Discussion
dazco said:
Pontoneer said:
I also don't hold with torturing someone who could ( even remotely ) possibly be innocent .
However , if there was some kind of truth drug ( sodium pentathol - I know nothing about the substance ) which could be administered to find out whether he knew anything ( only in what could be a life or death situation for a victim , such as exists in this case , or might have earlier in the week ) then I might look on it as a last resort .
I don't know if the truth drug the CIA developed was sodium pentathol, but they stopped using their truth drug because it was very difficult to get the dosage correct. Too little and it did not work, too much and the recipient died, with a very small window of when it does work.However , if there was some kind of truth drug ( sodium pentathol - I know nothing about the substance ) which could be administered to find out whether he knew anything ( only in what could be a life or death situation for a victim , such as exists in this case , or might have earlier in the week ) then I might look on it as a last resort .
I believe the same drug is found in most travel sickness tablets.
They are unreliable. The subject usually mixes fiction with fact - because of the effect of the drugs on higher cognitive function. Their use is illegal in law enforcement (in UK and many other countries) as use is classified as a form torture. They can lawfully be used in the evaluation of psychotic patients under strict medical supervision ... to obtain information about the patient's condition that they are unwilling or unable to divulge.
Streaky
streaky said:
... to obtain information about the patient's condition that they are unwilling or unable to divulge.
Is that not the idea in this particular case, assuming this Bridger bloke is the right man? He may have info he is unwilling to divulge....But why is it classed as torture? Are there some really painful side effects or something?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19867915
I wonder if this case may develop as the Soham case did. Readers may recall that Huntley admitted that the girls died in his house, but claimed that the deaths were accidental.
Or, of course, Mr Bridger may assert firmly that he is the wrong guy, or stand mute. We won't see what the case is based on for a while, probably.
I wonder if this case may develop as the Soham case did. Readers may recall that Huntley admitted that the girls died in his house, but claimed that the deaths were accidental.
Or, of course, Mr Bridger may assert firmly that he is the wrong guy, or stand mute. We won't see what the case is based on for a while, probably.
Jasandjules said:
And what if he hasn't either?
(ignoring the overall question of torturing people for information)
What are the side effects of sodium pentathol? If non, is any harm done by trying it, not as an evidential process, but to aid finding of the girl (and if used soon enough alive).(ignoring the overall question of torturing people for information)
The problem is that a week down the line, unless someone else is involved, even if she were alive at the start she may starve to death or die from thirst.
daz3210 said:
On what basis will the charges have come about?
It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
I'm curious about that too. We haven't really been told anything about what he has and hasn't said in interviews, but clearly it's enough for the CPS to think they can make those charges stick. He must presumably have said enough for them to believe that a) she is dead and b) he was responsible for her death.It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
I'm not going to play Devils Advocate but there must surely be something beyond what we've been told linking this guy to it. If he hasn't told them anything in interview, then what have they got to go on? Simply being in the area at the time surely isn't sufficient evidence of anything.
It is moderately frustrating hearing only part of the story, but at the same time if somehow this guy is innocent of the specific crimes he is being charged with he's already been pilloried by the media based on the scant information they have, so hearing about specifically what he has said in interview could presumably compromise any trial.
None.
Even if he was exonerated by the media, and took them to court and won for anything defamatory, he'd still live a life where people who saw him in the street thought he "was probably guilty anyway". Just look at that teacher who was in the frame for the Jo Yeates murder - the press had all but convicted him based purely on his "oddball" life.
Hell, most of the people on PH myself included probably have enough quirks, eccentricities and skeletons in our closets - particularly in this age of living ones life in social media - to be stitched up by the media.
Of course I'm basing this on the tenet of our justice system whereby people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they are associated with a heinous crime and are charged with it.
Even if he was exonerated by the media, and took them to court and won for anything defamatory, he'd still live a life where people who saw him in the street thought he "was probably guilty anyway". Just look at that teacher who was in the frame for the Jo Yeates murder - the press had all but convicted him based purely on his "oddball" life.
Hell, most of the people on PH myself included probably have enough quirks, eccentricities and skeletons in our closets - particularly in this age of living ones life in social media - to be stitched up by the media.
Of course I'm basing this on the tenet of our justice system whereby people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they are associated with a heinous crime and are charged with it.
daz3210 said:
Jasandjules said:
And what if he hasn't either?
(ignoring the overall question of torturing people for information)
What are the side effects of sodium pentathol? If non, is any harm done by trying it, not as an evidential process, but to aid finding of the girl (and if used soon enough alive).(ignoring the overall question of torturing people for information)
The problem is that a week down the line, unless someone else is involved, even if she were alive at the start she may starve to death or die from thirst.
If it is the wrong guy ( and I accept that this is a big if because they must have strong suspicions but not proof) how far do you go before you decide the person really is telling the truth and they don't know anything.
Unfortunately most towns/areas have a few nutters/weirdos. You can usually find them shouting at trolleys in Supermarket car parks or performing other strange acts. This does not mean they are guilty of anything.
Your right to remain silent is exactly that - a right. However extreme or distasteful one particular case may seem these rights are there to protect us all - the many. Likewise not being tortured or having information "extracted".
daz3210 said:
On what basis will the charges have come about?
It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
I should imagine there is a very great deal we have no been told!It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
FFS !
Durzel said:
I'm not going to play Devils Advocate but there must surely be something beyond what we've been told linking this guy to it.
Agreed. Was having the same conversation with the OH last night. My guess is that information is not being made public so as not to prejudice the trial. My further guess is that he is either on a register, has previous convictions, or knows/has been involved with the child in the past.mattdaniels said:
Agreed. Was having the same conversation with the OH last night. My guess is that information is not being made public so as not to prejudice the trial. My further guess is that he is either on a register, has previous convictions, or knows/has been involved with the child in the past.
Considering the media interest in him, if this is the case I am surprised it has not come to light by now.XCP said:
daz3210 said:
On what basis will the charges have come about?
It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
I should imagine there is a very great deal we have no been told!It says in the report that the PCoJ is to do with unlawful disposal and concealment of a body. How can they come to such charges when no body has been found?
Or is there possibly something we have not been told?
FFS !
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff