eRoyton Interview #1 - Susan May - THIS FRIDAY (Page 3 of 21)

Citizen, thanks for your post towards the end of page 2. I appreciate hearing your views on how this was managed. I admit I presented the original introduction in a pro-susan way. If I was a trained journalist maybe I could have presented things differently but I did add the following statements:

So I was inviting the "fors" and the "againsts" to put their points across in as strong a way as they wanted. After all, Susan is no stranger to fierce questioning or having to listen to her name be blackened. She has somehow learned how to deal with such things.

I have also been involved in a case involving  police malpractise. I was the main prosecution witness in a police brutality trial. I witnessed and video'd an on-duty police officer punching one of my old neighbours in the face 3 times and then kicking him several times. I released the footage to the media who showed it on TV and put stills in all the major news papers and it sparked a debate that lasted 2 or 3 days. When the case went to trial, the officer involved claimed that he was trying to use the palm of his hand to strike the person on his shoulder. This is despite my testimony that they were clearly punches and my video footage which was shown in court showed EXTREMELY clearly that they were punches. He still apparently claimed that he was trying to palm him on the shoulder. His colleagues also took to the stand to say that he was using properly trained techniques to restrain someone.

So it is quite easy for me to believe that there was dishonest police behaviour in Susan's case too because I've seen it first hand for myself. Here's a link to the case I mentioned above.
(This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it)

Very interesting way of looking at court performances.

Another thing that's just occurred to me is that I would have thought the barrister at trial would have had something to say about the fact that only one witness was called and no expert evidence - aren't they supposed to work with the solicitors throughout the preparation of the case and advise the solicitors on what to do in the run up to trial? If so, then I do feel for Susan because that would mean she'd been let down on two counts. When it comes to a murder trial they should leave no stone unturned and that's not happened here.

I came to the conlusion after trial that my legal team, including barristers, expected a not guilty themselves and if we go back to the 'game' that is played, then they would have come out of it really well had I been acquited.  I know that sounds bizarre but it is how it happened and it went to badly...and sadly....wrong.  But they too have to hold alot of the blame because they had to know that once convicted their shallow and abysmal defence would lead to great problems for any future appeal because so much defence evidence was not put before the jury! Plus the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to hear critisism of previous legal teams, trial Judges ect. - however a recent successful appeal has hopefully set a precedent on this point.  The case of Andrew Adam's, convicted of a murder in the North East, won his appeal on poor legal representation and trial preparation. Can you imagine though how stupid I feel now, knowing what I do now about the law and legal system, that I did not press for, indeed insist, my original team provided me with experts in all the areas necessary! i.e. a defence fingerprint expert, a defence forensic expert, a defence time of death expert and so on...but I had not done what I was accused of and at that time I fully trusted in British Justice!  I was wrong to do so.

Nigel, not sure about the 'talents' but you do have to find strength to endure all this. My eyes have been well and truly opened though to the pitfalls within the system and of course to the arguments about what goes on within the prison system...and maybe what should happen within those walls!

Right I'm sat here very bored and going through old bits and bobs

1 thing I don't get is how EVERYONE can be against susan....

the police (the 3 coppers) - All against you
the judges - don't allow the evidence etc
the system - for getting like that
the forensics - for the thumb print of blood
solicitor - being the wrong one for the job
obviously the jury - ....

I have to say i find it very hard to believe that your innocent, going off everything on here etc I can see why you was convicted, everything does point towards susan and ultimately was arrested for it...

Obviously if I'm wrong i apologize but if you have had numerous appeals rejected and members of the public voted you as guilty then you have got to ask your self why..

Can you sum your reasons up, very specifically, for why you think like that? Remember you need to present evidence that "proves beyond reasonable doubt" that susan did it.

Such a strange case this.....    i read or watch one thing and think she's guilty .... then another and think she's not      i don't think we'll every know 100% for sure

and thats even worse...

life should be life!

if she is ever acquited then fair play to her but come on, how often do people use the "the police fttted me up" excuse..