Bradford murders......
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
dreamz said:
this is going to be something like law abiding citizen where he'll beat the ssystem and walk out
Didn't he end up getting blown to pieces in his prison cell?
t ending i reckon. like he wouldnt have booby trapped the end bomb. i bet this is going to be a s
t ending too. he'll just plead guilty and no bomb.RonnieP said:
Silent1 said:
Mojocvh said:
Silent1 said:
Rusty Arches said:
Why can't serial killers target chavs and real criminals?
He did.
Uncalled for mate.Randy Winkman said:
Randy Winkman said:
Silent1 said:
Rusty Arches said:
Why can't serial killers target chavs and real criminals?
He did..Edited by Randy Winkman on Friday 28th May 21:46
The 'women' he (apparently) killed were chavs and criminals. And suggesting anyone should die isnt exactly a nice thing to say.
Did your fathers have habits?
I was wondering exactly the same thing?
90% of PH spends all day complaining that we're too easy on petty criminals, chavs, smack addicts and so forth.
I am in no way condoning what the "Crossbow Cannibal" has done, or saying that these three women deserved what they got, but we're not exactly talking about fine upstanding members of the community here are we?
I'll add a smiley just to over compensate as well.
90% of PH spends all day complaining that we're too easy on petty criminals, chavs, smack addicts and so forth.
I am in no way condoning what the "Crossbow Cannibal" has done, or saying that these three women deserved what they got, but we're not exactly talking about fine upstanding members of the community here are we?
I'll add a smiley just to over compensate as well.
The Riddler said:
RonnieP said:
Silent1 said:
Mojocvh said:
Silent1 said:
Rusty Arches said:
Why can't serial killers target chavs and real criminals?
He did. Uncalled for mate.Randy Winkman said:
Randy Winkman said:
Silent1 said:
Rusty Arches said:
Why can't serial killers target chavs and real criminals?
He did..Edited by Randy Winkman on Friday 28th May 21:46
The 'women' he (apparently) killed were chavs and criminals. And suggesting anyone should die isnt exactly a nice thing to say.
Did your fathers have habits?
?Edited by Silent1 on Friday 28th May 23:54
Just because the guy appears to be going for the insanity defence doesn’t mean he isn’t insane.
Many years ago a defendant tried to avoid the consequences of his actions by convincing a jury that he was guilty but insane.
Subsequent re-examination of the case revealed that the accused was insane. However, he had failed to comprehend his own insanity and this caused his downfall.
Mistakenly believing himself sane, he set out to deceive the jury.
The jury saw through his deliberate attempts and found him guilty. Since this was prior to the abolition of capital punishment, he was hanged.
Had he realised and accepted his own insanity then he would have probably cooperated with the professionals attempting to conduct his defence. Since he believed himself sane and therefore guilty, he tried to deceive his own counsel and medical experts. This obstructed their ability to mount a proper defence.
I forget the name of the defendant, but the case became one of those used in the argument to abolish capital punishment.
Perhaps we are seeing something similar, since the background information currently available suggests he is likely to have some degree of mental health issues.
Many years ago a defendant tried to avoid the consequences of his actions by convincing a jury that he was guilty but insane.
Subsequent re-examination of the case revealed that the accused was insane. However, he had failed to comprehend his own insanity and this caused his downfall.
Mistakenly believing himself sane, he set out to deceive the jury.
The jury saw through his deliberate attempts and found him guilty. Since this was prior to the abolition of capital punishment, he was hanged.
Had he realised and accepted his own insanity then he would have probably cooperated with the professionals attempting to conduct his defence. Since he believed himself sane and therefore guilty, he tried to deceive his own counsel and medical experts. This obstructed their ability to mount a proper defence.
I forget the name of the defendant, but the case became one of those used in the argument to abolish capital punishment.
Perhaps we are seeing something similar, since the background information currently available suggests he is likely to have some degree of mental health issues.
Uncle Fester said:
Just because the guy appears to be going for the insanity defence doesn’t mean he isn’t insane.
Many years ago a defendant tried to avoid the consequences of his actions by convincing a jury that he was guilty but insane.
Subsequent re-examination of the case revealed that the accused was insane. However, he had failed to comprehend his own insanity and this caused his downfall.
Mistakenly believing himself sane, he set out to deceive the jury.
The jury saw through his deliberate attempts and found him guilty. Since this was prior to the abolition of capital punishment, he was hanged.
Had he realised and accepted his own insanity then he would have probably cooperated with the professionals attempting to conduct his defence. Since he believed himself sane and therefore guilty, he tried to deceive his own counsel and medical experts. This obstructed their ability to mount a proper defence.
I forget the name of the defendant, but the case became one of those used in the argument to abolish capital punishment.
Perhaps we are seeing something similar, since the background information currently available suggests he is likely to have some degree of mental health issues.
Thankfully I'm no pyschologist but always wonder when people debate if killers who murder, torture etc. for no obvious reason (i.e. no prior link to the victims or revenge or monetary gain aspect etc.) are insane . .Many years ago a defendant tried to avoid the consequences of his actions by convincing a jury that he was guilty but insane.
Subsequent re-examination of the case revealed that the accused was insane. However, he had failed to comprehend his own insanity and this caused his downfall.
Mistakenly believing himself sane, he set out to deceive the jury.
The jury saw through his deliberate attempts and found him guilty. Since this was prior to the abolition of capital punishment, he was hanged.
Had he realised and accepted his own insanity then he would have probably cooperated with the professionals attempting to conduct his defence. Since he believed himself sane and therefore guilty, he tried to deceive his own counsel and medical experts. This obstructed their ability to mount a proper defence.
I forget the name of the defendant, but the case became one of those used in the argument to abolish capital punishment.
Perhaps we are seeing something similar, since the background information currently available suggests he is likely to have some degree of mental health issues.
How could anyone who does such things ever be considered sane?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff