Ian Huntley trial...

[pboreham]

Anyone got any views on this emotive news story?

Personally, I thought his story was fully conceivable (wether I believe it or not). He has admitted to the girls dying with him, him moving and burying them, de-clothing them etc so its not as if he is hiding that... though I suppose he is bang to rights according to the forensics...

You wouldnt know exactly how you would react in the same situation - you know how you think you would (i.e. phone the poilce etc).

One thing that has troubled me from the very start, is if he did murder them, how (and why) did he do it so quickly? If they did just turn up on his doorstep and went into his house did he immediately think "oh... I'll murder these girls now" or did he set it up via a chat room or something??

I also think its a bit bizarre that the pathologist claimed it to be 'impossible' for the girl to drown in the bath unless drugged or drunk. What if she smashed her head and passed out? Thought the pathologist should be impartial... http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,12:46)]One thing that has troubled me from the very start, is if he did murder them, how (and why) did he do it so quickly? If they did just turn up on his doorstep and went into his house did he immediately think "oh... I'll murder these girls now" or did he set it up via a chat room or something??
It's not known how long they were in the house for before they died, but it is known that there was plenty of previous contact: one of them (Holly?) reportedly had a crush on him, and of course they both knew Maxine well since she was their classroom assistant.


Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,12:46)]Thought the pathologist should be impartial... http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif
As for the pathologist, you'll invariably find that expert evidence on pathology is brought by both prosecution and defence. *Whilst his or her main duty is to the court, undoubtedly the home office pathologist brought by the prosecution will, if there are two possible causes one of which will lead to a conviction, tend to lean in a particular way as regards to the evidence.

It's such a sad story, though. I just hope that it is properly dealt with by the court and press alike.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Matt

[Vange Shrimper]

The thing i dont understand is what posseses someone to murder 2 young girls. It's awful http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[pboreham]

Yea, its terribly sad Matt (I knew you'd reply! http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Thing is, if Huntleys story is true and he is convicted anyway, that also is sad.

Not sure if he'd ever get a fair trial, but I dont think its a cut and dry as I once thought.

That reminds me of when I did jury service. The case was GBH - 3 lads who badly beat 2 brothers in public. There were witnesses, positive ID's, convincing forensics, the lot. During summing up, we all argued for pretty much 2 days and in the end agreed on a "Not-Guilty" verdict, 11-1.

The clerk of the court (who was a spot on chap and got to know us well in those 10 days as we were the last case running before X-Mas) said that he has NEVER been involved in a more 'guilty' verdict case than that, yet we still found them innocent! Strange ole world...

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Vange Shrimper @ Nov. 27 2003,13:02)]murder
Innocent 'til proven guilty, Hils....

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,13:06)]Thing is, if Huntleys story is true and he is convicted anyway, that also is sad.

Not sure if he'd ever get a fair trial, but I dont think its a cut and dry as I once thought.
More than sad - it would be a tragedy and a travesty. The whole point of the three pillars of the criminal justice system - trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty and beyond all reasonable doubt - is so that we can live up to the maxim that Lord Coke (pronounced "Cook"), one of the fathers of the English Legal system, established in 1603:

"It is better that a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be deprived of his liberty"

You see, John Stuart Mill wasn't actually expressing that much of an original concept in On Liberty...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As for jury service - glad to say that I can never do it!

Matt

[Vange Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,13:13)]
Quote[/b] (Vange Shrimper @ Nov. 27 2003,13:02)]murder
Innocent 'til proven guilty, Hils....
I wasnt accusing him. I'm just saying why would anyone wanna do anything like that?

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Vange Shrimper @ Nov. 27 2003,13:16)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,13:13)]
Quote[/b] (Vange Shrimper @ Nov. 27 2003,13:02)]murder
Innocent 'til proven guilty, Hils....
I wasnt accusing him. I'm just saying why would anyone wanna do anything like that?
Yeah I know, its not murder as yet though.

[chadded]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,12:46)]I also think its a bit bizarre that the pathologist claimed it to be 'impossible' for the girl to drown in the bath unless drugged or drunk. What if she smashed her head and passed out? Thought the pathologist should be impartial... http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif
As far as I was aware, the pathologist was 'confused' (wrong word maybe) as to how a young child could drown in a bath accidently when two other people (at least) were also present in the room.

[pboreham]

2 people ... a grown man in blind panic trying to quieten/pacify a screaming 10 year old child http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[chadded]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,13:25)]2 people ... a grown man in blind panic trying to quieten/pacify a screaming 10 year old child http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Don't believe it. I'm not sure which child drowned, but the girls were best friends, surely one would have wanted to save the other. In which case, for a moment (If Huntley should be believed) both the defendant and one of the children would be working for a common goal- saving the other child.

BTW, Huntley claimed there was 18 inches of water in the bath at the time. The baths' overflow was measured in court yesterday at 11 inches......

[sufc_stu]

Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[pboreham]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
f**king hell... if this is the future of opinions in this country... Matt must be turning in his grave...

Apart from your amazing outburst, Ian Huntley isnt married... Maxine Carr is his ex-girlfriend...

[chadded]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Stu, he is innocent until proven guilty. Now, the way the press have painted the picture so far, then yea, he probably is guilty, but the press want a guilty verdict. Im not saying hes innocent, but you have to be patient over all this.

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Personally I'd rather see him put in a wicker man and then be burnt at a public execution! But then I'm just a softy old liberal at heart. *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif

[steveh1510]

The Verdict isn't murder yet! He hasn't been fund guilty!

As it is I think its too much of a coincidence that a series of accidents occurred that resulted in this, but admit its a possibility.

How can you tell by looking at a btah full of water what the depth is? i couldn't........

Also bear in mind these are ten year olds, whilst an adults reaction maybe to save their friend, would a childs? or would it be to scream as has been said?

The thing that gets me is why is this explanation only coming out now? Why not when he was first interviewed?

[sufc_stu]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,13:38)]The thing that gets me is why is this explanation only coming out now? Why not when he was first interviewed?
Because he murdered them and thought he could get away with it! SICK!!!! http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,13:38)]The Verdict isn't murder yet! He hasn't been fund guilty!

As it is I think its too much of a coincidence that a series of accidents occurred that resulted in this, but admit its a possibility.

How can you tell by looking at a btah full of water what the depth is? i couldn't........

Also bear in mind these are ten year olds, whilst an adults reaction maybe to save their friend, would a childs? or would it be to scream as has been said?

The thing that gets me is why is this explanation only coming out now? Why not when he was first interviewed?
Because they're not allowed to reveal certain details before the trial as it may prejudice it!

I'd quite like to go to a stoning as well, get a few nice nodules of sharp flint, that should do the trick. Anyone else have any preferences. What about hung drawn & quartered?

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,13:35)]
Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
f**king hell... if this is the future of opinions in this country... Matt must be turning in his grave...

Apart from your amazing outburst, Ian Huntley isnt married... Maxine Carr is his ex-girlfriend...
Steady!! I'm still alive and well, thanks very much!

It does, however, turn the stomach to read stuff like that.

Stu - hang your head in shame, sir. You are not at the trial. You have not heard every minute's worth of evidence.

Therefore, how in God's earth do you claim to have the knowledge to be this man's judge, jury, and sentencing officer?

IF he is found guilty (and I stress the word IF), we can then make pronouncements on what we should like to happen to him.

Until then, we should steer well clear of the media bandwagon which has decided to try him according to their own "laudable" standards, and wait to hear what the jury of 12 good and true men and women have to say.

Matt

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:41)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,13:38)]The thing that gets me is why is this explanation only coming out now? Why not when he was first interviewed?
Because he murdered them and thought he could get away with it! SICK!!!! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
How the hell do you know that for sure? Don't believe what is written in The Sun completely.

Now he may well be guilty, he also may not. But he is entitled to a fair trial as everyone is.

Just wait until all the evidence is out before judging.

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,13:43)]Because they're not allowed to reveal certain details before the trial as it may prejudice it!
But as I read it, this wasn't in his original statement. Have I read it wrong? Is this media cr*p?

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,13:43)]
Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,13:35)]
Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
f**king hell... if this is the future of opinions in this country... Matt must be turning in his grave...

Apart from your amazing outburst, Ian Huntley isnt married... Maxine Carr is his ex-girlfriend...
Steady!! *I'm still alive and well, thanks very much!

It does, however, turn the stomach to read stuff like that. *

Stu - hang your head in shame, sir. *You are not at the trial. *You have not heard every minute's worth of evidence.

Therefore, how in God's earth do you claim to have the knowledge to be this man's judge, jury, and sentencing officer?

IF he is found guilty (and I stress the word IF), we can then make pronouncements on what we should like to happen to him.

Until then, we should steer well clear of the media bandwagon which has decided to try him according to their own "laudable" standards, and wait to hear what the jury of 12 good and true men and women have to say.

Matt
You old softy Matt!

Electrocution, firing squad anyone?

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!
Absolutely, 100% what I'm saying. It is not murder until the jury says it is.

Until such time as a jury has heard all the evidence and decided to convict or acquit, we (and the press) are utterly unable to say whether he is or is not guilty of murder.

There may be a good reason for it. *We don't know. *The jury will be told by Huntley his reason why it isn't murder, and they have to decide whether or not he is telling the truth.

I have every confidence that the jury will work out whether or not he is telling the truth - juries are surprisingly good at it, as a rule.

Matt

[sufc_stu]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,13:35)]
Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!

Huntley deserves to be put in a cell with no windows, no bed, a hole in the floor to release his bowles, enough food and water to keep him alive forever and as a treat on a Friday 4 great big poofs rape and beat him for the day!!!!!

THE MAN IS SICK AND SO IS HIS WIFE!!!!


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
f**king hell... if this is the future of opinions in this country... Matt must be turning in his grave...

Apart from your amazing outburst, Ian Huntley isnt married... Maxine Carr is his ex-girlfriend...
This isnt a normal murder court case, two innocent girls have been murdered for no motive what so ever by a very sick man. All the evidence points to him and now he has admitted it, na he cant be guilty!

HUNTLY IS INNOCENT LET HIM FREE!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif


Sorry but this upsets me a lot as I cant imagine what the family of the two girls are going though at the moment!

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,13:50)]
Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:33)]Un f**king believable how the hell can two girls be killed at the same time, then be burried in the same place “BURIED” and then all the evidence is covered up. AND YOUR SAYING THE VERDICT ISNT MURDER YET!
Absolutely, 100%. *Until such time as a jury has heard all the evidence and decided to convict or acquit, we (and the press) are utterly unable to say whether he is or is not guilty of murder.

There may be a good reason for it. *We don't know. *The jury will be told by Huntley his reason why it isn't murder, and they have to decide whether or not he is telling the truth.

I have every confidence that the jury will work out whether or not he is telling the truth - juries are surprisingly good at it, as a rule.

Matt
As a matter of curiosity has there been any allegations that Huntly interfered with the girls? I've not heard anything but it makes you wonder if they were killed after they were sexually assaulted. Given that the bodies were in an advanced state of decomposition I assume allegations of that nature would be hard to prove.

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:52)]This isnt a normal murder court case, two innocent girls have been murdered for no motive what so ever by a very sick man. All the evidence points to him and now he has admitted it, na he cant be guilty!

HUNTLY IS INNOCENT LET HIM FREE!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif


Sorry but this upsets me a lot as I cant imagine what the family of the two girls are going though at the moment!
Appreciate that it upsets you, It is rather sickening that two 10 year olds have lost their lives, but try to take a step back here. He deserves a fair trial as we all would do, you do not know all the evidence, only what the media are choosing to tell us, and you cannot judge him on that. Lets just hope the 12 jury members are a bit more open-minded, and give a fair decision based on the evidence given, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[sufc_stu]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,13:43)]Stu - hang your head in shame, sir. *You are not at the trial. *You have not heard every minute's worth of evidence.
No chance why should i? Too many people are getting far too soft that’s why this country is going down the pan!

Two girls have died under Huntley supervision, how the hell can anyone say that is an accident!!

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,13:52)]This isnt a normal murder court case, two innocent girls have been murdered for no motive what so ever by a very sick man. All the evidence points to him and now he has admitted it, na he cant be guilty!

HUNTLY IS INNOCENT LET HIM FREE!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif


Sorry but this upsets me a lot as I cant imagine what the family of the two girls are going though at the moment!
f**king hell!!! Will you get it into your f**king head that unless you are in the court hearing the evidence you are not entitled to say that?

Are you some sort of f**king all-seeing deity that KNOWS that he did it because you ****ing saw it?!!

No, didn't think so, so SHUT THE **** UP!!!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

There's not a lot that makes me blue with rage, but one thing that does is the so-called moral ****ING majority making decisions on guilt or innocence without hearing the ****ing evidence.

If he's found guilty, by all means castrate him, lock him up, and throw away the key.

But that's IF and not WHEN. He has the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you claim to live in a civilised society, you'd do well to remember that, Stu.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Matt

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,14:02)]There's not a lot that makes me blue with rage, but one thing that does is the so-called moral ****ING majority making decisions on guilt or innocence without hearing the ****ing evidence.
But its all been in The Sun, Matt, ALL the evidence.....

[Usual_Suspect]

What I can't understand is:

1) If a child fell into a bath and you were there your first instinct is to get him/her out, not to stop another child screaming.

2) You'd then try and calm the other child; you don't put you hand over her mouth till she goes limp.

3) If this were the accident that he claims, then why would he then proceed to cut the clothes off and bury them etc? Yes if it did all happen as he said, then I agree that he would have been scared but come on, you still don't then go and bury the bodies and go about your business as if nothing has happened.

So even if he is found innocent, in my eyes, for the fact of burying the bodies and putting the families through all the grief they went/are going through I still think he is an evil piece of work who should rot in hell.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (sufc_stu @ Nov. 27 2003,14:00)]
Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,13:43)]Stu - hang your head in shame, sir. *You are not at the trial. *You have not heard every minute's worth of evidence.
No chance why should i? Too many people are getting far too soft that’s why this country is going down the pan!

Two girls have died under Huntley supervision, how the hell can anyone say that is an accident!!
BOLLOX!

Same sort of sh*tty argument used by Hitler to lock up people he didn't like.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

I'd rather be living in a country that had the odd shady character on the streets because his guilt or innocence couldn't be determined, than the prisons full of innocent people just because a so-called moral majority doesn't like the look of them.

The difference in your and my take on Holly & Jessica is that I don't know, and I don't presume to know, how they died. I wasn't there at the time, and I'm not in court now. So it's for the jury to decide whether he did it on the evidence put to them. It is a system that works - so let's let them get on with it, eh?

Matt

[Usual_Suspect]

You can read the full transcripts of the trail on the sky website

[Matt the Shrimp]

Listen, Stu and U_S. Journalists write stories that sell; journalists are not on some bloomin' crusade to bring us the truth.

How do I know this? Because my girlfriend is a journalist, because I know a lot of journalists, because I have worked at and around newspapers for a considerable amount of time, and because it's common fuggin' sense.

The only real crucibles of truth are, one hopes, in a court of law and at the day of reckoning before your maker. Since none of us will be able to report on the latter, we must put our faith in the former to get us as near to the truth as we can hope in this society.

If, as you say, Huntley's explanation is implausible; if, as you say, he has never said this before and that this is a statement wholly inconsistent to his prior statements, then that would seem to suggest guilt.

But we should wait for the jury to tell us that, rather than be swayed by the editorials of Murdoch who simply wants to shift his bloomin' papers.

Matt

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Usual_Suspect @ Nov. 27 2003,14:10)]You can read the full transcripts of the trail on the sky website
OK. That's a start. *But if Stu has read them all, why didn't he say so?

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Further, what transcripts don't show you are the whites of someone's eyes, the tone of their voice. *80% of human communication is non-verbal; and it is on that, as well as the things which are being said, which will lead a jury to acquit or convict.

Matt

[Matt the Shrimp]

P.S. Stu - apologies for telling you to shut the f*** up. Uncalled for on my part. There's not much that gets me truly angry, but this is one of those areas.

If we do not live in a society that presumes that people are innocent until they are proven guilty in front of and to the satisfaction of their peers, then we do not live in a civilised society at all.

Matt

[pboreham]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,14:16)]Further, what transcripts don't show you are the whites of someone's eyes, the tone of their voice. *80% of human communication is non-verbal; and it is on that, as well as the things which are being said, which will lead a jury to acquit or convict.

Matt
I can vouch for that having done jury service. As I said, to an outsider, our case was one that could only realistically return a verdict of unanimous guilt - until you see those guys on the stand and gather all the evidence, you cannot make a decision...

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:20)]
Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,14:16)]Further, what transcripts don't show you are the whites of someone's eyes, the tone of their voice. *80% of human communication is non-verbal; and it is on that, as well as the things which are being said, which will lead a jury to acquit or convict.

Matt
I can vouch for that having done jury service. As I said, to an outsider, our case was one that could only realistically return a verdict of unanimous guilt - until you see those guys on the stand and gather all the evidence, you cannot make a decision...
I've been in court enough times to see claims that look unimpeachable on paper fall apart - because the person trying to bring the claim is a crook - because you know.

Leave it with the jury - they will make the right decision.

Matt

[Napster]

Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!

[Usual_Suspect]

Matt, I don't think anyone on here is so naive to think that everything written in the papers is true, we all know that 98% of the time they are only interested in their sales figures.

[pboreham]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:24)]Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!
Can you explain why not?

Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:24)]Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!
Can you explain why not?

Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...
You've answered your own question, I guess. I just don't think it's right to discuss such a huge thing when none of us are party to everthing going on. Blimey, even MtS got angry- that's a rarity in itself.

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:31)]
Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:24)]Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!
Can you explain why not?

Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...
You've answered your own question, I guess. I just don't think it's right to discuss such a huge thing when none of us are party to everthing going on. Blimey, even MtS got angry- that's a rarity in itself.
'Tis a fair point.

PB, in you original post, you asked if we had any views on the trial. Without knowing the full evidence, how can we have views on it?

[Durera]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>I wouldn&#39;t comment on trial, as frankly I know f**k all what has gone on...

However, the press regarding the original arrests were nothing short of a witch hunt - innocent until proven guilty? NOT in the eyes of the UK press....

The whole things had the PR of SUFC, frankly....</span>

[pboreham]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,14:33)]PB, in you original post, you asked if we had any views on the trial. Without knowing the full evidence, how can we have views on it?
Fair cop... you can have a personal opinion - but when that opinion is that of what some people have spouted off in this thread, then I think I&#39;d rather not be privvy to it...

[Shagster69]

Murder or not. The fact is he was still there when they died and i find his version very worrying and his admitted actions afterwards shocking. As to whether it was murder, who knows but it does appear to be very suspicious.

[Shagster69]

Not exactly Shawshank Redemption though is it&#33;

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Shagster69 @ Nov. 27 2003,15:11)]Not exactly Shawshank Redemption though is it&#33;
No- where&#39;s Red?

[Surrey Blue]

As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...
Hope you&#39;re not referring to my idiotic postings&#33; http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I was merely trying to stimulate debate on the appropriate form of punishment should the accused be found guilty.

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?
It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]
Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?
It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....
As my dear old mate Augustus Pinochet used to say

&quot; I didn&#39;t get where I am today by worrying about human rights&#33; If I didn&#39;t see passion in their eyes I used to take them for a one way helicopter ride over the Pacific Ocean&#33;&quot;


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]
Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?
It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....
But surely with DNA and the types of scientific evidence now available doesnt it allow us to be 100% sure? and i would be interested to know How many Death Sentences in the states are proved to be wrong through belated evidence?

[Usual_Suspect]

We have been discussing this in the office today, along with the 20% discount in House of Fraser. *In theory I am all for it, if my child was murdered then there&#39;s no question I would want the person executed.

The only problem being that like most people I would want their guilt to be proven without any doubt what’s so ever.

I think prison appears to be to easy for some people, the main example of late being the PAM AM bomber who&#39;s living in a self contained flat with TV, pc, videos, telephones, sofa etc. How can this be right? He probably can&#39;t believe his luck.

I also say put all the perverts, rapists and child killers in with everyone else, let them get the absolute sh*te kicked out of them everyday cause they more then deserve it.

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:09)]But surely with DNA and the types of scientific evidence now available doesnt it allow us to be 100% sure? and i would be interested to know How many Death Sentences in the states are proved to be wrong through belated evidence?
But, thats my point, we can&#39;t be 100% sure, and until we can I don&#39;t think we should bring back the death sentence....

[Wessex Blue]

On the subject of the Press whipping up hysteria around these kind of emotive subjects - I was chuckling to myself about an incident that happened in Pompey a few years ago. The local council had been obliged to rehouse a couple of nonces on the Paulsgrove Estate in the city. This caused uproar amongst the locals and a series of protests were organised. Things escalated and several people were eventually driven out of their homes.
The most shocking event was a local paediatrician having to flee after a mob trashed his house. Unbelievable&#33; http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Usual_Suspect @ Nov. 27 2003,16:10)]We have been discussing this in the office today, along with the 20% discount in House of Fraser. *In theory I am all for it,
I&#39;m not surprised- that&#39;s a good bargain.

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:07)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]
Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?
It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....
As my dear old mate Augustus Pinochet used to say

&quot; I didn&#39;t get where I am today by worrying about human rights&#33; If I didn&#39;t see passion in their eyes I used to take them for a one way helicopter ride over the Pacific Ocean&#33;&quot;


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif
You Sure that wasnt Ron Martin?

[Matt the Shrimp]

Clearly, you don&#39;t need to have a career in the law to have an opinion on the death penalty - it&#39;s something that everyone should have an opinion on.

I&#39;m vehemently opposed to the death penalty - always have been. *It&#39;s the ultimate example of two wrongs not making a right. *It is state-sponsored murder.

I&#39;m all for hard labour, life imprisonment meaning just that, chemical castration, even castration with a blunt teaspoon, or making people break stones on a remote island off the Falklands or whatever. *Occasionally, some people are so evil that it&#39;s simply not worth trying to rehabilitate them.

But miscarriages of justice do occur - and if you&#39;ve hanged someone under a death penalty, you can&#39;t really turn around 20 years later and say &quot;oops, sorry, we got that one wrong&quot;, can you?

Given that as a species, we do (or ought to) treasure the sanctity and inviolability of the right to life above every other thing, it seems to be hypocrisy and illogicality of the highest order if, in response to a dreadful crime like murder, the state turns around and says &quot;as a result of you killing someone, we&#39;re going to kill you.&quot;

Of course, the excpetion to this is in war, when all bets are off. *If it&#39;s a case of kill or be killed, then the killing of another human being is akin to a form of self-defence, and in those circumstances it is justified to kill someone.

In all other circumstances, IMHO, killing a human being is simply wrong - whether it&#39;s a criminal who does it, or the state.

Matt

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]illogicality
I&#39;m sure that&#39;s made up.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]Clearly, you don&#39;t need to have a career in the law to have an opinion on the death penalty - it&#39;s something that everyone should have an opinion on.

I&#39;m vehemently opposed to the death penalty - always have been. *It&#39;s the ultimate example of two wrongs not making a right. *It is state-sponsored murder.

I&#39;m all for hard labour, life imprisonment meaning just that, chemical castration, even castration with a blunt teaspoon, or making people break stones on a remote island off the Falklands or whatever. *Occasionally, some people are so evil that it&#39;s simply not worth trying to rehabilitate them.

But miscarriages of justice do occur - and if you&#39;ve hanged someone under a death penalty, you can&#39;t really turn around 20 years later and say &quot;oops, sorry, we got that one wrong&quot;, can you?

Given that as a species, we do (or ought to) treasure the sanctity and inviolability of the right to life above every other thing, it seems to be hypocrisy and illogicality of the highest order if, in response to a dreadful crime like murder, the state turns around and says &quot;as a result of you killing someone, we&#39;re going to kill you.&quot;

Of course, the excpetion to this is in war, when all bets are off. *If it&#39;s a case of kill or be killed, then the killing of another human being is akin to a form of self-defence, and in those circumstances it is justified to kill someone.

In all other circumstances, IMHO, killing a human being is simply wrong - whether it&#39;s a criminal who does it, or the state.

Matt
Matt, although i greatly appreciate you dont need a career in law to have an opinion of the death penalty, i was intrigued to know what someone who does have a career in law thought.

Now would you say your opinion as someone who has a career in law is in the majority within law circles? or can you really not say?

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,16:43)]
Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]illogicality
I&#39;m sure that&#39;s made up.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Who knows, but it slotted in more easily than &quot;absence of logic&quot;...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Matt

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]But miscarriages of justice do occur - and if you&#39;ve hanged someone under a death penalty, you can&#39;t really turn around 20 years later and say &quot;oops, sorry, we got that one wrong&quot;, can you?
Agreed but on the other hand it definitely sticks in the throat when people like Hyndley, Sutcliffe etc can continue their lives in prison under reasonably comfortable circumstances whilst the families they have destroyed suffer.

Penal colonies, hard labour, enforced solitary for the rest of their worthless lives. All these things should be considered for certain categories of killer IE nonces and other murdering sex offenders, terrorists who target civilians, you get the general idea.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:52)]Matt, although i greatly appreciate you dont need a career in law to have an opinion of the death penalty, i was intrigued to know what someone who does have a career in law thought.

Now would you say your opinion as someone who has a career in law is in the majority within law circles? or can you really not say?
Fair play.

I can&#39;t point to any specific research on this, but anecdotally, so far as I am aware, there is little or no support at the Bar, or within Law Firms, for a return of the death penalty. I&#39;d say my view - that it&#39;s nothing but state-sponsored murder - is pretty overwhelmingly the view of most legal professionals.

Of course, I may be wrong about that - but that&#39;s certainly my impression.

Matt

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:53)]Penal colonies, hard labour, enforced solitary for the rest of their worthless lives. All these things should be considered for certain categories of killer IE nonces and other murdering sex offenders, terrorists who target civilians, you get the general idea.
I have no problem with any of that. When you take life, it&#39;s my view that the state should be entitled to remove all of your basic civil rights - so that, in a sense, you no longer have a life, you merely have an existence.

But that&#39;s just my view - I certainly couldn&#39;t say whether that was widely agreed with inside the legal profession or not.

Matt

[steveh1510]

Send in the Dementors.....

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,17:02)]Send in the Dementors.....
nasty bunch, no messing with those bad boyz

[Durera]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,17:07)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,17:02)]Send in the Dementors.....
nasty bunch, no messing with those bad boyz
<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>Dunno, Prongs always has a good go...</span>

[Usual_Suspect]

Send him down (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12936765,00.html)

[The 4th man]

I alwasy had a plan by where you could take the worst priosners leave them on an island (in the SOuth Pacific) , with their &quot;guards&quot; being wither Wu Tang(Taoist) or Shaolin monks . Both are deidcated to compasion and the sanctitey of life and both are nearly imposible for your average serial killer / convicted assulter murder to physicaly overcome.

The &quot;prisoners&quot; only role in life is to live &#33;

I deplore the way that the papers have siezed upon the fact that Huntly burned the two bodies as evidence that he is &#39;extra&#39; guilty and &#39;extra&#39; evil.

If he had given them a full christian burial everything would have been OK then I suppose.

[sufc_stu]

Innocent till proven guilty&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Still not been found guilty but what do you boys still think about this latest statement?http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif


http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif