Man cleared of World's End deaths A convicted double killer and paedophile has been cleared of murdering two teenage girls 30 years ago, after a judge ruled he had no case to answer. Angus Sinclair, 62, had been on trial at Edinburgh High Court accused of raping and murdering Christine Eadie and Helen Scott in October 1977 in the notorious World's End case. But trial judge Lord Clarke upheld a defence motion that there was insufficient evidence that Sinclair had committed the crimes. Sinclair was convicted and jailed for life in 2001 for raping and murdering Glasgow teenager Mary Gallacher more than 22 years earlier, after new DNA evidence linked him to the crime. He had also been convicted of the culpable homicide of seven-year-old Catherine Reehill in 1961 for which he served six years. And he has convictions for three rapes and a number of other sexual offences for which he was convicted at The High Court in Edinburgh in 1982. Police believe he may be linked to several other unsolved murders dating back to the 1970s. Prosecutors used DNA evidence to try to bring about a conviction over the World's End killings, one of Britain`s longest unsolved murder cases. But after eight days of evidence, Sinclair's defence team lodged a submission on Friday that there was no case to answer. Dismissing the case, Lord Clarke said: "I am of the view that the evidence taken at its highest in context of a whole is neutral as to whether or not he was involved in acting with force or violence against the girls, there having been some evidence of sexual contact between him and the girls in the 12 hours or so before they were killed. "The question of timing seems to me to be critical. I'm not satisfied what the advocate-depute had to say overcame these difficulties in that respect." Press Association Monday September 10, 2007 4:58 PM Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2007, All Rights Reserved. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6910462,00.html --- Barrymore will not be charged over pool death Michael Barrymore will not be charged with any offences connected to the death of Stuart Lubbock, crown prosecution officials said today. Mr Lubbock's body was found in the swimming pool at the entertainer's then home in Roydon, Essex, six years ago. In a statement, Essex crown prosecution service said it had advised police that no one should be charged over the 31-year-old's death. Mr Barrymore and two other men - understood to be Justin Merritt, 32, of Harlow, and Jonathan Kenny, 37, of Blackpool, Lancashire - were arrested earlier this year and questioned about the alleged serious sexual abuse and murder of Mr Lubbock, a Harlow butcher. The entertainer's lawyer, Henri Brandman, told journalists outside Harlow police station that his client had always maintained his innocence. "Michael has not been charged with any offence," he said. "He has always protested his innocence in respect to the circumstances of the tragic death of Stuart Lubbock." Chris McCann, a casework lawyer with Essex CPS, said he had assessed historical and new information handed to him in July following a new investigation by police. "There is still no answer in either the scientific or medical evidence how or by whose hand Mr Lubbock died," he said. "If we are ever to consider a prosecution, we must be able to say that Mr Lubbock died as result of the actions of a named person or persons, as shown in the medical explanation for his death. "I have also considered the new evidence which has been presented, whether it alone could lead to any charges, and the likely response to it by the defence. "I am not satisfied that the prosecution can overcome the objections that are likely to be raised, and so I have decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against the three individuals." Mr Lubbock's body was found in March 2001. He had been one of a number of guests at a party at Mr Barrymore's house. Post-mortem tests showed he had suffered severe internal injuries which suggested sexual assault. Ecstasy, cocaine and alcohol were found in his bloodstream. A lengthy investigation was carried out, but no one was charged with any offence in relation to his death. Mr Barrymore accepted a police caution for drug offences. Essex police reopened the investigation into Mr Lubbock's death last December after reviewing their first inquiry. Mr Barrymore was arrested along with Mr Merritt and Mr Kenny in June. They were later released without charge on police bail. James Sturcke and agencies Monday September 10, 2007 Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2166129,00.html ------------------------------------------------ `Perceptions' note: maybe check www.perceptions.couk.com/devices.html#grees www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html#pedophiles for the reason many of UK's senior barristers (Crown Prosecution Service) and judges secretly protect the interests of a pedophile elite. The case, below, is very different - as you'll see ... ------------------------------------------------ Grandmother cleared over child's dog mauling death Jacqueline Simpson told the jury she relived the attack every time she closed her eyes. The grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson, the five-year-old who was mauled to death by a dog banned in Britain, was today cleared of the child's killing. Jacqueline Simpson, 45, was acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence by a jury of seven men and five women at Liverpool crown court, after a six-day trial. Ms Simpson had denied failing to take proper care of Ellie by allowing the pit bull terrier - which had previously attacked a family member and another dog - in the house when she knew it was dangerous. Ms Simpson was babysitting Ellie at her home in St Helens, Merseyside, early on January 1 when the dog attacked the girl, causing 72 injuries, primarily to her head and neck. The dog, called Reuben, was owned by Ellie's uncle Kiel Simpson, and was banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. On hearing the jury's verdict, Ms Simpson wiped her eyes. James Sturcke and agencies Tuesday September 11, 2007 Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2166796,00.html ------------------------------------------------ Why's that case so harshly treated? So differently from the known abusers (and murderers) above? The grandmother was working class. So, even though it was fairly obvious she meant no harm, the police and the CPS and the judge clearly felt it was worthwhile prosecuting her with the full rigor of the law. If she'd been a rich murderer, or a pervert murderer, or a member of the pedophile elite, then things would've surely been different, as you can see above. In UK, elite pervert murderers and pedophiles are protected by senior police (often thugs, rapists and hetero-pedophiles), by the CPS (low grade `barristers' who aspire to be pedophile judges), and judges (most often reared as homo-pedophiles) - try googling << perceptions devices.html >> ------------------------------------------------ FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/abnorm1.txt