'Lizzie James' and Colin Stagg

[Jonone]

'Lizzie James' received ?125,000 compensation for writing letters to Colin Stagg that were intended to obtain a confession from him with regard to the killing of Rachel Nickell. 'Lizzie James' has never been identified and a court order is still effective preventing her identification.

?125,000 is a nice 'bunce' for Lizzie James for corresponding with Colin Stagg. Stagg meanwhile was remanded in custody and the case went to court. When the case collapsed many were convinced of Stagg's guilt including Nickell's parents who considered civil proceedings against him. Stagg went on to receive around ?700,000 compensation.

It's a long time ago, but it's some f***ed up sh*t aint it ? One can't help thinking that if Stagg had been convicted he would have languished in jail probably with little prospect of release.

[mrmcfister]

Stagg has loads of previous..not guilty of the Rachel thing but he should still be banged up for the shit he has done!!

[Jonone]

Not sure about this McFister. There is no reference to Stagg having relevant previous convictions at Wikipedia or in one or two of the linked articles I followed up.

A report in the Guardian from 2006 claims:
"
Although a total of 32 men were questioned in connection with the murder, police eventually targeted an unemployed man from Roehampton, south London, called Colin Stagg who was known to walk his dog on the common"

It would seem rather than having relevant previous Colin Stagg just fitted the 'loner' and 'local weirdo' hypothesis that seems to be so irresistible to the Police.

[mrmcfister]

Stagg was a serial flasher who liked to expose his erect penis to local ladies..in the honey trap operation he wrote of wanting to tie up women and threaten them with knives....I accept he was not a murderer but lets not kid ourselves the bloke is one we'd want to live down the road from our daughter.

[Jonone]

I don't think flashing is the 'gateway' crime to rape and frenzied knife attacks. You have a selective memory of what was written in the 'honeytrap' letters. Consider this:

"Police released a taped conversation between "Lizzie" and Stagg in which "Lizzie" claimed to enjoy hurting people, to which Stagg mumbled: "Please explain, as I live a quiet life. If I have disappointed you, please don't dump me. Nothing like this has happened to me before." When "Lizzie" went on to say "If only you had done the Wimbledon Common murder, if only you had killed her, it would be all right," Stagg replied: "I'm terribly sorry, but I haven't."

When the honeytrap letters etc were deemed inadmissible the case collapsed which I take to mean there was no additional evidence of any kind which supported the prosecution case. To the best of my knowledge Stagg hasn't offended in the time since the case against him was progressed which argues against compulsion and recidivism. Whether or not he has convictions for flashing is uncorroborated .. it may well be an insinuation by the media at the time.

[muswell]

Don't know where McFister is getting his info as there has never been any suggestion that Stagg had previous that has been reported or used as evidence in his case.

[dynatech]

I was suprised how well Stagg came across - intelligent and articulate.
As well as the shocking behaviour of the Met - who had the real killer within their grasp and were too blind to see it and effectively allowed him to kill again - what I find staggering is the clandestine relationship between the police and the media, neither of which (almost to the point of contempt of court) would accept the verdict of the judge. In the case of both wronged parties - Stagg & the murdered girls parents - they were guilty of making their lives hell.

[crofter]

How were the murdered girls parents wronged then??

I am led to believe that they maintained very publicly that Stagg was guilty of killing their daughter (even after he was acquitted). Pretty sure that they were seeking to take Civil Action against Stagg at one point.

As for the media - yes I believe they must have had at least 99% of us thinking (without doubt) that Stagg was *guilty as charged* with their very one sided "evidence". Really goes to show what a dangerous manipulative tool they can be against whoever they choose.

The Met - well whoever dreamed up and approved the "honeytrap" must have blood on their hands to this very day - just goes to show if they have not got any real evidence then they will "make some up".

Colin Stagg - he had not one single criminal conviction prior to being fingered for this gruesome murder - truth be told he is the REAL victim in this sorry affair.

[JamesW]

"?125,000 is a nice 'bunce' for Lizzie James for corresponding with Colin Stagg. "

Stagg thought so too and tried to stop her getting anything.