Sean Hodgson, pathological liar or attention seeker

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by bangalore, Mar 19, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I don't know if this has been done already but


    Apparently he could get up to £1 million in compensation for lying and allowing a murderer and rapist to freely walk the streets


    1. He got what he deserved for lying.

    2. He should be made to pay for:
    a. His food and keep for the last 27 years
    b. Wasting Police time and resources as well as for his trial
    c. Compensation for anyone who may have been attacked by the real murderer/rapist
  2. Last time I checked it was the role of the courts and jury system to prove beyond doubt that the accused was guilty.

    Attention seeking liar he may have been, but murderer he clearly was not. He spent an extra 10 years behind bars because the Forensic Science Service "lost" the evidence and were unable to retest under modern science the evidence gathered against him, or they couldn't be bothered.

    He has served 27 years for a murder he didnt commit, how many others have been found guilty rightly, sentenced, served and been released since he was incarcerated. I am thinking of those who used to occupy the Kesh and other prisons!
  3. Personally, I think the policemen who built the case and the CPS bod who decided there was evidence enough to warrant prosecution should be the ones to pay. Sheer bone-idleness is the only innocent explanation I can see for deciding to prosecute based on little more than 'it was me wot dun it, guv'.
  4. They had a confession, which included details that were not available to the general public. The scientific tests at the time were not able to prove that it was not him who had raped the girl. What conclusion would you have come to had you been a jury member?

    Clearly? He was not the rapist, but what evidence is there that she was raped by the person who killed her?

    You do have a point there.

    I disagree. He was not 'fitted up'. He was a sad, pathetic, attention-seeker who's lies were believed by the police and prosecutors, supported by the circumstantial evidence. All murders (even three decades ago) must have each and every avenue of enquiry fully investigated, so I find it hard to believe that 'sheer bone-idleness' would be a factor.
  5. Joe,

    I dont deny that the evidence at the time possibly pointed at him, and he did make a "confession" but there are a number of other victims of "confessions" who are normally not mentally competent and who have been fitted up with the crime only to be subsequently cleared decades later.

    However we have a system and it is clearly flawed for a minority of cases, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not otherwise. That is what the whole legal system in this country is about. A re-examination of evidence in this case was requested in 1998, but the Forensic Science Service refused claiming that the evidence had been destroyed. If it was destroyed in 1998 how come in 2009 we can clear him of this crime?

    I dont say compensate him to the million that is being claimed, but there has been something of a miscarriage of justice in his case, its not up to him to claim guilt, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by testing his evidence too, thats why there is prosecution and defence in trials. He has after all spent an additional 11 years behind bars because the FSS couldnt re-examine the evidence when requested to do so in 1998.

    This is before we seek to find the real killer and rapist, who presumably got away with his crimes and is still a free man.
  6. Why? They'd got a confession, and a match to blood type (by the standards of the day, reasonable evidence). The confession was retracted; so what? They had reason to believe that he'd done it, he'd said he'd done it so why should they give any credence to his retraction?

    Personally I think that the liar Hodgson should get no compensation; instead he should be charged with wasting police time and interfering in a murder investigation. If it weren't for him doing his "I'm Spartacus" gig so convincingly in the first place, maybe the real murderer would have been caught.
  7. My heart was not broken by the thought of liar being banged up for 27 years because he confessed to a murder he did not do. The are far more deserving cases that warrant our sympathy such as Ms Goody and all those city types who now have to find jobs where they will have to work to earn a crust and the only bonus they get is still being employed.

    Back to Mr Hodgson, things have moved on since then and interviews are now video recorded and we have DNA unless the Forensic Science Service (FSS) say they have lost the samples. I listened to the defence barrister on the radio and he said that the original trial judge was very hostile towards Mr Hodgson and the defence plus the FSS said over 10 years ago that there was no evidence that could be tested for DNA- hopefully this will be looked at in any inquiry. Now the general public has the taste of blood for the top city types it's about time some judges and other civil servants were brought to task for their mistakes.

    I seem to remember that in a similar case a few years ago when someone was awarded compensation for being banged up, but was subsequently found to be innocent, the Home Officer deducted the cost of food and accommodation from the compensation.
  8. terroratthepicnic

    terroratthepicnic LE Reviewer Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Runners

    Maybe he should be charged for waisting police time. But he shouldn't go back inside for it. He has already served time for a crime he didn't comit. If any charges are brought against him now, he should be released, as his time has been served, then compensation for any lost earnings over the remaining period.
  9. You do realise, don't you, that some of your readers will take that at face value? Incoming!!!
  10. I think this case will have a lot of dodgy events surrounding it, you just have to watch an episode of the sweeney to know how they worked back then :lol:
  11. Sorry to split hairs Carrots, but it was the DPP in those days.
  13. Wouldn't confessing to a crime you didn't commit in court count as perjury?
  14. It's the job of the police to find actual evidence of a crime and test that evidence before presenting it to the COS. It's then the CPS's job to assess if that evidence is actually evidence of guilt that would stand up in a Court. Clearly, both failed in this case - not to mention so many others. It's not a matter of 'believing' a confession, it's a matter of determining if that confession holds water.

    Like I said, 'sheer bone-idleness' in accepting the first answer that fell into their lap is the only innocent explanation.
  15. Surely the guy was mentally ill when admitting it?