The attack - which would become known as the Cranbourne Road Murder - was one of a rash of violent, shocking incidents to occur in the area. Months earlier Lillian Beech and her mother were found dead; facing arrest, her husband Walter Beech shot himself. A couple of years before that the manager of the Cameo cinema, Leonard Thomas, and his deputy, Bernard Catterall, were shot dead in a robbery.
That killing - almost exactly seventy years ago - led to one man, George Kelly being hanged for murder. And there are startling parallels between his case and the later case of the two Mancunians, Edward Devlin and Alfred Burns. In both cases there was no forensic evidence, murder weapon, or eyewitnesses placing them at the scene, and convictions were secured with the testimonies of criminals. While Balmer has been discredited for falsifying evidence in the earlier Cameo Murders case, Devlin and Burns have never been exonerated of the Cranbourne Road Murder.
And it argues that Balmer was so determined to get a result he pressured witnesses - petty criminals and teenage prostitutes - to falsely implicate innocent men, Devlin and Burns, in Alice Rimmer's murder. The pair were small-time offenders from Cornbrook, and provided an alibi for the time of the murder. Meanwhile, forensics discounted the police claim that they climbed in through the back window, and one of the witnesses had implicated someone else, as well as them.
And, while it was claimed that the pair's motive for attacking Mrs Rimmer had been robbery, nothing had been stolen or disturbed in the 90 minutes they were supposed to have spent her home. The only forensic evidence was a drop of blood on the coat belonging to one of them, which was not even from the same blood group as Mrs Rimmer. Speaking to the M.
N , George Skelly told of how he scoured police files to show that Balmer forged and manipulated witnesses' evidence to convict the two men. After an eight-day trial they found them guilty after only 75 minutes," he said. You had to be a home owner to sit on a jury at the time. In Mr Skelly submitted 11 files of new evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as well as interviews with contemporary witnesses.
Devlin and Burns' case also featured in a BBC documentary, which saw Lindsay Langlands, a relative of Edward, fly from her home in Australia to meet with criminal barrister Jeremy Dein. Dein found evidence which cast doubt on the police's senior investigating officer in the case, and a re-construction brought up no scientific evidence to link the pair to the murder.
After more than 30 years as a criminal defence barrister my instinct is my best friend," he said. Lindsay Langlands, now 63, moved to Australia with her parents and six siblings as a child and has lived there since. Edward Devlin and Alfred Burns, for killing a woman during a robbery in Liverpool. They claimed that they had been doing a different burglary in Manchester, and others involved in the crime supported this.
A Home Office report rejected this evidence. Huge crowds gathered outside Liverpool's Walton Prison as they were executed. One of the biggest arguments against a death penalty is that innocent people have been hanged in the past. We only have to think of individuals such as Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Hussein Mattan, to name but a few who were hanged, but later posthumously pardoned.
In the judicial hall of infamy there are numerous examples of gross miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Sheila Bowler, Stefan Kiszko; the list goes on and on. In Liverpool in the early s, two young men were hanged for a murder in the Wavertree area, and local criminologist Keith Andrews believes the duo were innocent of the crime.
First, here are the facts regarding this controversial murder case. The time was 9. It trivialises what we do and shows us all up for the attention seeking, over paid wankers that we can all be at times. Thats why its popular…. Todd, Russ, anything to declare? Come on guys, Zap has no duty to pay anyone but the people who come on the show.
If anything raising the standards of the publics understanding is more than we could ever ask of a TV show. Actually, many other industries offer their expertise at no cost in order to raise the profiles of specific companies or people. The first two that come to mind are: At the end of the news, there is always a bank giving the finance report and their predictions regarding interest rates, price of oil etc.
As I understand it, they are not paid for this. All of these instances involve a company offering a very limited amount of their IP in exchange for a marketing opportunity. Furthermore, they both also make someone else money the TV station and the trading site respectively. Appearing on the Gruen Transfer is a both a business and personal choice for the panelists.
I respectfully disagree Darryn. I say respectfully because I truly respect your guts for jumping into this pool of burning acid known as the blog. This is a free market that we live in. If someone has an idea for a show on a certain subject, they owe nothing to that subject. If they use our IP, which they do, they need only ask for permission, which they do as far as I understand.
The E! In my eyes, we should be happy our industry is interesting enough that 1. We may agree or disagree with the opinions on the show but would it be at all interesting if we just agreed with everything? That would be a boring Cannes seminar.
This is aimed at real people. Now, if you had actually written the show or pitched the idea for the show to the networks, you of course would be entitled to be paid and could in turn put the money you received into the very organizations you are talking about. Maybe he wants to re-invest in great television writers. Maybe he wants to re-invest in another show. Maybe he wants a penile enlargement.
Up to him I guess. The only other thing I am wondering is whether the show makes any money at all considering it is on SBS and there are no ads?
I think the real issue here is that we receive nothing back for allowing ourselves collectively to appear as shallow tossers. We employ the top brains to attempt to turn shit into gold day after day and yet it is re-presented to the Australian public as some kind of turgid, even unfunnier version of Spicks and Specks. Rather than asking for something back from Zapruder, we should be asking for something better.
And what if you were an actor in one of the commercials that was put to air to earn money for a network without your permission? It is not even a debate. You mean those plastic trophies they give out on The Pitch are worthless? Come on, they gave out 2 last week! Our production company did a freebie for an agency for the Gruen Transfer we did not even get a mention nor did we get a job from the agency.
Sucked in! Surely that can only help clients an avid audience I hear to keep it real and perhaps stray from their marketing manuals occasionally. Gruen is promoting the industry, helping things like AWARD application numbers, creating a large stage for agencies to show what it can do to potential clients, reminding creatives that, yes, it can still be fun and doing it all in the middle of a big recession. Nobody is getting screwed here, Darryn.
But that would be plain silly and unenforcable. Surely free advertising is more a windfall than a rip off. I mostly agree with 8. In fact, some agencies have poured thousands into showing off their skills in front of the nation and some have proven to be insightful and skillful, others have proven to be tools. I think clients are more impressed with a Gruen trophy, than a caxton or something else.
Just a bunch of tools in jeans and big framed glasses telling each other they missed it and pointing at the horizon. Look behind you! Get back to work. A lot of them have families to support. However popular the show is, or how much money it makes, my biggest issue is that it supports a dumbed down version of what we do.
That would never happen in the advertising industry, surely? And that it was started in The SHOW is the concept — the idea.
Your ads are the topics of conversation. They are the butt of the jokes. How could you possibly think you have any ownership of this? The only egos bigger than those that are on the show, are those that think they or the industry are worthy of a cut!