Jump to content

coma

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coma

  1. "Another theory of the murder might also be from jealousy because the girl was good looking and had many boyfriends coming in contact, he said."

    Please tell me that's just a poor translation of what he said and not him hinting about loose morals being to blame.

    What is interesting is that both bodies were found naked. Doubt a killer would have spent time undressing the victims of his crime. And for what reason? Attacked during/after a skinny dip?

  2. Help? They should be at the front of the line leading the charge. It is a Middle East/ Arabic problem

    and should be solved by them.

    Whilst Arabs are aggressive by nature, they are amongst the biggest cowards on the planet and don"t have the intestinal fortitude for open confrontation ( Hence remote IED's, suicide bombers and attacking civilians are their prefered weapons of choice).

    The Iraqi Army is the perfect example cowardice. Has one seen a bigger coward than the Iraqi Army in the last 3 decades? All those years, lives lost and money spent training them and it was 'weapons down & run' soon as ISIL reared its ugly head.

    I am happy to see Iraq's neighbours joining the coalition but it is more a welcome token gesture. Once again it is we that need to get down and dirty with the enemy.

  3. Got away with murder. If it were some young black African male he would have been found guilty months ago. Mr Pistorius, you sir are a grub.

    pretty sick of people like this that always bring race into any argument PATHETIC

    What I find pathetic is your post in general. I was stating facts. Sometime race is IDEED the issue, there for all to see. Except for racist individuals whom choose to turn a blind I to these FACTS. Enjoy your Sunday lunch.
  4. ...and so will the body bags thanks to gung ho war enthusiasts such as yourself. I hope you will be enlisting or sending your loved ones to fight.

    Have the US learnt nothing from backing the wrong side in the Middle East alienating Arab countries and Iran, 911 , involving themselves in two wars costly in $$ and in American and allies’ lives...one of which caused the breakup of Iraq and thus the formation of ISIS? Obama supposedly got elected to extricate USA from war, not involve it more deeply.

    Well, when the body bags start coming home again, maybe the electorate in several countries will think twice.

    Of course it will be sad to see body bags coming home. It will be sadder to see terrorist attacks on western soil though.

    Body bags are not what I want to see. I have seen enough. But the use of the fly boys and cruise missile batteries to carpet bomb IS held positions and those that support them is.
  5. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    Ridiculous. You think you've hit on some new panacea for solving crime and preventing miscarriages of justice. You're just giving killers a card to play that they can count on to keep them out of the death house, and even creating a method for framing someone. And setting up yet more new hoops for investigators to have to jump through. Killers get enough breaks from the judicial system as it is. Again, you're trying to make it about the evidence; it's about the crime.

    Go try and argue with somebody who cares. alt=rolleyes.gif>

    A very enlightened response. Thanks.

    hawker, I'm sorry, but you've got it bass ackwards. Yes, crime solving is about the crime, however, without evidence there is NO crime solving. But, the next, and most crucial, part of the justice system is just that...justice. And justice is NEVER about the crime, but about the evidence. I don't know where you're from, but in the US, our system says that you are innocent until proven guilty (at least that's how it's supposed to work. Not so sure it's working that way now, though), and that the burden of proof resides with the state, and that you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In our system, you must be found guilty by a unanimous vote of twelve of your peers, and if even one of those twelve harbors what they feel to be a reasonable doubt, you can not be convicted. As I noted in a previous post, the presence of DNA alone is never enough to prove guilt, it only points an incriminating finger. There has to be substantial corroborating evidence. However, the absence of DNA can, and often is, enough to raise "reasonable doubt". No one is trying to give any guilty person a "card to play". The police have, with DNA, a very valuable tool to use to convict the guilty. But as coma pointed out, it is also an invaluable tool to either rule out the innocent, or overturn an erroneous conviction. I'm not quite sure what your objection is, unless you feel that the police should just be able to say, "Yup, you look guilty", and execute you on the spot? Living in a civilized and enlightened society brings with it what are sometimes onerous responsibilities; responsibilities the often require doing the uncomfortable, the difficult, the objectionable, and, occasionally, the thing that is personally offensive. The purpose, however, of those responsibilities is to insure that the same civilized, enlightened society remains that way, and, in fact, improves upon itself.

    Spot on. thumbsup.gif

  6. Ridiculous. You think you've hit on some new panacea for solving crime and preventing miscarriages of justice. You're just giving killers a card to play that they can count on to keep them out of the death house, and even creating a method for framing someone. And setting up yet more new hoops for investigators to have to jump through. Killers get enough breaks from the judicial system as it is. Again, you're trying to make it about the evidence; it's about the crime.

    Go try and argue with somebody who cares. rolleyes.gif

  7. Nothing kneejerk about it. I wasn't born yesterday. I clearly and fully understand that the punishment is weighed by the crime and not the amount of evidence against an accused. My single point is that if there is no DNA evidence to convict a criminal, they should hold back on the death penalty. Because DNA, not fingerprinting, has,is and will continue to be the tool that acquits the innocent, proves the innocence of the wrongly convicted and puts guilty people behind bars. In some cases many decades after the crime. Fingerprint has and still is a good tool but it has no weight when it comes up against DNA evidence. Actually very hard for a prosecutor to convict without DNA evidence.

    When was the last 40 year old cold case solved by fingerprint evidence ? With DNA, many many criminals from 40 years ago are now looking over their shoulders waiting to get arrested like thousands of others who's crimes went cold.

×
×
  • Create New...