Originally Posted by Bermudashorts (Post 11170889)

Perhaps I am a lone voice here. But I am very disturbed at how he was trapped. According to this article he could only get in on a big deal if he admitted he was involved in Daniel's murder. So he admitted it. Even though previously in undercover investigations he had not admitted any involvement.

Stings like this remind me of Colin Stagg in the Rachel Nickel case, he implicated himself in something he did not do because he similarly thought there was a reward of some type in pretending he was involved.

No, traps should not be used. It distorts justice.

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 11170900)

You are not a lone voice, the local paper has comments saying the same thing.

IMO, the guy was not that bright, could have easily ' confessed ' for the mateship he talks about ( in the interview ) and the huge money.

1000's of police worked on the case for 10 years, there must have been some pressure to get their man.

No doubt this guy needed locking up, ( previous history which I assume had DNA at some stage ). However I agree, money in any form distorts justice.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 11170909)

I read the last 2 posts of this thread:

It is this part of the Criminal Justice System that is ****ed.
There is the potential for miscarriages of justice.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 11170913)

Having read the last 5 ....he was guilty...

not sure if he should rot in hell...but we live in a *** society. That is all.

Originally Posted by cresta57 (Post 11170934)

Well the sting or trap call it what you will resulted in Cowan showing the undercover cops where he killed Daniel, where he disposed of the body, what car he used & possibly the worst disclosure of how & why he killed him.
He was already number one suspect at the inquest, he just had to give 'em enough rope.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 11170943)

Case closed then:)

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 11170943)

Case closed then:)

Originally Posted by The Bloke (Post 11170948)

It was before the trial started in my IMHO. It is a wonder the jury took 7.5 hours to convict........

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 11170955)

It's called 'The Criminal Justice System' mate.

Remember it is not as simple as stepping out to the local supermarket....
there is more to jury decisions that meets the eye....real life is not like what you see on the Box..

You might need this system yourself it one day.

Originally Posted by cresta57 (Post 11170950)

The jury were out for less than a day after 4 weeks of evidence. Pretty cut & dried I'd say. We struggled for longer than that on a simple assault charge [spitting on a policeman] when I did jury service.

Originally Posted by The Bloke (Post 11170970)

You totally missed my point. I was speaking as an outside observer of such a high profile and publicised case, it would be hard for, even a miracle, for anyone to be found innocent with the weight of evidence and publicity that the case has generated over the years.

Originally Posted by moneypenny20 (Post 11172252)

What is the point of giving sentences that run concurrently? So he gets Life (yeah right) with no parole for 20 years but he also gets the other sentences running concurrently so in effect they don't exist. Now that pisses me off a lot.