I know there are a few legal eagles on here, I have a technical Q about the trial pocess.

I always thought they defendant was treated as completely innocent, etc., and hence all previous history was kept secret until after the verdict and then brought into account for the purposes of sentencing. eg: the Bristol girl who was murdered around Xmas, the original suspect (landlord?) was having his name dragged into all manner of conjecture and hence any jury would have a preconception on him as to his character before the trial evidence even started which may impact on their impartiality.

So why is the defendant in the MD case frequently referred to as ‘convicted killer’ Levi Bellfield? It may be a fact (it is) but why is that allowed to be disclosed / reported?

Just interested in the way the legal system works.

I believe it’s because he’s already inside for other murders, a difficult fact to keep from the jury.

If any part Levi Bellfield’s defence is that “it’s not the sort of thing he’d do” etc. the prosecution can introduce the past convictions as evidence that it is

google – “bad character” evidence

I’ve done jury service on an armed robbery case were the defendant was already inside (on weekend release for the job 🙂 ) – I think it’s like countzero says, it’s difficult to keep that information from the jury.