Guilty!!!!

D

dysfunction

Guest
I feel justice has been done :)

Ian Huntley has been found guilty of the murders of schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.


Maxine Carr has been convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice but cleared of helping an offender.

Huntley was given two life sentences.

Carr was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison, of which she will serve half, with the rest on licence
Click to expand...

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12947864,00.html
 
L

lynchet

Guest
11-1 Majority verdict -- meaning someone actually believed his defence !

I mean I know its wrong to make judgements just on the media, and the jury heard all the evidence etc but ....
 
J

Jonaldo

Guest
I thought it has to be unanimous? Shows how much I know about court trials :)
 
B

bigfoot

Guest
I find it quite believable that one in twelve people might have thought he did it accidentally if his past "problems" hadn't been made available to them.
 
D

Deadmanwalking

Guest
Originally posted by bigfoot
I find it quite believable that one in twelve people might have thought he did it accidentally if his past "problems" hadn't been made available to them.
Click to expand...

They cannot be used to taint the character of the witness unless the defence seeks to portray the defendent as of good character.
 
D

Damini

Guest
Originally posted by Jonaldo
I thought it has to be unanimous? Shows how much I know about court trials :)
Click to expand...

Originally was meant to be, but the judge later said he'd allow a 10-2 majority.
 
D

dysfunction

Guest
Originally posted by Damini
Originally was meant to be, but the judge later said he'd allow a 10-2 majority.
Click to expand...


They can do that? I know even less about trials than I first thought...
 
L

lynchet

Guest
Without knowing his past I can accept that you might believe some "accident" stories - but the one he told was so pathetic - and his later actions so calculated...

One of the problems though is all the questions about the background checks when Huntley got the caretakers job. There were obviously cock ups etc but what about the numerous rape/underage sex allegations -- on the one hand they may all add up etc but on the other its innocent until proven guilty and if no charges were brought or he is found innocent then should they be taken into account for jobs etc ?

I can see both sides of the argument, Im just interested to see what others think.
 
F

-fus-

Guest
Originally posted by Arnor
IT WAS SELF DEFENSE!!!!








FREE HUNT!
Click to expand...

You should be banned, whether you were meaning it as a joke, or not, it's still a disgusting thing to say. I'm sure if it ever happened to your kids, you wouldn't find it so funny.
 
E

ECA

Guest
Originally posted by -fus-
You should be banned, whether you were meaning it as a joke, or not, it's still a disgusting thing to say. I'm sure if it ever happened to your kids, you wouldn't find it so funny.
Click to expand...


1/12 jurors believed huntley.

Thats 1/12 reasonably minded people.

Keep your idiotic opinions to yourself, even if arnor is a flaming twat.
 
F

-fus-

Guest
Originally posted by ECA
1/12 jurors believed huntley.

Thats 1/12 reasonably minded people.

Keep your idiotic opinions to yourself, even if arnor is a flaming twat.
Click to expand...

Firstly, i'd agree; Arnor is a twat.

I would like to hear your reasoning that my opinion is idiotic? How is the 1 person what believed him reasonable? Your opinion is that he was innocent, is that what you're getting at?
 
S

sad_mung

Guest
Originally posted by -fus-
Firstly, i'd agree; Arnor is a twat.

I would like to hear your reasoning that my opinion is idiotic? How is the 1 person what believed him reasonable? Your opinion is that he was innocent, is that what you're getting at?
Click to expand...
I think what he means is that if one ordinary bloke can believe someone like Huntley, then surely Arnor is entitled to his own demented beliefs too.

As much as it rankles to have to read such a tasteless thing anyway.
Arnor, have some compassion please.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
Originally posted by -fus-
You should be banned, whether you were meaning it as a joke, or not, it's still a disgusting thing to say. I'm sure if it ever happened to your kids, you wouldn't find it so funny.
Click to expand...

Agreed .
 
D

doh_boy

Guest
Not having followed the trial I would like a few questions answered if you could.

1)How long were the jury deliberating because it seems rather quick to me.

2)I was only aware of one previous 'allegation' not the 'numerous' as said earlier (lynchet).

As for fus, the jurors most (normal) people would assume are responsible, upright and intelligent. So ECA was saying that 1 in 12 responsible, upright and intelligent people think (if you follow frequently used statistical analysis) it was self-defence. Yes it was an inflammatory statement but No your response was needed or wanted.
 
D

Deadmanwalking

Guest
Originally posted by sad_mung
I think what he means is that if one ordinary bloke can believe someone like Huntley, then surely Arnor is entitled to his own demented beliefs too.

As much as it rankles to have to read such a tasteless thing anyway.
Arnor, have some compassion please.
Click to expand...

Oh no not the whole "Hes innocent because he got proven guilty!" bandwagon.

Right, im off to weep for humanity yet again.
 
L

lynchet

Guest
2)I was only aware of one previous 'allegation' not the 'numerous' as said earlier (lynchet).
Click to expand...


Its come out now that there are about 3 rape accusations and 2 or 3 underage sex ones --- but no convictions.
 
T

Tom

Guest
This is necessary for a fair trial. Were the jury to be made aware of previous history like this, then it could be argued that he wasn't subjected to a fair trial, and the whole thing would collapse.

If he had no prior convictions, then its my belief that he has done nothing wrong, and that its nobody's business but his own. Not a great idea in this instance, but if he had been innocent, and his history available to all, then we would become the jurors, and that wouldn't be right.
 
D

Deadmanwalking

Guest
Originally posted by Tom
This is necessary for a fair trial. Were the jury to be made aware of previous history like this, then it could be argued that he wasn't subjected to a fair trial, and the whole thing would collapse.

If he had no prior convictions, then its my belief that he has done nothing wrong, and that its nobody's business but his own. Not a great idea in this instance, but if he had been innocent, and his history available to all, then we would become the jurors, and that wouldn't be right.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
They cannot be used to taint the character of the witness unless the defence seeks to portray the defendent as of good character.
Click to expand...
 
D

doh_boy

Guest
Hmm doesn't sound good, but the point is (someone else made it above - DMW ) they cannot use this. It seems like a good idea to use their previous convicitions to further prove guilt. This case, might have been a good idea to show but in other cases it might wrongly convict someone. It also makes a mockery of the idea of rehabilitation.

/edit three posts saying pretty much the same thing ^_^

Oh and DMW I don't think they're saying he is innocent but saying that since one juror believed he was innocent then at least one normal human being thought he was and so others could as well.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
You dont know that. I would have thought it far more likely that they were arguing over the case of the girlfreind dont you ?
Arnor's comments are an insult to most reasonable people, but hey lets not worry about it.
Just as well he didnt take the piss out of a self-pity thread though, or he REALLY would have been in trouble :/
 
T

Tom

Guest
Originally posted by doh_boy
Hmm doesn't sound good, but the point is (someone else made it above - DMW ) they cannot use this. It seems like a good idea to use their previous convicitions to further prove guilt. This case, might have been a good idea to show but in other cases it might wrongly convict someone. It also makes a mockery of the idea of rehabilitation.
Click to expand...

What convictions?
 
D

doh_boy

Guest
As far as I was aware each verdict is voted upon so the 11-1 will be for one verdict. So unless it was 11-1 in all of them the 11-1 will be for one particular verdict. I can't find it in the link. :/

/edit

Aye tom I get your point I mis-read the previous post(s).
 
D

Damini

Guest
I really don't understand "life" as a sentence. It doesn't actually mean life though, does it? Does it have a set time amount?
 
D

doh_boy

Guest
Life with parole at 15 years. Which means (I think) that every year after 15 years he will goto a parole board who will judge if he is fit to release. In america they have much the same thing but they invite the next of kin of the victim(s) to the hearing. I'm not sure how much say they have. I'm also not sure how much of a good idea it is.
 
L

lovedaddy

Guest
[17:12:2003 - 16:28:40] <ash|linde> wow huntly got send down
[17:12:2003 - 16:28:52] <Joe-pie> huntly?
[17:12:2003 - 16:29:07] <ash|linde> soahm murders
[17:12:2003 - 16:29:14] <ash|linde> he killed a couple ph cute girls
[17:12:2003 - 16:29:25] <ash|linde> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3312551.stm
[17:12:2003 - 16:29:45] <ash|linde> he claimed he accentally killed them
[17:12:2003 - 16:29:54] <ash|linde> then hid and burnt the bodies
[17:12:2003 - 16:30:13] <ash|linde> i mean come on who wouldn't belive his story

Made me laugh anyhow
 
S

Swift^

Guest
'Life' is a 25 year sentence. As doh said, he'll be up for parole in 15 years, if he's a very very good boy and if he's lucky.

He won't be, people that mess with children get a LOT of shit in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom