The miserable business of Stefan Kiszko has seen an end, of sorts. Ronald Castree has been convicted of the killing of 11 year old Lesley Molseed in 1975. The conviction, inevitably — after the passage of decades, was DNA based. Kiszko was, as it turns out, impotent and entirely incapable of ejecting the sperm found in the young girl’s underwear.
Unfortunately for Kiszko the 70’s were the heyday of ‘Sweeney’ style policing in which appropriate suspects were interrogated and beaten or coerced into baseless confessions of guilt by unappealing delinquent police thugs barely more morally acceptable than the bank robbers and paedophiles they hunted.
Kiszko spend 16 years of innocence being confined and beaten in prison, only to die within 2 years of release on the court’s suspicion of his innocence.
After the trial Lesley Molseed’s mother said:
“We are relieved that after so long our quest for justice for Lesley is now over. It’s been a long and harrowing ordeal and our gratitude to the friends, family and strangers throughout the world who have given us their support is immense.”
Would it be churlish of Geeklawyer to wonder if she also said this after Kisco’s conviction?
Particularly comical was the forensic psychologist talking of Kiszko’s “delusion of innocence” (a good basis for denying parole eventually, of course).
The lesson to apologists for the police is this: Kiszko was an easy victim of lazy incompetent crooked policing. In the same way that ugly unappealing old women were selected for burning as witches in the middle ages, the desire to pick up the ‘usual suspects’ or the ugly unpleasant stroppy non-conformant or minority members of the community is an easy option for cops. Few of these, unlike Kiszco, will be so ‘lucky’ as this as to hit the headlines and have their innocence established.
As Ruthie says in her post on this item, this is relevant to the appeal of Barry George against his conviction. He is the alleged killer of Susan Dando and he appears to be, on the basis of possibly accurate gossip, a weird unappealing unpleasant social misfit. But he was convicted on no more than fabulously weak forensic evidence and lurid prejudice. Like Kiszko.
Will there be prosecutions or disciplinary action against the guilty police? One imagines the filth concerned would be fully able to justify themselves. And no doubt the crooked Ian Blair would be counted on to utter the usual template platitudes to the press:
“We live in an era of increasing {paedophilia/terrorism/drugs/organised crime/double parking} when the interests of the {child/state/victim/public/Biffo the Clown} come first, we make no apology for that. We will, of course, learn the lessons of this sorry matter and indeed we have already changed procedures based on this sorry case which is of historic interest only. No, I won’t be {resigning/apologising/refusing my performance bonus/disciplining anyone}”
What is so depressing is that some cretinous fuckwit morons in that Times article are saying that with DNA the possibility of erroneous convictions is impossible so the death penalty is appropriate. Geeklawyer thinks that it should apply only to them.
It is impossible not to bleed a little for innocent vulnerable Lesley Molseed.
Equally, it’s impossible for the police involved not to bleed too much.
Update: Barry George has just won a retrial.
“appropriate suspects were interrogated and beaten or coerced into baseless confessions of guilt by unappealing delinquent police thugs barely more morally acceptable than the [terrorists] they hunted.”
Yet, in terrorist cases this is reason enough for detention without trial, going to war, and for all we know, state sponsored assassination.
quicker shooting them rather than banging them up for years — cheaper too. it’s more efficient crap policing. maybe it could also be argued that it keeps rubbish cases out of the system. still enough of then to go round i suspect.
to lose one blair may be good fortune — to lose two looks like a damn good idea.
however, as with those urging the impeachment of bush, you would still have him replaced with another american … so come on down cressida dick — ‘err not THAT room ma’am; there’s something actually happening in there’.
Alas, the egregious errors which led to the conviction of Mr Kiszko are now being used as a means by which people opposed to police actions today can beat the force. Unfortunately, such people know nothing of the impact of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and care less.
Such critics will please oblige me and, rather than carping, describe what you would do differently. It does seem rather striking that this conviction was obtained by using DNA evidence which, only a few short weeks ago, our blogmeister and his acolytes were arguing should be destroyed. It is too easy to moan.
However, we can agree that those wishing to bring back death as an appropriate sanction are foolish. This is not because they rely on DNA evidence: the point is too important to play ducks and drakes in such a way. It is because killing someone is wrong. Thus, the state ought not to do it. This is a straight moral issue. If one can find North with one’s moral compass the matter is clear.
What would I do differently? Perhaps I wouldn’t pick on a lumbering unattractive figure merely because he was a misfit and I needed a quick conviction. Assuming that abuse of police power was an anomalous historical one-off is perplexingly naive. They have abused powers at all times in history — it wasn’t a 60’s & 70’s thing — it went on in the 20’s 30’s and probably before.
You may choose to believe that the modern copper is a new creature who will behave well and decently. But this is erroneous in common sense and in the light of recent history.
The purpose of the polemic was to point out that they remain corrupt and that they should be watched as eagerly now as ever. PACE didn’t cure the police, it merely put a leash on them: one at which they are now straining and attempting to break free of so as to return to past form.
DNA? Yes I object to storing innocent peopled DNA ‘on the off-chance’ despite it coming up trumps on rare occasions like this. So you can solve a 20 year old burglary — big deal. But even in serious cases it would be better for Castree and the perpetrators of the 5 other serious unsolved crimes to remain undetected than for th whole of society to be treated as criminals.
vm likes an italic.
i like moaning and carping.
I like reading the comments… I rarely comment on matters outside my own competence — which is why my own comments on GL’s blog may seem, to the untutored eye, to be written when I have been at the Rioja.
I have no academic experience of Criminal Law — but I do try to keep up an interest. Teaching Contract, Commercial, equity and Jurisprudence for 25 years (enjoyable though it is) is fine… Criminal law just fascinates me.
I’ll get the popcorn out…and see what happens on this thread
I know relatively little of criminal law either but it doesn’t mean you don’t have a valid opinion. Anyway I like your Rioja’d up comments!
Touche simply wondered, touche.
Mr Greeklawyer has misunderstood my question, which is what one would do differently now? The answer, of course, is to use DNA. Woops.
In what sense does giving a DNA sample mean one is being treated as a criminal? Possibly a potential criminal — just as one would be if one’s description fitted? Although descriptions are notoriously unreliable Mr Greeklawyer seems to prefer that alternative. It is all too, too egregious.
Perhaps someone could translate VM’s posts into something that resembles a logical argument. He seems to think that a few italics and an affected overuse of ‘egregious’ are a substitute for thought.
Oh come on, where’s the fun in that? Sophistry is most entertaining.
‘Oh come on, where’s the fun in that? Sophistry is most entertaining.’
I am sure the sophists had a greater repertoire than one html tag. But I should not criticise him for trying his best.
I have long observed, in the course of my practice, that simple abuse signifies the total lack of an answer.
Does that help?
that’s cos yore stoopid.
hah!
VM writes
‘I have long observed, in the course of my practice, that simple abuse signifies the total lack of an answer.
Does that help?’
Not if it is intended to clarify your original post. It is, however, an interesting epigram, though scarcely in the style of a Victorian Maiden.
you should send this post to the LSC, in the vain hope that — when they drive lawyers out of police stations on account of inadequate fixed fees — they will understand the likely consequences
Darling James,
This is what happens when Tucker gets hold of the computer.
The original point, of course stood on its own and needed no assistance from the manservant. If you are having difficulty with the difference between a physical description and a genetic one, there is a good book that explains it. My 9 year-old niece was given it at school. Would you like the reference?
is it nouns or adjectives you tend to italicise? every fourth word of more than 3 letters? whenever your hand strays to the toolbar?
why?
(asks the man who just doesn’t like capital letters…)
Dear Simply,
I expect it is a kind of legal Tourette’s disease.
I cannot for the life of me understand why he is talking about his niece’s book, his ‘manservant’ and goodness knows what else. This is why I asked if someone might translate his posts.
It is a pastiche of Chaz Pooter and the diary of his Edwardian adventures in suburban manners.
ah like ‘legal aid fuckfuckfuckcuntoff; i’m sorry where was i?‘
most illuminating
I will concede that Grossmith may have used an occasional italic, but I can see no other similarity between VM’s posts and one of the finest English comic novels.
The humour of Charles Pooter was in his pomposity and social pretensions. VM certainly has some of that, but lacks the obsequiousness of Charles Pooter to his social superiors.
The style too is completely different:Pooter is always striving to achieve some social success only to be frustrated by his wife or wayward son.
So, I do not see the similarity. But maybe VM will soon be painting his bath red.
Grossmiths. Plural.
Dear James,
What an interesting reading. I had a slight social acquaintance with the Pooters in their later years, although only as a favour to Tucker’s late wife who was distantly related to Mrs P on the distaff side. What was clear to me was that Mrs P never let her husband down at all.
Rather, she managed to remain natural and unaffected by the disadvantages her class inevitably caused her, thus retaining the affection of all. He on the other hand, constantly strove to transcend his (alas, obvious) limitations yet was unable to do so. Hence the adjective Pooterish which was once current but has now, with the advent of dumbing down rather fallen into disuse.
You have taken the point about Mr P, but, I feel been rather unfair to Mrs P. Fie upon you.
As to style: as I have made clear, unlike the Pooters I have no social superiors save possibly the Arundels and the Percys about whom I write not. But this is a free country and you need not read a lady’s private thoughts should you not wish to do so.
Dear Mr or Ms Simply Wondered,
I let the words flow naturally. Is that not plain?