-
Posts
-
I was gonna say they’ll put him in solitary for his own protection but i’m pretty some wardens attention will be distracted “accidently”
@pete wrote:
I was gonna say they’ll put him in solitary for his own protection but i’m pretty some wardens attention will be distracted “accidently”
Of course they will, Section 43 I believe it’s called. But where theres a will theres a way, and the ones that want to find it normally do :wink:
This is an appalling story which should bring a chill to the heart of any right thinking person. Sadly, the vicious abuser apparently has done this sort of thing before.
Think also of baby P’s mother who happily co-habited with this guy and surely MUST have known or suspected what her ‘boyfriend’ was capable of doing.
However, to my mind another person who should be named and shamed in this dreadful matter is Bernard Richmond QC who was the barrister representing the boyfriend of baby P’s mother (the guy that has just been convicted of raping a 2 year old child).
The Metropolitan Police have quite rightly condemned the way in which children are treated in criminal courts yesterday. This followed the disgraceful way that the poor little 4 years old was aggressively cross examined and put under intense pressure and asked a whole series of intimidating questions before being asked to define “truth”.
FFS !!!! She was only 4 years old and had been RAPED !!!! How on earth can anybody justify this sort of cross examination – even if it is necessary to provide a defence to a (now) convicted vicious child rapist!!!.
See an extract for yourself – and make your own judgement……..
Bernard Richmond QC: “Did you make it up?”
4 year old child: “I just ……….”
Bernard Richmond QC: “He didn’t touch you did he? DID HE? I have to ask you one more time. We have to have an answer from you, he didn’t touch you did he?”
All this time the little girl appeared visibly distressed, wiping her eyes and desperate to leave.
Bernard Richmond QC – you should be deeply ashamed of yourself!
@forumhostpb wrote:
This is an appalling story which should bring a chill to the heart of any right thinking person. Sadly, the vicious abuser apparently has done this sort of thing before.
Think also of baby P’s mother who happily co-habited with this guy and surely MUST have known or suspected what her ‘boyfriend’ was capable of doing.
However, to my mind another person who should be named and shamed in this dreadful matter is Bernard Richmond QC who was the barrister representing the boyfriend of baby P’s mother (the guy that has just been convicted of raping a 2 year old child).
The Metropolitan Police have quite rightly condemned the way in which children are treated in criminal courts yesterday. This followed the disgraceful way that the poor little 4 years old was aggressively cross examined and put under intense pressure and asked a whole series of intimidating questions before being asked to define “truth”.
FFS !!!! She was only 4 years old and had been RAPED !!!! How on earth can anybody justify this sort of cross examination – even if it is necessary to provide a defence to a (now) convicted vicious child rapist!!!.
See an extract for yourself – and make your own judgement……..
Bernard Richmond QC: “Did you make it up?”
4 year old child: “I just ……….”
Bernard Richmond QC: “He didn’t touch you did he? DID HE? I have to ask you one more time. We have to have an answer from you, he didn’t touch you did he?”
All this time the little girl appeared visibly distressed, wiping her eyes and desperate to leave.
Bernard Richmond QC – you should be deeply ashamed of yourself!
So should the judge in this case PB, whoever he was, for allowing it to continue :twisted:
You’re right Cas …. and yet….
If the Judge had intervened and stopped the defence counsel from cross examining a witness, he might very well have given cause for the defence to either declare a mis-trial or given them grounds for appeal.
There is a very fine line to be drawn between allowing a witness to be cross examined as to the truth of their evidence and permitting a vulnerable and damaged child to be subjected to highly stressful and intimidating questioning.
I think that the defence counsel clearly overstepped the mark.
@forumhostpb wrote:
You’re right Cas …. and yet….
If the Judge had intervened and stopped the defence counsel from cross examining a witness, he might very well have given cause for the defence to either declare a mis-trial or given them grounds for appeal.
There is a very fine line to be drawn between allowing a witness to be cross examined as to the truth of their evidence and permitting a vulnerable and damaged child to be subjected to highly stressful and intimidating questioning.
I think that the defence counsel clearly overstepped the mark.
Yea I see what you mean and highly possible it was what he was aiming for.He did overstep the mark, i’m surprised that the little girl was in court, theyve been known to use video links, that kind of thing. Must have been very frightening for that little girl.
@forumhostpb wrote:
This is an appalling story which should bring a chill to the heart of any right thinking person. Sadly, the vicious abuser apparently has done this sort of thing before.
Think also of baby P’s mother who happily co-habited with this guy and surely MUST have known or suspected what her ‘boyfriend’ was capable of doing.
However, to my mind another person who should be named and shamed in this dreadful matter is Bernard Richmond QC who was the barrister representing the boyfriend of baby P’s mother (the guy that has just been convicted of raping a 2 year old child).
The Metropolitan Police have quite rightly condemned the way in which children are treated in criminal courts yesterday. This followed the disgraceful way that the poor little 4 years old was aggressively cross examined and put under intense pressure and asked a whole series of intimidating questions before being asked to define “truth”.
FFS !!!! She was only 4 years old and had been RAPED !!!! How on earth can anybody justify this sort of cross examination – even if it is necessary to provide a defence to a (now) convicted vicious child rapist!!!.
See an extract for yourself – and make your own judgement……..
Bernard Richmond QC: “Did you make it up?”
4 year old child: “I just ……….”
Bernard Richmond QC: “He didn’t touch you did he? DID HE? I have to ask you one more time. We have to have an answer from you, he didn’t touch you did he?”
All this time the little girl appeared visibly distressed, wiping her eyes and desperate to leave.
Bernard Richmond QC – you should be deeply ashamed of yourself!
I’ll just hurt him eh think thats best :evil:
@pete wrote:
I was gonna say they’ll put him in solitary for his own protection but i’m pretty some wardens attention will be distracted “accidently”
Hmmm put him in solitary ???? Some punishment – most of those bastads live better than we do !!
All for the accidental distraction though! :wink:
@cas wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
You’re right Cas …. and yet….
If the Judge had intervened and stopped the defence counsel from cross examining a witness, he might very well have given cause for the defence to either declare a mis-trial or given them grounds for appeal.
There is a very fine line to be drawn between allowing a witness to be cross examined as to the truth of their evidence and permitting a vulnerable and damaged child to be subjected to highly stressful and intimidating questioning.
I think that the defence counsel clearly overstepped the mark.
Yea I see what you mean and highly possible it was what he was aiming for.He did overstep the mark, i’m surprised that the little girl was in court, theyve been known to use video links, that kind of thing. Must have been very frightening for that little girl.
They did use a video link for the poor child to give her evidence to the Court – as they always do in these sorts of cases.
She had already been thoroughly questioned by trained caring and competent child protection experts and suchlike and had made a full and detailed ‘statement’ that had been videoed and played to the Court as her ‘evidence in chief’.
Yes, the defence has a right to test that evidence to be satisfied that it is both true and complete but NOT in my view, to do so in such a way as to cause the sort of distress that was observed by those who saw it.
This wasn’t an adult telling lies for some personal gain or suchlike, it was a 4 year old girl ffs!!!
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!