skinz Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 No smoke without fire, if you'll excuse the pun. At the time, nobody thought Karen Matthews was guilty. (BTW, have you noticed Rebekka Brooks is an absolute spit for Matthews?) These people are beyond thick and it's all too easy to imagine a 'plot' forming in their thick, drug-addled brains. But of course, not giving a toss about your kids and putting them in grave danger isn't exclusively the preserve of the thick and poor. I remember a case in Portugal the other year... That's because " at the time"..she was accused of being guilty while not yet being a suspect. The law (thank God) doesn't work on the premise, their guilty because of your "I fink so" or "hey look at me I'm right" type inane logic. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Those "beyond thick" dangerously have difficulty with this concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 That's because " at the time"..she was accused of being guilty while not yet being a suspect. The law (thank God) doesn't work on the premise, their guilty because of your "I fink so" or "hey look at me I'm right" type inane logic. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Those "beyond thick" dangerously have difficulty with this concept. Quite. Criminologists must despair that their entire body of knowledge and research has been a waste of time, after all we just need the folk of SF to declare them guilty on the basis of faux grief, not enough grief, too much grief, the wrong type of grief, being ugly and not liking the cut of their jib. All that police time wasted, just arrest and charge them and throw them in the slammer without a trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Quite. Criminologists must despair that their entire body of knowledge and research has been a waste of time, after all we just need the folk of SF to declare them guilty on the basis of faux grief, not enough grief, too much grief, the wrong type of grief, being ugly and not liking the cut of their jib. All that police time wasted, just arrest and charge them and throw them in the slammer without a trial! I couldn't agree more. The police are obviously missing a trick here. We all make judgements, usually very quickly, and based on little more than someone's appearance or speech. That is understandable. But it isn't evidence, neither is it a reason to decide people are guilty/not guilty even before they have been arrested. If the parents did start the fire, we should expect some gloating 'see, I was right, they didn't cry enough' type posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I don't get it, how does this insurance scam where you set light to your own home work? When you have a large insurance claim they don't just give you money. The insurance company bring in their own people to put the damage right and you have to submit receipts for the replacement furniture and household effects. You can't make money on it. I'll be very surprised if the parents did it. that wasn't my suggestion! I was just saying it doesn't make sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Quite. Criminologists must despair that their entire body of knowledge and research has been a waste of time, after all we just need the folk of SF to declare them guilty on the basis of faux grief, not enough grief, too much grief, the wrong type of grief, being ugly and not liking the cut of their jib. All that police time wasted, just arrest and charge them and throw them in the slammer without a trial! I bet criminologists were watching their appeal pretty closely! They weren't presuming innocence! Theres no crime in watching the appeal and forming a judgement about how they appeared. As long as you accept you don't know all the facts! Even during a trial as a juror you are judging whether the accused or other witnesses are credible based on their behaviour and body language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Sampson Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Im not sure why people are getting precious about others saying "I think they did it because of XYZ," this is a discussion forum is it not? If one expresses an opinion on matter such as this they're not trying to trump the CPS or the Police, just expressing an opinion. As for me, I must admit it doesn't suprise me that they have been arrested, although I didn't think anything was untoward at the press conference. If they did set fire to the house for God only knows what reason, it's a fair assumption to say that they didn't mean to kill 6 of their children. So any grief would have been real anyway. I'm not sure why I'm not suprised in all honesty, maybe I'm just cynical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Im not sure why people are getting precious about others saying "I think they did it because of XYZ," this is a discussion forum is it not? If one expresses an opinion on matter such as this they're not trying to trump the CPS or the Police, just expressing an opinion. As for me, I must admit it doesn't suprise me that they have been arrested, although I didn't think anything was untoward at the press conference. If they did set fire to the house for God only knows what reason, it's a fair assumption to say that they didn't mean to kill 6 of their children. So any grief would have been real anyway. I'm not sure why I'm not suprised in all honesty, maybe I'm just cynical. because of the statistics probably. I don't know what the numbers are but its a regular occurence that the people doing the press conference were involved in the crime. You really remember those cases and forget the others because its less shocking when it was not the relatives who were supposed to care for the victim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Even during a trial as a juror you are judging whether the accused or other witnesses are credible based on their behaviour and body language. You might be doing that. Some of us will be doing what jurors are supposed to do instead, which is to judge on the facts of the case and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 You might be doing that. Some of us will be doing what jurors are supposed to do instead, which is to judge on the facts of the case and nothing else. you might think you are doing that. If their behaviour was irrelevant witnesses would not be needed, written statements could be used instead. By the way the witnesses testimony is a fact (not necessarily what they say), the way they are acting is part of that testimony. lawyers would not need to prep witnesses either if you were right. do you think the police were not watching the appeal closely for signs of guilt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I bet criminologists were watching their appeal pretty closely! They weren't presuming innocence! Theres no crime in watching the appeal and forming a judgement about how they appeared. As long as you accept you don't know all the facts! Even during a trial as a juror you are judging whether the accused or other witnesses are credible based on their behaviour and body language. As I have already stated somewhere on here, parents are often coached into behaving in a certain way when making public appeals, so as not to empower the culprit/s further and to try and flush them out. Their behaviour, along with the statements and answers given to questioning, are far more likely to be under scrutiny than a snapshot appeal in front of TV crews and journos, when very few people would not feel totally overwhelmed and out of their depth in the glare of such publicity. No one knows all the facts, which is why I will reserve judgment As for jurors, the may form an opinion based on the demeanour and credibility of the wtinesses and defendant/s. If they reach a verdict solely on that basis alone, without weighing up all the evidence and testimonies then they are not executing their duty properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.