‘It was an accident. We all loved each other and it is not fair what’s happend to us’ said Celosia Mendes to the judges. Her husband (Sergio Mendes) has been killed by her father( Kenneth Bassarath) during violation at home. Kenneth Bassarath is acquitted of murder but is still found guilty of manslaugther. He was granted bail but faces a likely custodial term when he returns for sentence on 16 december.
Celosia called her father and also 999 for the police telling that her husband was trying to beat her up. The man was very angry and violated. She managed to lock her self up in the room where her 2 sons where sleeping and then called her father and 999.
Her father came and saw that his son-in-law was armed with a knife. He took a cricket bat and he took a swing with it to fend him off. Kenneth said that he really had not the intention to kill his son-in-law. According to the father, he was acting in self-defence. Celosia’s husband died three days later from brain injuries. She had just booked a family holiday to Florida, hoping that they could solve their marital problems.
After written 5 blogs, it must be clear that murder someone is not aloud. But like I already said we can’t judge a person in general, we have to ‘judge’ by looking to the unique situation of each person.
It’s a bit logical that Kenneth Bassarath, as a father, would defend his daughter and that his acting was impulsive. If it was a acting of self defend I don’t really know. I found it very hard to judge because we don’t know the whole situation. I believe that the father is not a ‘real killer’ and that he not had the intention to kill but the facts are that he did. There will have to be a punishment, taking into account the circumstances.
Source: The Independent, 18 November 2008, By John-Paul Ford Rojas
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teacher-killed-soninlaw-with-cricket-bat-1024060.html)
zondag 23 november 2008
woensdag 19 november 2008
THE AMADOU DIALLO SHOOTING (by Greet Heyse)
Amadou diallo was shot on the 4th of February in 1999. His parents stood up for him in a court case. He was shot by four NYPD officers, Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy. They shot 41 times at him.Amadou's parents have sued the city of New York for £81 million.
The mother, Kadiatou and father, Saikou, are asking £20 for wrongfull death, £20 million for pain and suffering and £1 million for each of the 41 bullets fired at their son. 19 bullets out of the 41 fired ones struck Diallo, who was unarmed and was just standing in his apartment in the Bronx where he lived.
Eventually they only got £20 million.
The four officers were acquitted of all charges in the shooting. They claimed that their shooting was an accident and not a murder. All four testified that they couldn't see a lot around the hall and they thought Amadou was reaching for a gun. That is why they opened fire.
Beyond Diallo's parents the officers acted in a reckles way and disregarded the rights and safety of their son. After all, they approached Amadou without any lawful justification and still they shot 41 times.
This is a bit twofold, on the one hand the officers really thought that amadou was going to take a gun. Nowadays these acts are not so rarely anymore and perhaps they had a reason because they were clearly watching the neighbourhood for something and in their eyes, Amadou was a bit shady. But on the other hand. How could they be so sure of seeing that gun? Of thinking he was going to take a gun. Ok, we live in a dangerous world where you don't know what you might expect. But it's exaggerated that you should see everybody as perpetrators. If everybody thinks like this, we wouldn't be here right now... Being an officer is a risky job but shooting has serieus consequences and it's not just something you usually do. If I was the jugde I should punish them in a way, perhaps not by imprisonment but by something else, a training or recall their function for a while.All that because for the parents of Amadou this must be hell. 4 officers shoot their sun "for no reason" but they got away without a punishment. They lost their son en the officers lost nothing. It just not right.
Sources: http://www.courttv.com/archive/national/diallo/041800_suit_ctv.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/amadou_diallo/index.html
The mother, Kadiatou and father, Saikou, are asking £20 for wrongfull death, £20 million for pain and suffering and £1 million for each of the 41 bullets fired at their son. 19 bullets out of the 41 fired ones struck Diallo, who was unarmed and was just standing in his apartment in the Bronx where he lived.
Eventually they only got £20 million.
The four officers were acquitted of all charges in the shooting. They claimed that their shooting was an accident and not a murder. All four testified that they couldn't see a lot around the hall and they thought Amadou was reaching for a gun. That is why they opened fire.
Beyond Diallo's parents the officers acted in a reckles way and disregarded the rights and safety of their son. After all, they approached Amadou without any lawful justification and still they shot 41 times.
This is a bit twofold, on the one hand the officers really thought that amadou was going to take a gun. Nowadays these acts are not so rarely anymore and perhaps they had a reason because they were clearly watching the neighbourhood for something and in their eyes, Amadou was a bit shady. But on the other hand. How could they be so sure of seeing that gun? Of thinking he was going to take a gun. Ok, we live in a dangerous world where you don't know what you might expect. But it's exaggerated that you should see everybody as perpetrators. If everybody thinks like this, we wouldn't be here right now... Being an officer is a risky job but shooting has serieus consequences and it's not just something you usually do. If I was the jugde I should punish them in a way, perhaps not by imprisonment but by something else, a training or recall their function for a while.All that because for the parents of Amadou this must be hell. 4 officers shoot their sun "for no reason" but they got away without a punishment. They lost their son en the officers lost nothing. It just not right.
Sources: http://www.courttv.com/archive/national/diallo/041800_suit_ctv.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/amadou_diallo/index.html
dinsdag 18 november 2008
Discovery of a baby corpse (By Bieke Demeester)
Last week, when members of the ‘chiro’ of Kessel-Lo were cleaning their material pen, they did the nasty discovery of a baby corpse. The police investigated the case and on Tuesday November 11, a woman of 21-years old was arrested. She is a member of that youth movement. She confessed that she had been pregnant, but she didn’t tell anyone out of shame and fear. She denied that she was pregnant and at the day of the delivery, she gave birth to a daughter, totally alone in her own room.
She was going to tell her parents after the delivery, but unfortunately, the baby died. For the moment, the police is still investigating the case to find out whether it was murder or not. The examining magistrate suspected her of guilty neglect because she didn’t ask for any help before, meanwhile and after the delivery. On Friday 14 November, the Judges’ Council Chambers didn’t extend her arrest so she is free now. She needs to get professional psychological assistance. The father of the baby died.
This story is so shocking because the woman didn’t ask for any help. She even had no medical assistance at the time of the delivery. I can’t imagine how lonely this woman, this girl must be. Losing a child is always very sad, but when you have nobody who can help you to cope with it, you must feel yourself the loneliest person in the world. I don’t think she killed her baby, I think it was an avoidable accident. How can this happen in times like these? How can someone be pregnant without anyone knows about it? According to me, it’s a disaster where mother and child are the victims.
Source:
- Vader van achtergelaten baby Kessel-Lo is overleden. Internet, De Standaard, November 14 2008. (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF14112008_043&word=chiro)
- Moeder van babylijkje uit Kessel-Lo vrijdag voor raadkamer. Internet, De Standaard, November 13 2008. (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF13112008_050)
She was going to tell her parents after the delivery, but unfortunately, the baby died. For the moment, the police is still investigating the case to find out whether it was murder or not. The examining magistrate suspected her of guilty neglect because she didn’t ask for any help before, meanwhile and after the delivery. On Friday 14 November, the Judges’ Council Chambers didn’t extend her arrest so she is free now. She needs to get professional psychological assistance. The father of the baby died.
This story is so shocking because the woman didn’t ask for any help. She even had no medical assistance at the time of the delivery. I can’t imagine how lonely this woman, this girl must be. Losing a child is always very sad, but when you have nobody who can help you to cope with it, you must feel yourself the loneliest person in the world. I don’t think she killed her baby, I think it was an avoidable accident. How can this happen in times like these? How can someone be pregnant without anyone knows about it? According to me, it’s a disaster where mother and child are the victims.
Source:
- Vader van achtergelaten baby Kessel-Lo is overleden. Internet, De Standaard, November 14 2008. (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF14112008_043&word=chiro)
- Moeder van babylijkje uit Kessel-Lo vrijdag voor raadkamer. Internet, De Standaard, November 13 2008. (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF13112008_050)
maandag 17 november 2008
Banker appears in court over wife’s murder (by Ben Van Laere)
Neil Ellerbeck, aged 45, is accused of murdering his wife Katerine at their house in north London. Ellerbeck was a city banker. He worked for HSBC Asset Management as a global chief investment officer. The police found the dead body of Katerine on Friday, the 14th of November. The cause of death is strangulation.
The couple had been married for 14 years and they have 2 children. It was a wealthy family with a nice house. Katerine was a housewife and looked after the children when Neil went to work.
The neighbors can’t believe this drama. “It was a happy family, we thought. We never saw them fighting or something. Neil was a bit shy but a very friendly man.”
There were still no cases like this on this blog but I guess cases like this, where a husband kills his wife or vice versa are the most common murder-cases in every country. When you watch the news you often see that a family drama has taken place. I can’t understand such family dramas. How can you murder the person you loved for so long? How can you kill the mother or father of your children? I think such murderers never loved their partner. You can always divorce when you have very serious problems in your relation. But killing your husband and destroying the life of your children is the cruelest action you can make.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3472386/Banker-appears-in-court-over-wifes-murder.html
The couple had been married for 14 years and they have 2 children. It was a wealthy family with a nice house. Katerine was a housewife and looked after the children when Neil went to work.
The neighbors can’t believe this drama. “It was a happy family, we thought. We never saw them fighting or something. Neil was a bit shy but a very friendly man.”
There were still no cases like this on this blog but I guess cases like this, where a husband kills his wife or vice versa are the most common murder-cases in every country. When you watch the news you often see that a family drama has taken place. I can’t understand such family dramas. How can you murder the person you loved for so long? How can you kill the mother or father of your children? I think such murderers never loved their partner. You can always divorce when you have very serious problems in your relation. But killing your husband and destroying the life of your children is the cruelest action you can make.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3472386/Banker-appears-in-court-over-wifes-murder.html
zaterdag 15 november 2008
Marv Albert sexual assult trial (by Greet Heyse)
Marv Albert had a career as an NBC broadcaster. He had to travel a lot and at a certain time he began a relationship with Vanessa Perhach. Also because he had to travel, they saw each other only sporadically. This relationship was sexual almost from the very beginning and It lastet for 10 years. Marv Albert fantasized a lot about participating in threesomes with another male and after a while, Marv started asking Vanessa to bring another person. The sex they had, was mostly very rough. And beyond the declarations on the 12. of Februari in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Alexandria,Vanessa hadn't brought another person for the threesome and Marv was a bit angry and bit Vanessa in the back and also forced her to have oral sex. In the beginning, Marv Albert denied all the facts. But the bitemarks on the back of Vanessa where quite obvious. But Albert's defense brought up some clear arguments. They said that the relationship and the acts were entirely consensual and there had to be said again that the acts between the sheets were quite rought but they both agreed with that. Vanessa wanted the oral sex because she wasn't on birth control at that moment. Also she wanted revenge because Marv was going to end the relationship to mary another woman. In addition the defense said that Perhach was "collecting" celebrities because she already had a relationship with ABC anchor Peter Jennings.
In the trial that started at Sept. 22. there was also another woman, Patricia Masten that claimed to be bitten by Albert.
Eventually Marv Albert was given an 12-month suspended sentence. Judge Benjamin Kendrick also ordered Albert to continue having counseling. If he doesn't commit any crime in the following 12 months his plea of assult and battery will be exspunged from his criminal record.
It is not that easy to deduce whather Marv was right or one of the woman was right. It is a secret between the two persons with the relationship. I can surely understand that Patricia and Vanessa aren't very pleased with the decision of the judge. But in a way they had agreed for a long time the rough manners of Marv Albert and they liked it, otherwise they wouldn't have such a long relationship with him and now suddenly they think he has gone too far. Ok, I know that it not pleasant to be assulted like that but I honestly have my doubts about the women. They had a reputation of having several man and Vanessa is perhaps hunting celebrities to destroy their reputation, I can see why the judge has given Albert another chance. But if it happens again and the opposite is proven, he should be more than severly punished.
Sources: http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/marv/marvalbert.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marv_Albert
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=1167
In the trial that started at Sept. 22. there was also another woman, Patricia Masten that claimed to be bitten by Albert.
Eventually Marv Albert was given an 12-month suspended sentence. Judge Benjamin Kendrick also ordered Albert to continue having counseling. If he doesn't commit any crime in the following 12 months his plea of assult and battery will be exspunged from his criminal record.
It is not that easy to deduce whather Marv was right or one of the woman was right. It is a secret between the two persons with the relationship. I can surely understand that Patricia and Vanessa aren't very pleased with the decision of the judge. But in a way they had agreed for a long time the rough manners of Marv Albert and they liked it, otherwise they wouldn't have such a long relationship with him and now suddenly they think he has gone too far. Ok, I know that it not pleasant to be assulted like that but I honestly have my doubts about the women. They had a reputation of having several man and Vanessa is perhaps hunting celebrities to destroy their reputation, I can see why the judge has given Albert another chance. But if it happens again and the opposite is proven, he should be more than severly punished.
Sources: http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/marv/marvalbert.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marv_Albert
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=1167
Policeman jailed for having sex on duty. (By Hanne Snoeck)
It’s a shame that somebody who abused his position as a policeman can still perform his job. I’m not agree with the ‘light’ punishment that Gary Bayldon has.
Bayldon was jailed for four months for having sex with one woman while on duty and propositioning another after she had been arrested. With the first woman, he had a relationship for about one year. They saw each other always when Bayldon was on duty on the late shift. He called his visit to this woman his ‘meal break’!
In this situation it seemed to be that the woman consented to his advances. But it’s still wasn’t correct that he visit her while he was on duty. You have to keep you personal life and professional life apart.
It’s a different story with the second woman. Suzanne Dunkling was arrested by Bayldon. There was a domestic incident involving her boyfriend at her home in October 2005. He used the electronic machine to take her fingerprints intentional wrong so he could caressing her hand. He gave her later a lift home in a police van and he invited her to a forest ‘ for a chat’. He kissed her, asked her phone number and he also blackmailed her.
In this case the woman obviously didn’t want Bayldon’s attention and touches, but he used his position as a policeman to extort things of Suzanne.
I totally agree with the offence that the defendant took advantage of these reasonable vulnerable females by manipulating his position of authority, especially with the second women. If found that the man has not the right anymore to perform the job as a policeman.
Source: The Independent, November 7,2008 by Nathan Reese
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policeman-jailed-for-having-sex-on-duty-999681.html)
Bayldon was jailed for four months for having sex with one woman while on duty and propositioning another after she had been arrested. With the first woman, he had a relationship for about one year. They saw each other always when Bayldon was on duty on the late shift. He called his visit to this woman his ‘meal break’!
In this situation it seemed to be that the woman consented to his advances. But it’s still wasn’t correct that he visit her while he was on duty. You have to keep you personal life and professional life apart.
It’s a different story with the second woman. Suzanne Dunkling was arrested by Bayldon. There was a domestic incident involving her boyfriend at her home in October 2005. He used the electronic machine to take her fingerprints intentional wrong so he could caressing her hand. He gave her later a lift home in a police van and he invited her to a forest ‘ for a chat’. He kissed her, asked her phone number and he also blackmailed her.
In this case the woman obviously didn’t want Bayldon’s attention and touches, but he used his position as a policeman to extort things of Suzanne.
I totally agree with the offence that the defendant took advantage of these reasonable vulnerable females by manipulating his position of authority, especially with the second women. If found that the man has not the right anymore to perform the job as a policeman.
Source: The Independent, November 7,2008 by Nathan Reese
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policeman-jailed-for-having-sex-on-duty-999681.html)
woensdag 12 november 2008
Burglars steal WW I hero's medal on Remembrance Sunday (By Bieke Demeester)
Yesterday was the day that brave soldiers were remembered over the whole world. World War I ended exactly 90 years ago. It was a trench war which claimed more than 10 million lives.
Last Sunday, on Remembrance Sunday, burglars stole the medal of William Houghton in a village in Staffordshire (UK). This man fought in World War I and for his bravery, he got the third highest military decoration.
The medal was a family heirloom. It now belonged to Anna Houghton, the daughter-in-law of William Houghton. Her deceased husband was the son of William. The burglars also stole the television and jewellery of Anna, but she was really shocked when she saw that the burglars also took the medal. She told ‘The Telegraph’ that the medal was her husbands must precious possession.
I read this small article while searching other cases, but it affected me. Why do burglars steal such a medal? I think the medal isn’t worth much, but emotionally it must have a priceless value for the relatives, just like photographs or other heirlooms which remind of the past. Stealing is wrong and punishable by law, but stealing objects were people are attached to is, according to me, worse than stealing other material goods.
These burglars didn’t show any respect, even not for the hero’s of the country. I want to mention another situation which is for me even more disrespectful: the fact that burglars search for death announcements in newspapers, to go to the addresses of the relatives and to steal during the funeral and the following lunch.
Source:
BRITTEN, N., Burglars steal WWI hero’s medal on Remembrance Sunday. Internet. The Telegraph, November 10 2008.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3418479/Burglars-steal-WWI-heros-medal-on-Remembrance-Sunday.html)
Last Sunday, on Remembrance Sunday, burglars stole the medal of William Houghton in a village in Staffordshire (UK). This man fought in World War I and for his bravery, he got the third highest military decoration.
The medal was a family heirloom. It now belonged to Anna Houghton, the daughter-in-law of William Houghton. Her deceased husband was the son of William. The burglars also stole the television and jewellery of Anna, but she was really shocked when she saw that the burglars also took the medal. She told ‘The Telegraph’ that the medal was her husbands must precious possession.
I read this small article while searching other cases, but it affected me. Why do burglars steal such a medal? I think the medal isn’t worth much, but emotionally it must have a priceless value for the relatives, just like photographs or other heirlooms which remind of the past. Stealing is wrong and punishable by law, but stealing objects were people are attached to is, according to me, worse than stealing other material goods.
These burglars didn’t show any respect, even not for the hero’s of the country. I want to mention another situation which is for me even more disrespectful: the fact that burglars search for death announcements in newspapers, to go to the addresses of the relatives and to steal during the funeral and the following lunch.
Source:
BRITTEN, N., Burglars steal WWI hero’s medal on Remembrance Sunday. Internet. The Telegraph, November 10 2008.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3418479/Burglars-steal-WWI-heros-medal-on-Remembrance-Sunday.html)
dinsdag 11 november 2008
Sheep rustlers ride again (by Ben Van Laere)
The crime of sheep rustling is back. Farmers thought this crime was history. John Bishop, a 58-year-old Worcestershire farmer has lost more than 200 of his flock to a ruthless gang of rustlers, costing him more than £10,000.
The theft of large numbers of animals is a growing problem worldwide. The police will reopen village police stations hoping to catch the thieves. Farmers have founded an action group whose purpose is to catch the thieves by patrolling the fields where animals are kept.
Last year there have been 19 rustling incidents and almost 2000 animals were stolen. A growing black market for cheap meat along with high sheep prices are named as causes of the increase of this crime . And the thieves are not only looking for sheep. Horses and llamas are also loved booty’s of the thieves.
Farmers like Bishop are in real trouble. "We've had years of dealing with disease problems, scrapie, CJD, foot and mouth, bluetongue... and now this” said John Bishop. “It is a crime that needs to be punished.”
It is a bit funny how creative thieves can be. In Belgium they steal fuel out of cars and in America they steal animals from farmers. It is strange how thieves can steal 200 sheep without being seen. It takes a lot of time to steal the sheep and transport them to another location. With both the police and farmers patrolling, the crime will hopefully stop.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sheep-rustlers-ride-again-1003956.html
The theft of large numbers of animals is a growing problem worldwide. The police will reopen village police stations hoping to catch the thieves. Farmers have founded an action group whose purpose is to catch the thieves by patrolling the fields where animals are kept.
Last year there have been 19 rustling incidents and almost 2000 animals were stolen. A growing black market for cheap meat along with high sheep prices are named as causes of the increase of this crime . And the thieves are not only looking for sheep. Horses and llamas are also loved booty’s of the thieves.
Farmers like Bishop are in real trouble. "We've had years of dealing with disease problems, scrapie, CJD, foot and mouth, bluetongue... and now this” said John Bishop. “It is a crime that needs to be punished.”
It is a bit funny how creative thieves can be. In Belgium they steal fuel out of cars and in America they steal animals from farmers. It is strange how thieves can steal 200 sheep without being seen. It takes a lot of time to steal the sheep and transport them to another location. With both the police and farmers patrolling, the crime will hopefully stop.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sheep-rustlers-ride-again-1003956.html
zondag 9 november 2008
Women killed son who was an 'inconvenience' to her social life. (By Hanne Snoeck)
Tara Heigh, a 24-year old mother who killed her 3- year old son Billy, was jailed this week for 10 years. Tara suffocated her son with a pillow and called afterwards the ambulance telling that she put her son in bed and found him collapsed when she went to check on him. Unfortunately the help came to late and the boy died. Only a couple of hours later she tried to pick someone up on the website ‘Girls Date Free’. Tara has some emotional and intellectual problems and had to raise her son by herself. The father of Billy is in prison for assaulting Tara. Social Service was informed about the problems that the family had. Billy was on the local social services ‘at risk’ register for neglect. The motive of the mother to kill her son isn’t really clear. The only reason they gave was that her son was an ‘inconvenience’ to the life of socialising and dating she wanted to lead.
There is no doubt that the mother is quilty and has to be jailed. I have some ‘questions’ of the role of social services and the lack of help she had. Tara was a young mother and it seemed to be that she didn’t get many help of family members, friends or other professional workers. Social Service knew that there were problems with the family. It’s really a shame that nobody helped her. But it’s difficult to judge because I don’t know the whole situation. People stay responsible for their own acts.
I wonder what drove a person to despair that she even killed her own son. There were always be the question if this accident could be prevent…
Source: The Independent, November 4,2008, Mark Hughes (crime correspondent)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-killed-son-who-was-an-inconvenience-to-her-social-life-989632.html)
There is no doubt that the mother is quilty and has to be jailed. I have some ‘questions’ of the role of social services and the lack of help she had. Tara was a young mother and it seemed to be that she didn’t get many help of family members, friends or other professional workers. Social Service knew that there were problems with the family. It’s really a shame that nobody helped her. But it’s difficult to judge because I don’t know the whole situation. People stay responsible for their own acts.
I wonder what drove a person to despair that she even killed her own son. There were always be the question if this accident could be prevent…
Source: The Independent, November 4,2008, Mark Hughes (crime correspondent)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-killed-son-who-was-an-inconvenience-to-her-social-life-989632.html)
woensdag 5 november 2008
The murder of Christopher Johnston (By Bieke Demeester)
Christopher Johnston, 17 years old, was stabbed in the leg by a 14-year-old boy on January 26 2008. His parents found him and he died in the hospital after he had lost a lot of blood. The killer assaulted also the best friend of Christopher, Keni Carmichael. The killer was drunk.
During a previous trial at the Crown Court, the killer had pleaded guilty to the murder of Christopher and the assault of Keni. He also admitted he had drunk eight pints and two vodkas in a pub. That’s why the complaint of ‘murder’ became a reduced charge of culpable homicide. The judge of the High Court, Lord Matthews, sentenced the killer a few days ago to imprisonment of five years. In addition, he ordered that the killer will be kept under supervision for the five years after he is released. The judge took the difficult youth of the killer into account.
I really agree with something the attorney of the killer said, namely that there are no excuses for what happened: neither the boy’s background nor his attention deficit disorder (ADD), nor the drinks.
When I read this article, it made me think of the blog of the murder of Rhys Jones, a teenage boy killed by an 18-years-old boy. After such pointless murders, there often starts a public discussion about the sale of guns, the sale of alcoholic beverages etc. In Belgium, it’s forbidden to sell alcoholic beverages to teens under 16 years old. I don’t know how this is regulated in the UK, but I support the Belgium system, well-knowing that teens who want to drink alcohol, get it somehow.
To avoid such pointless murders, prevention is very important for me: next to prohibiting selling alcohol under 16, a good working social net is necessary. It’s not surprising that teens who never got attention, who were neglected, develop a disturbed personality.
Source:
CRAMB, A., Teenage killer jailed for five years. Internet. The Telegraph, October 30 2008.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3286607/Teenage-killer-jailed-for-five-years.html)
During a previous trial at the Crown Court, the killer had pleaded guilty to the murder of Christopher and the assault of Keni. He also admitted he had drunk eight pints and two vodkas in a pub. That’s why the complaint of ‘murder’ became a reduced charge of culpable homicide. The judge of the High Court, Lord Matthews, sentenced the killer a few days ago to imprisonment of five years. In addition, he ordered that the killer will be kept under supervision for the five years after he is released. The judge took the difficult youth of the killer into account.
I really agree with something the attorney of the killer said, namely that there are no excuses for what happened: neither the boy’s background nor his attention deficit disorder (ADD), nor the drinks.
When I read this article, it made me think of the blog of the murder of Rhys Jones, a teenage boy killed by an 18-years-old boy. After such pointless murders, there often starts a public discussion about the sale of guns, the sale of alcoholic beverages etc. In Belgium, it’s forbidden to sell alcoholic beverages to teens under 16 years old. I don’t know how this is regulated in the UK, but I support the Belgium system, well-knowing that teens who want to drink alcohol, get it somehow.
To avoid such pointless murders, prevention is very important for me: next to prohibiting selling alcohol under 16, a good working social net is necessary. It’s not surprising that teens who never got attention, who were neglected, develop a disturbed personality.
Source:
CRAMB, A., Teenage killer jailed for five years. Internet. The Telegraph, October 30 2008.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3286607/Teenage-killer-jailed-for-five-years.html)
dinsdag 4 november 2008
Meredith Kercher murder verdict expected (by Ben Van Laere)
Meredith Kercher, a 21 year old Leeds university student from Coulsdon (Surrey) was studying in Perugia (Italy) last November when she was found half naked with her throat slashed.
There are three suspects. Amanda Knox (an American student), Raffaele Sollecito (an Italian IT graduate) and Rudy Guede (an Ivory Coast national).
There was DNA belonging to Raffaele Sollecito found on the victim’s bra. The defense of Sollecito said that DNA of all three suspects was found. The lawyer of Sollecito accuses the police of making mistakes during the investigation. The police left the bra on the floor so it was contaminated and worthless. “There is a mix of DNA due to contamination, so the bra is not usable as proof” said Sollecito’s lawyer.
The suspect Lawyers have denied that Kercher was killed during a sex game that went wrong. The Lawyers of Knox and Sollecito accused Guede killed Kercher when she found him stealing from her house. And Guede's lawyers accuse Knox and Sollecito of the murder. A very complicated case...
In such cases where there are many possible suspects it is difficult to prove who the killer is. The Lawyer of each party will try to impute the crime to another party. A good Lawyer has a lot of skills to deceive the public and the judge.
The only thing that can designate the murderer is a good piece of evidence. In this case the police made a fatal error by contaminating a piece of evidence. Now it becomes more difficult to find the killer.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/28/meredith-kercher-murder-italy
There are three suspects. Amanda Knox (an American student), Raffaele Sollecito (an Italian IT graduate) and Rudy Guede (an Ivory Coast national).
There was DNA belonging to Raffaele Sollecito found on the victim’s bra. The defense of Sollecito said that DNA of all three suspects was found. The lawyer of Sollecito accuses the police of making mistakes during the investigation. The police left the bra on the floor so it was contaminated and worthless. “There is a mix of DNA due to contamination, so the bra is not usable as proof” said Sollecito’s lawyer.
The suspect Lawyers have denied that Kercher was killed during a sex game that went wrong. The Lawyers of Knox and Sollecito accused Guede killed Kercher when she found him stealing from her house. And Guede's lawyers accuse Knox and Sollecito of the murder. A very complicated case...
In such cases where there are many possible suspects it is difficult to prove who the killer is. The Lawyer of each party will try to impute the crime to another party. A good Lawyer has a lot of skills to deceive the public and the judge.
The only thing that can designate the murderer is a good piece of evidence. In this case the police made a fatal error by contaminating a piece of evidence. Now it becomes more difficult to find the killer.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/28/meredith-kercher-murder-italy
woensdag 29 oktober 2008
West African court convicts Niger in slavery case (by Greet Heyse)
A regional court in West Africa convicted the state of Niger for failing in giving protection to a 12 year-old girl from being sold into the slavery. The anti-slavery campaigners hope that with this case there will be set an example for many others.
The Court ruled that Niger had failed in its commitments to protect Manie Hadijatou, the girl being involved. She claims to have been sold into slavery in 1996 for 500 dollars and she was also frequently beaten and sexually abused.
At one point Mani was in jail for bigamy also by the Niger's court system. This all happened because her master forced her to mary another man and he also considered her as his own wife. She was finally set free in 2005.
Mani, who is now 24 years-old, is very pleased with the decision of the court.
The court has sentenced the state to pay 10 million CFA francs in damages and interests. A lawyer from Niger's government also told that they will respect the decision.
There was also a second issue that the campaigners wanted to bring in the case. Which is the conviction of the government for legitimizing slavery through customary laws. But the court dismissed that complaint.
Nigeria is really far for us and except for what the news is bringing us, I don't know exactly what is happening over there. It is known that a lot of illegal acts are going on in there. And all we hear are negative things but now this trial is perhaps a point of change. I also hope this will be an example for a lot of women who are too scared to complaining to stand up for their rights. Therefor there will perhaps steady be a better world for women in countries where emancipation of the woman is far far away.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49Q2RM20081027
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49q2rm-us-niger-slavery/
The Court ruled that Niger had failed in its commitments to protect Manie Hadijatou, the girl being involved. She claims to have been sold into slavery in 1996 for 500 dollars and she was also frequently beaten and sexually abused.
At one point Mani was in jail for bigamy also by the Niger's court system. This all happened because her master forced her to mary another man and he also considered her as his own wife. She was finally set free in 2005.
Mani, who is now 24 years-old, is very pleased with the decision of the court.
The court has sentenced the state to pay 10 million CFA francs in damages and interests. A lawyer from Niger's government also told that they will respect the decision.
There was also a second issue that the campaigners wanted to bring in the case. Which is the conviction of the government for legitimizing slavery through customary laws. But the court dismissed that complaint.
Nigeria is really far for us and except for what the news is bringing us, I don't know exactly what is happening over there. It is known that a lot of illegal acts are going on in there. And all we hear are negative things but now this trial is perhaps a point of change. I also hope this will be an example for a lot of women who are too scared to complaining to stand up for their rights. Therefor there will perhaps steady be a better world for women in countries where emancipation of the woman is far far away.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49Q2RM20081027
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49q2rm-us-niger-slavery/
zaterdag 25 oktober 2008
Man jailed for prison cell murder plot (By Hanne Snoeck)
The man who plotted the murder of Andrew Wanoghu was jailed for at least 30 years. Nicholas plotted the murder from his cell in Belmarsch Prison, where there is a high security.
Wanoghu and Nicholas had been friends with each other until Wanoghu had “dissed” Nicholas’s father. The two ‘friends’ lived in south London. But Wanoghu wasn’t a saint as well. He had been accused of murder himself, but have been cleard by having none enough evidence. The man had a lot of enemies.
Trevor Dennie, the man who did the murder by order of Nicholas, had also been jailed for at least 30 years. He shotted Wanoghu in April 2006 in south Londen. The judge said that both man are two cold-blooded killers. There are extremly dangerous. It were or are? career criminals caught in the murky world of drugs and robberies. The 2 defendants denied the murder. The murder had been plotted by using a telephone that was smuggled in from a lower category prison. The judge accepted that there are problemes with blocking mobiles used by prison staff. At the moment it’s illegal to use the technology to block signals. It had been available previous. With this case the judge hopes that the law will change about the blocking telephones. There is already succes, the technology to detect mobile phones is being trialled and used in prisons.
I understand that it is difficult to decide in which cases and situations it’s possible to use the technology to detect mobile phones. The privacy of people is being tarnished. But I think that in certain cases and situations it’s necessary to use it. This case demonstrates the use of it. But a good and correct use will be necessary.
I always found it ‘fascinating’ how prisonners succeeded to get phones, knifs and guns into prison. I think it’s difficult for the wardens to see everything and such as in Belgium there is a shortage of wardens. It must be difficult to work as a warden and there will be a lot of pressure on them. But I wonder if there have to be more control and a better surch to forbidden objects in prison. Who is responsible and what can they do about it?
Source: The Independent, October 17,2008 , PA
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-prison-cell-murder-plot-964757.html)
Wanoghu and Nicholas had been friends with each other until Wanoghu had “dissed” Nicholas’s father. The two ‘friends’ lived in south London. But Wanoghu wasn’t a saint as well. He had been accused of murder himself, but have been cleard by having none enough evidence. The man had a lot of enemies.
Trevor Dennie, the man who did the murder by order of Nicholas, had also been jailed for at least 30 years. He shotted Wanoghu in April 2006 in south Londen. The judge said that both man are two cold-blooded killers. There are extremly dangerous. It were or are? career criminals caught in the murky world of drugs and robberies. The 2 defendants denied the murder. The murder had been plotted by using a telephone that was smuggled in from a lower category prison. The judge accepted that there are problemes with blocking mobiles used by prison staff. At the moment it’s illegal to use the technology to block signals. It had been available previous. With this case the judge hopes that the law will change about the blocking telephones. There is already succes, the technology to detect mobile phones is being trialled and used in prisons.
I understand that it is difficult to decide in which cases and situations it’s possible to use the technology to detect mobile phones. The privacy of people is being tarnished. But I think that in certain cases and situations it’s necessary to use it. This case demonstrates the use of it. But a good and correct use will be necessary.
I always found it ‘fascinating’ how prisonners succeeded to get phones, knifs and guns into prison. I think it’s difficult for the wardens to see everything and such as in Belgium there is a shortage of wardens. It must be difficult to work as a warden and there will be a lot of pressure on them. But I wonder if there have to be more control and a better surch to forbidden objects in prison. Who is responsible and what can they do about it?
Source: The Independent, October 17,2008 , PA
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-prison-cell-murder-plot-964757.html)
woensdag 22 oktober 2008
The appeal of Troy Davis (by Bieke Demeester)
On October 14, the appeal of Troy Davis was denied by the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United States of America, and the state of Georgia.
Troy Davis was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of the police officer Mark MacPhail in Georgia. He claims he’s innocent and he wanted to show recently discovered evidence in a new trial or hearing. The Supreme Court granted him stay of execution on September 23, while they were considering his appeal, just hours before he was scheduled to be killed by an injection. Now the appeal is rejected, he will be executed on October, 27.
His arguments were new evidence and the fact that 7 of the 9 witnesses recanted their testimony and even new witnesses identified another person as the shooter. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutors, who said the new evidence was inadmissible in court.
First of all, I think there must be an opportunity to examine the new evidence, because according to me, that’s part of a fair trial! They certainly must avoid the possibility that they sent an innocent person to death. So if there is new evidence, at least, they must have listened to it, to see what kind of interest it had to take it, if necessary, in a new trial. What I mean is that I am, just like the lawyers of Davis, a supporter of the right not to be executed, especially when substantial new evidence of innocence has been discovered. In the USA, this didn’t became a real right yet.
Secondly, I saw Amnesty International incites everyone to take action; to send a letter to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, which can reprieve Troy Davis. This is his last hope.
Source:
VICINI, J., Court Rejects Georgia death row inmate’s appeal. Internet. Reuters, 14 October 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE49D5TQ20081014?sp=true)
Troy Davis was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of the police officer Mark MacPhail in Georgia. He claims he’s innocent and he wanted to show recently discovered evidence in a new trial or hearing. The Supreme Court granted him stay of execution on September 23, while they were considering his appeal, just hours before he was scheduled to be killed by an injection. Now the appeal is rejected, he will be executed on October, 27.
His arguments were new evidence and the fact that 7 of the 9 witnesses recanted their testimony and even new witnesses identified another person as the shooter. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutors, who said the new evidence was inadmissible in court.
First of all, I think there must be an opportunity to examine the new evidence, because according to me, that’s part of a fair trial! They certainly must avoid the possibility that they sent an innocent person to death. So if there is new evidence, at least, they must have listened to it, to see what kind of interest it had to take it, if necessary, in a new trial. What I mean is that I am, just like the lawyers of Davis, a supporter of the right not to be executed, especially when substantial new evidence of innocence has been discovered. In the USA, this didn’t became a real right yet.
Secondly, I saw Amnesty International incites everyone to take action; to send a letter to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, which can reprieve Troy Davis. This is his last hope.
Source:
VICINI, J., Court Rejects Georgia death row inmate’s appeal. Internet. Reuters, 14 October 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE49D5TQ20081014?sp=true)
HIV murder trial (by Ben Van Laere)
Johnson Aziga is the first man in Canada who is being charged with murder because he infected people with the HIV-virus.
Johnson Aziga (52) is HIV-positive. He is accused of being responsible for the death of two sexual partners he had had. Both women died of AIDS-related complications, one in December 2003 and the other in May 2004.
People who are infected with the HIV-virus have the duty to tell sexual partners of their infection.
The former research analyst is also accused of sexual assault against women. Aziga had unprotected sex with 9 women without saying that he was HIV-positive. 5 of them are HIV-positive now.
Aziga can be condemned to life sentence for the murder of 2 women. For the sexual assault there is a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Aziga is in prison since his arrest in 2003. The trial started on Monday, the 20th of October and will last about 6 weeks.
Since 2000, there has been a huge increase of criminal charges for HIV-transmission.
I can understand that when you are HIV-positive your life is a bit destroyed. But wilfully infecting people with this terrible virus is indeed a crime. Aids is like a living time bomb. You condemn people to death. Telling sexual partners you are infected and using a condom are the minimal duties you have to do when you are HIV-positive. I hope there will be found a medicine soon that can exterminate this horrible virus.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/20/aziga-trial.html?ref=rss
Johnson Aziga (52) is HIV-positive. He is accused of being responsible for the death of two sexual partners he had had. Both women died of AIDS-related complications, one in December 2003 and the other in May 2004.
People who are infected with the HIV-virus have the duty to tell sexual partners of their infection.
The former research analyst is also accused of sexual assault against women. Aziga had unprotected sex with 9 women without saying that he was HIV-positive. 5 of them are HIV-positive now.
Aziga can be condemned to life sentence for the murder of 2 women. For the sexual assault there is a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Aziga is in prison since his arrest in 2003. The trial started on Monday, the 20th of October and will last about 6 weeks.
Since 2000, there has been a huge increase of criminal charges for HIV-transmission.
I can understand that when you are HIV-positive your life is a bit destroyed. But wilfully infecting people with this terrible virus is indeed a crime. Aids is like a living time bomb. You condemn people to death. Telling sexual partners you are infected and using a condom are the minimal duties you have to do when you are HIV-positive. I hope there will be found a medicine soon that can exterminate this horrible virus.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/20/aziga-trial.html?ref=rss
maandag 20 oktober 2008
Dr. Jack Kevorkian aka Dr. Death
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is an american dokter. He is now 79 years old and he helped at least 130 people commit suicide with impunity. His nickname is 'Dr. Death'.But in 1999, his luck ran up and he was convicted of second-degree murder for assisting Thomas Youk to die by lethal injection.
Thomas Youk was 53 years old and suffered from the Lou Hegrig's disease. He wanted to end his life and Dr. Kevorkian assisted his suicide.
At first it seemed that Kevorkian wasn't going to be charged with "murder". Things changed when he made a video where he actually provoked the prosecutors and then they started a trial. During the trial he never appealled a lawyer, he always represented himself. The family of Youk supported the Docter but the judge forbidded them to testify about the Youk's suffering. He is currently serving 10 to 25 years of imprissonment for the murder, he also got a 7year conviction for using a controlled substance to commit the assisted suicide.
He was paroled in 2007. After his imprisonment, Kevorkian was awarded a humanitarian award.He promised to never assist a suicide again. His licence was subdued in the early nineties. And off course he is never going to be able to do his profession.
I think it is very bizar. He is a docter, assist suicide and he is proud of it. He thinks he is a lifesaver, in the other meaning of the word off course. The doctor has probably helped some families to stop the suffering. And also lots of sick people who want to stop the struggle of life. But it is strange to imagine that he actually LIKES to do this. In fact, the mission of a doctor is saving lifes and he is specialized in taking lifes away, that's against the nature.
Source: http://www.courttv.com/trials/kevorkian/062901_ctv.html
(by Greet Heyse)
Thomas Youk was 53 years old and suffered from the Lou Hegrig's disease. He wanted to end his life and Dr. Kevorkian assisted his suicide.
At first it seemed that Kevorkian wasn't going to be charged with "murder". Things changed when he made a video where he actually provoked the prosecutors and then they started a trial. During the trial he never appealled a lawyer, he always represented himself. The family of Youk supported the Docter but the judge forbidded them to testify about the Youk's suffering. He is currently serving 10 to 25 years of imprissonment for the murder, he also got a 7year conviction for using a controlled substance to commit the assisted suicide.
He was paroled in 2007. After his imprisonment, Kevorkian was awarded a humanitarian award.He promised to never assist a suicide again. His licence was subdued in the early nineties. And off course he is never going to be able to do his profession.
I think it is very bizar. He is a docter, assist suicide and he is proud of it. He thinks he is a lifesaver, in the other meaning of the word off course. The doctor has probably helped some families to stop the suffering. And also lots of sick people who want to stop the struggle of life. But it is strange to imagine that he actually LIKES to do this. In fact, the mission of a doctor is saving lifes and he is specialized in taking lifes away, that's against the nature.
Source: http://www.courttv.com/trials/kevorkian/062901_ctv.html
(by Greet Heyse)
vrijdag 17 oktober 2008
Despite Ruling, Detainee Cases Facing Delays
‘The right to defend yourself’, one of the general principles we can find in the Belgium judicial system, is in my opinion and I think of many other people, not always present in The US. An example is of course the detainees at Guantánamo in Cuba. Although the Supreme Court ruled that they would have the right to challenge their detention, untill now none of the detainees already had a court hearing as it should be, knowing that the decision was made in June. The ‘Bush administration’ gives several reasons why there haven’t been hearings yet. According to them it’s difficult to decide which cases would be held in secret, which detainees can be present on their hearing and also which level of proof will justify detention. An other problem is that only military officals and not federal judges have the power to make decisions in military detentions and there is a shortage of Justice Department lawyers. The Government Adminstration self find that they are moving rapidly. Those are some of the ‘reasons’ why there is a delay. Of should we call it ‘pretexts’ ? In my vieuw are these more pretexts than reasons. Everybody should have the right to defend yourself. Sitting in prison for more than 4 years without a ‘fair trial’ can’t be possible. The supreme Court said that the hearings would be prompt, where ‘prompt’ was open to interpretation. I can only conclude that 4 years isn’t really prompt. The waiting must be terrible for the detainees.
Further in the article, written by William Glaberson published on October 5, 2008 in The New York Times, they make a link to the Bush administration. Bush will be in office untill January. The first full court hearing is for October 27, where only 6 detainees are involved. For all other detainees is there no date of hearing determined. This means that not all detainees will have their hearing by January, when the citizens choose a new president and so a different policy about terrorism and criminal law. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to make decisions when you actually know that you can’t fulfil them. Like Mr. Padmanbhan said, we better leave this case to the next president.
By Hanne Snoeck
Source: New York Times, William Glaberson, October 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05gitmo.html?_r=1&sq=cases&st=cse&scp=…
Further in the article, written by William Glaberson published on October 5, 2008 in The New York Times, they make a link to the Bush administration. Bush will be in office untill January. The first full court hearing is for October 27, where only 6 detainees are involved. For all other detainees is there no date of hearing determined. This means that not all detainees will have their hearing by January, when the citizens choose a new president and so a different policy about terrorism and criminal law. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to make decisions when you actually know that you can’t fulfil them. Like Mr. Padmanbhan said, we better leave this case to the next president.
By Hanne Snoeck
Source: New York Times, William Glaberson, October 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05gitmo.html?_r=1&sq=cases&st=cse&scp=…
donderdag 16 oktober 2008
Case O.J. Simpson (by Bieke Demeester)
Last week, I saw in a newspaper that O.J. Simpson was put in jail in Las Vegas. O.J. Simpson is a former football star, who ended his career in 1979. His fame was mostly caused by the acquittal of the accusation of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman, 13 years ago. That lawsuit was one of the most sensational lawsuits of the 20th century in the whole world.
I don’t understand why Simpson was not found guilty for the two murders in 1995, because there was certainly much evidence. I searched on the Internet, and I read that the lawyers of Simpson claimed that he was a victim of fraud, committed by the police: they should have placed evidence against Simpson on the crime scene. Why would they do that? At least, he was not found guilty, but three years after the murder trial, a civil court jury found Simpson liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay 33,5 million dollars in damages to the families of the victims. I find this very confusing: although, the jury decides he didn’t commit these two murders, another jury sentences him to pay damages for exactly the same murders.
Simpson and his companion, Clarence Stewart, were found guilty of conspiracy, burglary, kidnapping, robbery and assault on the third of October 2008. The deliberation of the jury lasted for more than 13 hours. The judge rejected the requests by the lawyers of Simpson and Stewart, to remain free until the sentencing on the fifth of December. The minimum penalty is 5 years in prison, but it could increase to life imprisonment.
The facts, which Simpson and Stewart were condemned for, were the robbing of sports memorabilia at a Las Vegas Hotel one year ago. Simpson, Stewart and a few accomplices stole these things while threatening two sports memorabilia dealers with guns. The defence lawyers claimed that the photographs and other memorabilia were stolen property of Simpson and that he was in his right to try to get them back. At the three-week trial, four of the accomplices testified against Simpson.
Many people think that justice has finally occurred.
My personal opinion is that justice not always occurs. Sometimes people get off, because they can pay the best lawyers of the country, because different procedures were not followed properly, etc. On the other hand, I think that if it’s not 100% certain that a person committed a crime, he shouldn’t be punished. There are enough innocent people in jail, and that’s just terrible.
Sources:
- WHITCOMB, D., O.J. Simpson's luck runs out after 13 years. Internet. Reuters, Sat Oct 4, 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4918HC20081004)
- Internet. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson)
- Geluk van O.J. Simpson is na 13 jaar op. De Standaard, 6 October 2008, p. 14.
I don’t understand why Simpson was not found guilty for the two murders in 1995, because there was certainly much evidence. I searched on the Internet, and I read that the lawyers of Simpson claimed that he was a victim of fraud, committed by the police: they should have placed evidence against Simpson on the crime scene. Why would they do that? At least, he was not found guilty, but three years after the murder trial, a civil court jury found Simpson liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay 33,5 million dollars in damages to the families of the victims. I find this very confusing: although, the jury decides he didn’t commit these two murders, another jury sentences him to pay damages for exactly the same murders.
Simpson and his companion, Clarence Stewart, were found guilty of conspiracy, burglary, kidnapping, robbery and assault on the third of October 2008. The deliberation of the jury lasted for more than 13 hours. The judge rejected the requests by the lawyers of Simpson and Stewart, to remain free until the sentencing on the fifth of December. The minimum penalty is 5 years in prison, but it could increase to life imprisonment.
The facts, which Simpson and Stewart were condemned for, were the robbing of sports memorabilia at a Las Vegas Hotel one year ago. Simpson, Stewart and a few accomplices stole these things while threatening two sports memorabilia dealers with guns. The defence lawyers claimed that the photographs and other memorabilia were stolen property of Simpson and that he was in his right to try to get them back. At the three-week trial, four of the accomplices testified against Simpson.
Many people think that justice has finally occurred.
My personal opinion is that justice not always occurs. Sometimes people get off, because they can pay the best lawyers of the country, because different procedures were not followed properly, etc. On the other hand, I think that if it’s not 100% certain that a person committed a crime, he shouldn’t be punished. There are enough innocent people in jail, and that’s just terrible.
Sources:
- WHITCOMB, D., O.J. Simpson's luck runs out after 13 years. Internet. Reuters, Sat Oct 4, 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4918HC20081004)
- Internet. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson)
- Geluk van O.J. Simpson is na 13 jaar op. De Standaard, 6 October 2008, p. 14.
woensdag 15 oktober 2008
THE NANNY MURDER TRIAL (by Greet Heyse)
Louise Woodward, a 19 year old British au pair was found guilty in the death of the 8 month old Matthew Eappen in Massachusetts.
Louise was hired since November 2006 by Sunil and Deborah Eappen to take care of their sons. On the 4th of February, Louise called the police to report that baby Matthew had some trouble with breathing. The paramedics arrived and saw that Matthew's eyes bulged out, which might be a sign of "shaken baby syndrome", this is when a baby is violently shaken.
An autopsy revealed that the baby had a fractured skull and a month-old wrist fracture.
Prosecutors say that Woodward admitted that she shook Matthex around, dropped him on the floor and threw him on the bed. According to some medical examiners the injuries Matthew had, could anyhow be caused bij a fall from a second-story window.
The baby didn't survive and 4 days after intake in the hospital, he died. Woodward was imprisoned without bond.
The defense claimed that she was just a teenager and didn't knew anything about the law in Massachisetts and that she shouldn't be kept in a state women's prison with hardened criminals in a foreign country. The defense argued that Louise's acts wasn't the cause of baby Matthew's death, they said that a pre-existing medical condition could have been the cause of his death. They also asked to do some extra tests to find out if Matthew had any genetic disorders that could affect the strength of his bones.
I think that the arguments of the defense are a bit exaggerated and far-fetched! They try to deny the actual fact that Louise had been too reckless with the baby. Matthew's parents trusted their nanny and paid her to take good care of their sons. That was her job, she hadn't been carefull enough, so it is normal that she's punished for her acts. The argument that she was just a teenager and didn't knew anything abou the law in Massachusetts is rather silly, because first of al, she was 19 and then you should be able to take some responsability for your acts. And secondly, what on earth makes her think that violent behavior against a baby is accepted in Massachusetts? That's rather a crazy thought isn't it?
Source:
Louise was hired since November 2006 by Sunil and Deborah Eappen to take care of their sons. On the 4th of February, Louise called the police to report that baby Matthew had some trouble with breathing. The paramedics arrived and saw that Matthew's eyes bulged out, which might be a sign of "shaken baby syndrome", this is when a baby is violently shaken.
An autopsy revealed that the baby had a fractured skull and a month-old wrist fracture.
Prosecutors say that Woodward admitted that she shook Matthex around, dropped him on the floor and threw him on the bed. According to some medical examiners the injuries Matthew had, could anyhow be caused bij a fall from a second-story window.
The baby didn't survive and 4 days after intake in the hospital, he died. Woodward was imprisoned without bond.
The defense claimed that she was just a teenager and didn't knew anything about the law in Massachisetts and that she shouldn't be kept in a state women's prison with hardened criminals in a foreign country. The defense argued that Louise's acts wasn't the cause of baby Matthew's death, they said that a pre-existing medical condition could have been the cause of his death. They also asked to do some extra tests to find out if Matthew had any genetic disorders that could affect the strength of his bones.
I think that the arguments of the defense are a bit exaggerated and far-fetched! They try to deny the actual fact that Louise had been too reckless with the baby. Matthew's parents trusted their nanny and paid her to take good care of their sons. That was her job, she hadn't been carefull enough, so it is normal that she's punished for her acts. The argument that she was just a teenager and didn't knew anything abou the law in Massachusetts is rather silly, because first of al, she was 19 and then you should be able to take some responsability for your acts. And secondly, what on earth makes her think that violent behavior against a baby is accepted in Massachusetts? That's rather a crazy thought isn't it?
Source:
Murder of Rhys Jones (by Ben Van Laere)
On 22 Augustus 2007 Rhys Milford Jones (11) was shot in the back of the neck when he went home from football training. His trial started on 2 October 2008.
Rhys Jones was walking home from football practice across the car park in Croxteth Park when a gunman on a mountain bike shot him. The jury thinks this was an accident. They think that Rhys Jones is the innocent victim of gang feuds. The gunman had planned an assassination of an enemy gang member but Rhys Jones walked into the line of fire. The suspect in crown court is Sean Mercer. Sean Mercer is 18 years old and denies the murder. He was found innocent. Several gang members, were accused of complicity but all of them were pleaded not guilty. The trial continues for 6 to 8 weeks.
I don’t understand that nobody can identify the murderer. It was on a summer evening, so many people were near. Maybe they are scared. Anyhow, this terrifying violence has to stop. It happens in every country for so many stupid reasons. Like the murder on Joe Van Holsbeeck in Belgium. Maybe a prohibition of licence of carry fire arms will make a difference.
Source: : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Rhys Jones was walking home from football practice across the car park in Croxteth Park when a gunman on a mountain bike shot him. The jury thinks this was an accident. They think that Rhys Jones is the innocent victim of gang feuds. The gunman had planned an assassination of an enemy gang member but Rhys Jones walked into the line of fire. The suspect in crown court is Sean Mercer. Sean Mercer is 18 years old and denies the murder. He was found innocent. Several gang members, were accused of complicity but all of them were pleaded not guilty. The trial continues for 6 to 8 weeks.
I don’t understand that nobody can identify the murderer. It was on a summer evening, so many people were near. Maybe they are scared. Anyhow, this terrifying violence has to stop. It happens in every country for so many stupid reasons. Like the murder on Joe Van Holsbeeck in Belgium. Maybe a prohibition of licence of carry fire arms will make a difference.
Source: : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)