Rachel Nickell conviction

Are you watching the BBC programme? I wanted to watch that but I had a migraine earlier this evening so while I can cope with Hitching, watching TV is a bit much right now. It did look interesting though.

I've got the book "Jigsaw Man" by the bloke who came up with the idea to "frame" Colin Stagg. Makes fascinating reading.

It made me go cold when I heard paint flecks from the toolbox had been found in the little boy's hair.

As for the Stagg chappie - I feel for him, because if my first (entirely irrational and wrong) thought was "If the police were so convinced it was him, he must have been a baddun", then is that what other people think? I hope he has been able to move on from it - although I doubt it.

The Crimewatch reconstruction of the little boy saying "wake up mummy" had me in bits earlier ?

I agree about the reaction too - I'm very conditioned to believe that if the police think there's reason for concern then there must be. No smoke without fire and all that. This kind of thing shakes my belief in the whole system - and shows that really I'm far too naive.

From what I can remember from reading the book, Colin Stagg had previous and fitted the offender profiling (which is what the book is all about - it's written by a Forensic Psychologist who does profiling) and they did believe Colin Stagg was guilty, it was just a question of getting him to admit it - but that's where the problem was because they used an undercover female detective to get him to admit the crime.

And of course the other problem was that he didn't actually do it...

Absolutely! The undercover detective put a lot of "suggestions" to him and then they framed him as a result of that. He had the potential to have done it but that was all. Horrendous.

Amongst the many awful things about it is that Robert Napper went on to kill at least two more people after Rachel Nickell.

The psychologist who did the initial profiling was charged by the British Psychological Society but they didn't act on it in the end. He surely has a case to answer?

I'm afraid I had to go to bed at that point, I couldn't watch any more ?

I really feel for Colin Stagg - I think it's something that he's unlikely to ever shake off unless he changes his name and moves away, but then again, why should he? I agree about the no smoke without fire feeling, you just have to look at the angry mobs that go to court and shout at empty vans as they drive past, regardless of whether the person has been convicted or not.

What amazed me was the number of times napper was stopped and various things found on his person and in his flat. guns with his fingerprints on, no action taken. assorted knives and notes about fantasies of sadistic murders, no action taken. failed to appear twice for blood tests, no action taken. his mother even told the police he d confessed to a rape but because they couldnt tally the location, no action taken. its endless.

i do hope that the media respects the familys wishes and leaves this alone now though

I also have Paul Brittons books and have read about his involvement with the Nickell case. He also profiled the Green Chain rapist and the killer of Samantha Bissett and her daughter Jade. All of these crimes have now been revealed to have been committed by Robert Napper. It is interesting that neither the police or Britton made the connection that all crimes were carried out by the same person. Having said that, Napper appears to have several different patterns to his crimes.

The outcome of all this also shows how important it is to keep re-visiting cold cases. The news reports I was watching yesterday said that at the time of the crimes, the technology to correctly process the forensic evidence they had wasn't advanced enough 16 years ago to help them convict Napper.

The thing that got me yesterday was the statement read outside court from Rachel's father where he thanked the media and then asked that, after the court case was reported, that the media stopped showing pictures of Rachel.

In a sort of similar/opposite vein, I was totally astounded at the whole Suzanne Holdsworth thing, and how much evidence they seemed to ignore, or make up. (though that could be the way it's being reported)

I think the press haven't helped. Until yesterday, I wasn't even aware that anyone else had been charged with the crime.

My husband and I were a but puzzled over a tabloid headline at the time Colin Stagg was awarded compensation - apparently there was "Fury" over it. We were really confused about why people would be angry that a man accused and imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit would be entitled to compensation...

I watched some of the coverage of this on the tv yesterday, they said that Napper's mother had contacted police in 89 to say he'd confessed to raping someone but it seemed like not much was done about it.

A lot of this story passed me by, I must admit. But hearing about it yesterday made me really shudder, it was a truly awful crime and I do feel incredibly sorry for Colin Stagg, his life will surely never be the same and he was totally innocent.

Because people were still convinced he'd done it, just that he got off on a technicality. Wrong, of course.

apparently nothing was done because he said it was at a particular place, but the crime was carried out somewhere else, so they didnt take it seriously as they couldnt match a victim to said place. however, that combined with all the other times they spoke to napper, and things they found beggars belief that nothing was followed up. i just heard on the radio that the police are refusing to conduct an inquiry. mind you, probably not a lot of point, and a huge cost.

I walk on Wimbledon Common about 4 times a week. I've, very deliberately, avoided finding out the spot where she was killed and so didn't watch the reconstructions / programmes last night so could be missing some of the finer details of the case in my comments.

One thing I did hear, which made me furious, was a policeman trying to use this case as a justification for keeping unconvicted people's DNA on the database - saying that they'd have solved the case much earlier if it had been available. From the rest of the short on the radio, I got the impression that if the police had done their jobs properly they'd have got the right person, regardless of the availability or otherwise of the DNA.

I really hope this is the last time her son has to see that video played across all the channels and that he can finally put this to bed.

The person who unquestionably came out the best in this saga was Mr Justice Ognall, who absolutely ripped the police's case apart in one of the most devastating judgements I can recall - which amongst other things demolished the widespread rumour that the judiciary will always favour the police in this kind of situation.

Two years ago, a well-known media personality praised him to the skies - see if you can guess who wrote this (don't look at the URL too closely as it rather gives it away!):