Never felt so angry at an article...
Discussion
AJL308 said:
JensenA said:
You obviously do not share the indignation that a child has been murdered and no one is being prosecuted because they're not sure who did it. Would you feel the same if it was your son who had murdered?
If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
That's just total toss mate. You do not know at all that they are colluding; one did it and the other says they didn't. The other is telling the truth as far as the facts we have go.If I was a member of a Jury hearing this case, 2 people alone in a house, medical evidence of how the child had been killed, they both deny it, both blame the other one, then I don't care if there is no CCTV evidence, no hard and fast forensic evidence, one of them killed the child, and they are both colluding, probably with the advice of a solicitor, to deny it and blame the other.
FFS a DJ can be tried for touching a girls tits 40 years ago, and with no CCTV or forensic evidence, be prosecuted and taken to court, and the Jury decides if they are guilty or not. Obviously that is more important than the murder of a child, and that is why many of us are angry.
If you were in a car and the driver of that car deliberately ran someone down and killed them and he said you were driving does that mean you are colluding with him when you said that he was driving?
The point in your final lines is not related at all. The difference is that they have evidence. There is none in this case.
The fact remains that I am still angry that the murderer of a young child is walking free. And they are colluding. They were alone in the house together for 11 hours after the incident took place. The Police are trained questioners, they will have a very, very good feeling as to who, if any, is telling the truth.
JensenA said:
I disagree, if they can find evidence that a man touched a girls tits 40 years ago, then it is beyond me that they are unable to find a single shred of evidence from the murder scene of a child. Perhaps it was a malevolent poltergeist that threw the bay at the wall.
The fact remains that I am still angry that the murderer of a young child is walking free. And they are colluding. They were alone in the house together for 11 hours after the incident took place. The Police are trained questioners, they will have a very, very good feeling as to who, if any, is telling the truth.
I can't believe that I'm having to point this out, but here goes; that 40 years. Think about it. It took that long for the evidence to come to light. The evidence wasn't ther for 40 years - in fact, the fact that the crime was committed wasn't known for 40 years so it's not comparable in any way what-so-ever. The fact remains that I am still angry that the murderer of a young child is walking free. And they are colluding. They were alone in the house together for 11 hours after the incident took place. The Police are trained questioners, they will have a very, very good feeling as to who, if any, is telling the truth.
This case won't take that long. The one who did it will likely fess up, or slip up, before too long. My money is on them both being involved in some manner but that's just my prejudices come to the fore. We shall see.
JensenA said:
I disagree, if they can find evidence that a man touched a girls tits 40 years ago, then it is beyond me that they are unable to find a single shred of evidence from the murder scene of a child. Perhaps it was a malevolent poltergeist that threw the bay at the wall.
The fact remains that I am still angry that the murderer of a young child is walking free. And they are colluding. They were alone in the house together for 11 hours after the incident took place. The Police are trained questioners, they will have a very, very good feeling as to who, if any, is telling the truth.
There's obviously evidence, just not any / enough to prove a specific person committed the crime. The fact remains that I am still angry that the murderer of a young child is walking free. And they are colluding. They were alone in the house together for 11 hours after the incident took place. The Police are trained questioners, they will have a very, very good feeling as to who, if any, is telling the truth.
The historic sexual offence (whichever one you're talking about) is a red herring and a completely flawed comparison. It based on witnesses evidence (and probably corroborative witness evidence). There are no witnesses in this investigation.
The investigators may have a feel for who did it, but that doesn't really mean anything.
NicD said:
In any case, as already said, I would prosecute them jointly. But this is in a world where I could, not the world we actually live in.
For the Judge to throw it out straight away. I don't see what use that would be. Surely the innocent one is so incensed that a child has been murdered that it is immediately obvious which one did it? If they have established the lad was thrown at 60mph, have they tried ruling one of them out on the grounds they couldn't throw a child that fast? Either got previous for assault, violence, anger issues etc? Either way there's lots of evidence at the scene, both will have slightly different stories, surely get them both on trial and see which ones story is more logical. And get rid of that rule where you can't be tried for the same crime twice. Surely it's designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. If not enough evidence this time but more comes to light, retry
I can't see the wider community welcoming either back. Certainly not both
If I clipped a cyclist down a country lane (no cctv) killed them and drove off, then phoned the police to grass up my wife "operator, my wife went out for a midnight drive and came back shaking, telling me she thinks she's killed a cyclist", 2 minutes later she does the same against me, are the police really going to come round and say "well played you two, you've got away with it. Be on your way now and don't do it again - or if you do, make sure you can blame someone else so that we can't be 100% sure who did it and it will never see court"
I can't see the wider community welcoming either back. Certainly not both
If I clipped a cyclist down a country lane (no cctv) killed them and drove off, then phoned the police to grass up my wife "operator, my wife went out for a midnight drive and came back shaking, telling me she thinks she's killed a cyclist", 2 minutes later she does the same against me, are the police really going to come round and say "well played you two, you've got away with it. Be on your way now and don't do it again - or if you do, make sure you can blame someone else so that we can't be 100% sure who did it and it will never see court"
johnboy1975 said:
If I clipped a cyclist down a country lane (no cctv) killed them and drove off,
You could simply just say "what cyclist?" and you may not even be charged with anything, but that's another story altogether. http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inque...
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/dead-cyclists-family-le...
JensenA said:
Seems like we have a s
t legal system doesn't it. Everyone knows that one of them, or both of them did it. No one else was in the house, a child was murdered, yet 'lack of evidence' means they don't get charged!? What other evidence do they need?
On the contrary, it seems as though we have an excellent legal system. Think about why for a minute. t legal system doesn't it. Everyone knows that one of them, or both of them did it. No one else was in the house, a child was murdered, yet 'lack of evidence' means they don't get charged!? What other evidence do they need? AJL308 said:
If there was plenty of evidence then someone would be being prosecuted.
wrong.The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter and as I said a few pages away, if only for the memory of this poor child. lessons needs to be not just learnt but adopted, so this kind of situation can be avoided in the future.
Before yet another person says, what then, as if that's the final answer. it is something a short term palliative knee jerk response cannot necessarily provide today but I'm sure with a systematic review of the circumstances of this case and similar ones there will be one that will stand up to scrutiny, it just doesn't exist today.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter and as I said a few pages away, if only for the memory of this poor child. lessons needs to be not just learnt but adopted, so this kind of situation can be avoided in the future.
Before yet another person says, what then, as if that's the final answer. it is something a short term palliative knee jerk response cannot necessarily provide today but I'm sure with a systematic review of the circumstances of this case and similar ones there will be one that will stand up to scrutiny, it just doesn't exist today.
NicD said:
wrong.
The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
So where are you going to draw the line with this ridiculous line of thought?The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
How about someone getting knifed in the toilets of a bar. He doesn't die but he's seriously injured. CCTV outside conclusively show there were 18 people in there, and you were one of them.
Are you happy for everyone to get 5 years inside for the attack?
KFC said:
NicD said:
wrong.
The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
So where are you going to draw the line with this ridiculous line of thought?The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
How about someone getting knifed in the toilets of a bar. He doesn't die but he's seriously injured. CCTV outside conclusively show there were 18 people in there, and you were one of them.
Are you happy for everyone to get 5 years inside for the attack?
JensenA said:
Surely the CCTV would only have shown the people outside the toilets?
Now you're just being silly. Or even more silly than you've already been 
Ignore the fact a baby died in the original crime - its not actually that relevant. Change it for any other crime and then assume there is absolute proof that the police know one of 5-10 people done it. It couldn't have been anyone else. You're one of these people and you know absolutely zero about what happened.
I assume you're happy to be convicted and sent to prison, along with everyone else? If not, why not? As you want it done to someone else here.
NicD said:
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
What are "cases like this"? What is it about Buffham and Bate that means the burden of proof should be reversed?As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
NicD said:
wrong.
The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
Sorry but that is a simply insane line of thought. The evidence does not establish the precise time of death, therefor which of the only two possible individuals - have you read anything before commenting?
In cases like this, as I have said, I would frame legislation to hold both parties responsible unless one can establish their innocence.
As i have said, I view this as the preferable outcome.
You cannot simply hold someone responsible on the basis that they were in the general vicinity of a crime. It's contrary to every principle of natural justice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff