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
zaterdag 15 november 2008
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
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)