Law and order.


Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
2
The law in the UK they say is an ass! I am convinced of this!What do you think?

On the 2nd Of January 06 the murder of Miss Katherine Horton aged 21 was committed on the island of Koh Samui Thailand, the arrest and conviction of the murderers has been accomplished in less than two weeks it makes one wonder does it not? Bearing in mind that the accused pleaded GUILTY to the charge. What happens yes you have guessed>>>>:rolleyes:

Civil rights group Liberty says it has concerns about the trial in Thailand of the two fishermen accused of murdering British student Katherine Horton.

Well I did expect these do-gooders to turn up along the way, as always, why I might ask? Is it simply because they have nothing better to do? It makes me sick! Go on Liberty go all out to set them free. Then let them murder one of your loved ones and see how you react? I just wonder how you would cope, Really I do????



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4603394.stm
 
Ad

Advertisements

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
5
Regardless of this particular trial, the fact is that sometimes the people who plead guilty to a crime are NOT the ones who commited it. They may be coerced, they may be protecting someone else who is guilty, or they may just be loonies. That is why we investigate each crime thoughroughly regardless of the suspects plea. Myself, If it was my family I would definitely want to see the B**tard/s who commited the crime locked up permanently. So I would absolutely definitely want every possible avenue explored to make d*mn sure they had the right people.
I know of more than one BIG NEWS trial that was rushed through the courts where the individual found guilty was released years later when it turned out that they were innocent. For all those years the real perpetrator walked free.

Arthur Allen Thomas spent more than a decade in prison before it was found that, due to the public pressure for a quick conviction the police had actually manufactured the evidence against him. The actual murderer was never found. By the time it was shown they had the wrong man it was far too late to find the right one.

Lindy Chaimberlin lost not just years of her life but her husband children & friends as well because the public witch hunt wanted her 'hanged' NOW. There never was any evidence against her & modern forensic & DNA testing have shown that it really was a dingo who took & killed her baby.
Do you WANT to imagine the horror, not just of having your baby ripped apart by a wild animal, but also the horror and betrayal of losing everyone that you love because they believe that you murdered her? Sacrificed your own baby in some sick religious ceremony?

David Bain was convicted, not because there was any evidence against him, but because there was no evidence to prove that he didn't do it (innocent until proven guilty? yeah, right) and again, the horrific nature of the crime had the public baying for blood. He's still in prison but subsequent investigations have shown that, despite police claims, his accounting of his actions did bear out. And there never was any evidence to place him at the scene of the crime at the time that it happened. He just had the misfortune to be the one to come home & to find the bodies of his family slaughted throughout their home shortly afterwards. At present it does appear that the original theory, that it was the father who did it & then shot himself, apears to have been the correct one. But, as I said, the public wanted someone to hate & they got what they wanted. He has been in prison for nearly a decade now.
He was 18 when he was convicted. A bit of a computer geek. A prime target in other words.
And that was a nice speedy trial too. Got the b*gga locked up real quick! Probably saved the taxpayer thousands & kept them happy too. Safe & secure in the knowledge of what an efficient justice system we have.

Myself, I prefer accuracy. And I'm prepared to wait the time it takes to achieve it.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
2
Regardless of this particular trial, the fact is that sometimes the people who plead guilty to a crime are NOT the ones who commited it. They may be coerced, they may be protecting someone else who is guilty, or they may just be loonies.
You can`t get away with the DNA results [positive in this case];)
That is why we investigate each crime thoughroughly regardless of the suspects plea. Myself, If it was my family I would definitely want to see the B**tard/s who commited the crime locked up permanently. So I would absolutely definitely want every possible avenue explored to make d*mn sure they had the right people.
Yep!

Lindy Chaimberlin lost not just years of her life but her husband children & friends as well because the public witch hunt wanted her 'hanged' NOW. There never was any evidence against her & modern forensic & DNA testing have shown that it really was a dingo who took & killed her baby.
Do you WANT to imagine the horror, not just of having your baby ripped apart by a wild animal, but also the horror and betrayal of losing everyone that you love because they believe that you murdered her? Sacrificed your own baby in some sick religious ceremony?
Ecxactly No DNA in those days!
 

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
5
itsme said:
You can`t get away with the DNA results [positive in this case];)

Yep!

Ecxactly No DNA in those days!
No, but unfortunately DNA & Forensic evidence can be faulty (there is always a margin of error) or tampered with. Not to mention straight up human stupidity.

In the David Bain case much was made of the blood spatter pattern on the wall behind the father where he was found, dead & holding the murder weapon (a shotgun). It was claimed that the angle was not quite consistent with his having shot himself. The whole thing was rushed and only photographic evidence was used. There was no testing for non visible blood splatter although such testing was available at the time. Neither the prosecution or the defense picked up on the fact that the family dog had been allowed to roam free in the house for over an hour & a half.

I recieved a head injury once during a siezure. When i returned from the hospital I was appalled at the amount of blood. After all the war & horror movies I'd seen, I never would've believed a person could lose so much blood & survive.
My friend Lynda had saved my life when I had fallen, face down into the hearth, my shoulders fitting in the hearth suround & damming the flow of blood. She had held my head up by my hair (I was jammed in too tight & was to heavy for her to drag me out... although her trying to do so had made quite a mess) keeping my face above the blood level preventing me from drowning in my own blood.
She told me that actually it was only about 1/3 of the actual amount of blood because my dogs had drunk & licked up the rest.
Grossed out yet?
When I had started to come around, from the seizure & the concussion (just before the ambulance arrived) I had tried to stagger to my feet, of course I fell down again but I'm a subborn b*gga I tried again, falling against the door & leaving a perfect handprint there before falling down again. By the time the ambulance attendants had managed to talk/drag me onto a stretcher there was blood everywhere.
I wonder what the blood spatter patterns woul've made of the scene if I had died before the ambulance arrived?
Evidence of a struggle. Would the torn hairs on Lynda's hand & bruising on the back of my scalp have indicated that she had grabbed my hair & slammed my head against the Mantlepiece (The tonic spasm of a siezure throws every muscle in the body into spasm, I hit the Mantlepiece with great force... much more than from a simple fall, I still have a dint in my skull)? The evidence clearly showed I had obviously staggered around, trying to run, to escape, before finally collapsing in the hearth. More evidence showing that Lynda had tried to move the body but failed before thinking to call the ambulance, leaving bloody fingerprints on the phone, and to try to 'play the hero'. Who knows, the person I now owe my life to could've spent the next decade or so in prison for my murder.
I saw the mess in there. The blood evidence would certainly have fitted with that description VERY nicely. In general blood does not record what order events occured in. And with the Newspapers screaming for justice, in the murder of a single mother of two young children, would Lynda's 'improbable' story even been taken seriously? How could she prove that what she said was true against the weight of the evidence?

Real forensic experts laugh at programmes like CSI & what they imply forensic evidence is capable of & of how they infer the 'sterility' of the crime scene & the scientific precisenes of the analysis they carry out. There is no such thing as an uncontaminated crime scene. All scientific analysis carry a greater or lesser margin of error & in many cases there simply is no alternative but to base their calculations on the best ESTIMATE they can extrapolate. I expect most of the software experts on this forum laugh just as hard, as does my ex husband who teaches 3rd year computer programming at the university. He loves the program & finds it hilarious what they imply that they can do with the computer software on those & other detective style programes. Especially the graphics work. This being one of his personal specialities. He loves it & can't believe that people actually believe that stuff.
What real cso's & other forensic experts have to deal with is much much harder & much more imprecise than any hollywood studio can convey.
And forensic evidence can be wrong. Just the same as any evidence can. And detectives are as human as anyone else. They are as likely to be out there trying to 'prove a theory' as find out what actually happened.
And anyone who's studied statistics knows that you can make them say whatever you want. It's all in the way you word it & what you choose to see or ignore.

I love forensics, I've been studying it personally for over a decade, it fascinates me and I have a huge respect for the people who work in the field. The advances they have made in the last couple of decades are astounding. But don't ever make the mistake of thinking that you are dealing with a precise science. You can't even get 100% certainty in laboratory conditions. Out in the field....
 

Rush

Cool Cruncher
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
6
I agree with itsme the law in this country when it comes to dishing out sentences and punishments for crimes ..sucks..so many times people re-offend because the sentence is to lenient.

If you can`t do the time...don`t commit the crime ..

other serious crimes need deliberate examination i agree but lets punish the others with meaningfull sentences

When i was young right was right and wrong was a clip around the ear
 
Last edited:

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
5
Unfortunately the dishing out & serving of sentances for minor through to low end serious crimes has more to do with government budgets than anything. Prisons are full, are expensive (& no one wants a new one built in their own back yard.) & prisoners require upkeep.
Production line prisons shuffling prisoners in one end & out the other as fast as they can go. A false econommy of course. What the govt saves by skimping on prisons is more than made up for by the increase in crime rates due to prison re-offenders and the whole infrastructure required to deal with such crimes... police, courts, hospitals, beuracrats. Not to mention the costs carried by the individuals at the recieving ends of such crimes.

But governments tend to be more interested in short term spending than long term planning and as many of the costs of NOT doing something are hidden they are easy to ignore. Unfortunately this attitude prevales in many countries these days. Short term planning is an unfortunate side effect of having an elected government & although many people have commented on it, no one yet seems to have come up with a solution.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
2
Rush said:
I agree with itsme the law in this country when it comes to dishing out sentences and punishments for crimes ..sucks..so many times people re-offend because the sentence is to lenient.

If you can`t do the time...don`t commit the crime ..

other serious crimes need deliberate examination i agree but lets punish the others with meaningfull sentences

When i was young right was right and wrong was a clip around the ear
Thank you Rush!
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
2
Miss Horton's family thanked Thai police while Amnesty International and Fair Trials Abroad criticised the speed of their sentence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4623024.stm



Hmm!!!!!!! I wonder how long it took Wichai Somkhaoyai, 24, and Bualoi Posit, 23, to commit the murder???????????

:rolleyes:
 

Rush

Cool Cruncher
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
6
Itsme we should form a political alliance ...

CSP (Common sense party) ;)
 

Rush

Cool Cruncher
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
6
Mucks that is so so strange. I honestly never knew that party existed ..

:eek:
 
Ad

Advertisements

muckshifter

I'm not weird, I'm a limited edition.
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
25,535
Reaction score
1,051
Rush said:
Mucks that is so so strange. I honestly never knew that party existed ..

:eek:
Me niether ... that's why I looked.

:D
 

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
20,183
Reaction score
1,692
I've been following this thread but so far have declined to comment.

I now know that cirianz has a dent in her bonce and at one time pumped huge amounts of claret all around the fireplace ;)

First off, in the case of the two Thai fishermen, from what evidence I can gather from news stories, they do seem guilty.

They have pleaded guilty, they were in the right place at the right time, they had been watching porno movies just prior to the rape and murder and the DNA samples match.

Pretty cut and dried eh? Or is it? There is always doubt but I think in this case it would need a very large stretch of the imagination to imagine anything other than guilt. But as I said earlier 'from what evidence I can gather from news stories'. I don't personally know the truth.

Assuming they're guilty, I'm pleased they are going to be executed. After subjecting that girl to her horrific ordeal and murder, they truly deserve to die. I keep thinking of my three teenage daughters.

For all else that's been said, I won't join the baying crowd always demanding justice when in fact what they really want is blood and revenge.

There have been too many instances of the wrong person being executed and they're just the ones we know about.

So I took in all what Cirianz said and I agree wholeheartedly. As for the political side of prisons, maybe custodial buildings and prison policy should be taken away from mainstream politics and be run by a seperate committee or something, much like part of our defence is funded.

Where there's doubt there's always danger of killing an innocent.

I do actually favour the death sentence but with one proviso: 'Where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt'.

For myself, I would personally push the switch that started the lethal injection sequence; pull the hangman's trapdoor or turn on the electric chair for that Soham murderer, the one who killed the two little girls.
 
Ad

Advertisements

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
5
floppybootstomp said:
I've been following this thread but so far have declined to comment.

***I now know that cirianz has a dent in her bonce and at one time pumped huge amounts of claret all around the fireplace ;)***

First off, in the case of the two Thai fishermen, from what evidence I can gather from news stories, they do seem guilty.

They have pleaded guilty, they were in the right place at the right time, they had been watching porno movies just prior to the rape and murder and the DNA samples match.

Pretty cut and dried eh? Or is it? There is always doubt but I think in this case it would need a very large stretch of the imagination to imagine anything other than guilt. But as I said earlier 'from what evidence I can gather from news stories'. I don't personally know the truth.

Assuming they're guilty, I'm pleased they are going to be executed. After subjecting that girl to her horrific ordeal and murder, they truly deserve to die. I keep thinking of my three teenage daughters.

For all else that's been said, I won't join the baying crowd always demanding justice when in fact what they really want is blood and revenge.

There have been too many instances of the wrong person being executed and they're just the ones we know about.

So I took in all what Cirianz said and I agree wholeheartedly. As for the political side of prisons, maybe custodial buildings and prison policy should be taken away from mainstream politics and be run by a seperate committee or something, much like part of our defence is funded.

Where there's doubt there's always danger of killing an innocent.

I do actually favour the death sentence but with one proviso: 'Where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt'.

For myself, I would personally push the switch that started the lethal injection sequence; pull the hangman's trapdoor or turn on the electric chair for that Soham murderer, the one who killed the two little girls.

***And I always claimed I could hold my drink ;)***


Yes, I would agree with that, & that no one should ever call for execution who would not be willing to actually do the deed themselves. I also fully agree that, if there was no room for doubt (ie not "reasonable doubt" but any doubt whatsoever) Then there are certain crimes for which i would fully support the death penalty (And the Lethal abuse &/or murder of chidren would top that list) & therefore be prepared to administer it myself.

Perhaps the death penalty would not be so popular in certain states of America if "execution duty" was a required public duty along the same lines as jury duty.
The requirement to recognise personal responsibility for something that is all to often disassociated, clinical, unseen & distant.
But just like the nazi officers who gave the orders, we are ultimately the ones responsible for each death carried out by the government that we select. And as such I personally would require NO DOUBT whatsoever before I would push the switch.
If that ever becomes achievable then yes, I would set the hangmans noose. I have children too.


As regards the Thai fishermen & that poor girl murdered, I'm afraid I had heard nothing about the case prior to this (as I said, we do not have TV & with John off work weren't hearing the radio news either) & as such have avoided commenting on this case in particular.
But it does seem to me to be within the realms of possibility that with a huge media exposure & massive pressure from a government desperate to protect it's tourist income with a quick & definitive show of justice, it does seem within the realm of possibility that not all evidence recorded would definitely match with the evidence actually found. Just a possibility.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Mother In-law 4
law in swedish 3
It's Law 0
Moore's Law 0
Purchasing law 6
Copyright law changes 5
“The Law of the Garbage Truck.” 3
Copyright laws and the internet 9

Top