Talk:John Cairncross/Archives/2022/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lack of prosecution
The article presently states the following:
"The confession, conducted in Cleveland, Ohio, was not made within British jurisdiction or under caution and would therefore have been inadmissible in court."
There are several issues with this:
- Firstly, I have been unable to find any legislation or caselaw in English law about confession evidence being inadmissable if made overseas
- Secondly, other sources give a different reasons for the lack of prosecution, eg: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/national-archive-brother-at-the-top-helped-fifth-man-john-cairncross-to-escape-justice-wb6bt02p5 (to avoid public embarrassment), https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/john-cairncross (he gave up secrets to avoid prosecution)
- Thirdly, it defies basic logic that, if the authorities wanted to prosecute Cairncross, they would immediately give up because a single piece of evidence was inadmissable - why not try to get him to confess again?
Does anyon have access to the original source/is able to clarify? MegaPowerTape (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this should be cleared up.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)