
>>the sort of man who could easily incite civil unrest to the extent
>>some other plod like Blakelock gets dead because of his actions.
>>"
>>
>>You don't seem to care about the likelihood of this rogue cop inciting
>>another riot and the death of some ordinary plod just trying to do his
>>best?
>
>I seem to recall reading, in an earlier report of the trial, that the 
>saintly Mark Jones had quit the police in September.  Is he still in the 
>police farce?

The BBC report has his solicitor describing him as a police officer so
it looks like he is still available for duty

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:53:40 +0000, AlanG  wrote:

>**The police (taxpayer) had already paid out £60000 in damages for a
>previous racial assault by one of these police officers. His superior
>was present during that assault. None of them were punished despite
>the metropolitan police accepting blame. 

>You don't seem to care about the likelihood of this rogue cop inciting
>another riot and the death of some ordinary plod just trying to do his
>best?

And presumably the taxpayer will have to pay out again to his latest
victims.  It's time that police authorities start recovering damages
from those responsible.

In message , Paul C. Dickie 
 writes
>
>Had those policemen been prosecuted properly, other cases would also 
>have been presented to the jury and the result might have been very 
>different.  However, the prosecution was woefully inept, just as it 
>usually (always or almost always) is when a policeman is on trial.

That thought went through my mind as well, but I don't think we can 
fairly say that. It is quite possible that the prosecution applied to 
put this other evidence before the jury and the judge refused. If they 
didn't, then yes, it was shabby, but let's not blame them when we don't 
know.
-- 
Richard Miller