OK. giok, there is no implication in your first post that those who will rest easy are right to do so. Perhaps you were even criticising them for leaping to an assumption of Stephen Wright's guilt. But if you were thinking along those lines, why did you not make that clear in your second post?

In your second post you responded to a guest who said: "Why a sigh of relief? Because a man is charged does that mean he is guilty? Until we're sure, a murderer is still at large."

This was your response: "While you are correct in saying that, it is not very often the UK police charge someone innocent with 5 murders. This is not some tinpot dictatorship where the police beat someone till they confess, whether they did it or not. Safe in this knowledge, a lot of people will sleep easier in their beds tonight!"

You say there was no implication here that Stephen Wright was guilty as charged? Come off it Giok. This isn't nitpicking. There was only one inference to be drawn from that post.

On the question of how our faultless police acquire confessions, you might like to take at look at (say) the Carl Bridgewater case or the Guilford Four case.

Jacqui, of course people relaxed their guard after charges had been made. It's the populist reaction you would expect. The question is whether they were right to do so at that stage of the inquiry. For all that you can quote cases in which we assume the right verdict was reached (but see Richard Bridge's pertinent question above) it is unarguable that many mistakes have been committed down the years. And here I'm talking about convictions, where people were allegedly found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." It is not necessarily a mistake if police charge an innocent person, because it is not a police responsibility to decide about guilt.