Mary-Ann 'was killed in revenge'

**Maggy J** · 14-01-2006, 02:38

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/4609628.stm

Quote:

Mr Thomas was assaulted and robbed of his belongings at his Oxford Road flat on the night of 18/19 April, the court heard.

For this someone had to die?

What a crock of sh*t.It's a very lousy,poor excuse for such dispicable behaviour.

All the more reason to get very heavy with vigilantes in my opinion.

**Russ B** · 14-01-2006, 02:39

Well you know how it is Coggy, some people will take matters in to their own hands....lynch mobs eh?

**Paul M** · 14-01-2006, 03:11

So were the girls involved in the robbery or not ?

etccarmageddon · 14-01-2006, 08:19

I think we shouldnt be discussing this until the trial is over?

Ignition · 14-01-2006, 08:42

That sounds like BS to me.

BBKing · 14-01-2006, 09:58

Quote:

the court heard.

Repeat after me:

'I must not confuse the prosecution case with a news item'

Thank you.

**Maggy J** · 14-01-2006, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Quote:

the court heard.

Repeat after me:

'I must not confuse the prosecution case with a news item'

Thank you.

Well well,The number of times I've suggested that we do not discuss a case until we have more facts and I've been ignored..However I don't see why we can't discuss a case in front of a court at the time at which it occurs?

Angua · 14-01-2006, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Repeat after me:

'I must not confuse the prosecution case with a news item'

Thank you.

I think this pertains to the "defence" case

.

Still an horrific ordeal followed by death, regardless of the perpertrators motive or (by information available) sick sense of justice. One has to ask whether the robbery cited was ever reported to the police and how they knew who was responsible and to what extent, without due process of law.

**Russ B** · 14-01-2006, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Well well,The number of times I've suggested that we do not discuss a case until we have more facts and I've been ignored..

Don't worry Coggy, BBking will be ignored too. This is a discussion forum and the information is in the public domain as well as being in the public interest.

etccarmageddon · 14-01-2006, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

All the more reason to get very heavy with vigilantes in my opinion.

I dont think you could call these people's defence/excuse means they are vigilantes... they wouldnt even be a lynch mob. they are a lot worse than those 2 kinds of people.

Anyway, supposing they are found guilty and supposing after this they reveal to the court prior convictions then that would confirm they aren't vigilantees! I'm off the belief that if they are found guilty then they will have prior convictions.

It's all bull anyway, the crime was the work of evil scumbags - I assume they are admitting to the crime if they are using the 'revenge' excuse?

The Equalizer was a form of vigilante - you wouldn't compare that character to the crimes committed against these girls would you?

MadGamer · 14-01-2006, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I think we shouldnt be discussing this until the trial is over?

. Why? Its free speech

BBKing · 14-01-2006, 15:59

Quote:

BBking will be ignored too.

Not sure I understand this - are you suggesting I *should* be ignored or that people will ignore the important point I'm making? If the former, go and suck on a lemon, if the latter, that's why I'm making it. Would appreciate clarification.

Mentioning one side of a court case without pointing out that it's one side of a court case is giving an incomplete picture of the case. The media in general are perpetually guilty of this, but we're better than that.

"Man is complete scum" is an opinion.
"Man is complete scum, claim prosecution" is a news item.

I don't see what's wrong with discussing an in-progress court case, unless you're actually involved in it, incidentally. Just be clear what you're saying.

Escapee · 14-01-2006, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

I think this pertains to the "defence" case

.

Still an horrific ordeal followed by death, regardless of the perpertrators motive or (by information available) sick sense of justice. One has to ask whether the robbery cited was ever reported to the police and how they knew who was responsible and to what extent, without due process of law.

I just cant see this being a straight forward act of revenge for a robbery. I can see why people would go out to get revenge if they knew who was responsible for a robbery, but I just cant see why anyone would carry out these acts other than for some sort of sexual perversion.

The robbery motive sounds like some clutching at straws to come up with an excuse other than a sexual motive.

**Russ B** · 14-01-2006, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Not sure I understand this - are you suggesting I *should* be ignored or that people will ignore the important point I'm making?

I'm saying we will discuss this in any way we see fit.

**Stuart C** · 14-01-2006, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I think we shouldnt be discussing this until the trial is over?

Surely if it was against the law, the BBC would not publish it?