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/
woensdag 29 oktober 2008
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)