Benji Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 so if it isn't this guy, how will he be compensated for his myspace page being put on the Uk News? if they have caught the right man then fine, let him rot in jail, but if not it seems pretty disgusting such publicity of personal details have been allowed to be broadcasted.
Daggers Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 so if it isn't this guy, how will he be compensated for his myspace page being put on the Uk News? I reckon if you don't want anyone to see/laugh at your myspace page then...don't have a myspace page.
Craig Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I don't think it's him. I just don't understand why he would do all these interviews, putting himself in the spotlight if he was guilty. He could be doing them to play a game with the police or whatever, but at the same time, he didn't actually want his BBC interview to be broadcast, it was just to help find out details. So that would indicate he's not playing a game, or he'd want the world to hear it. There's more to this than meets the eye, if he's guilty then he deserves everything and more that'l be chucked at him, but... i have this gut feeling that the killer's still out there, and is lapping this up.
Nationwider Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I don't think it's him. I just don't understand why he would do all these interviews, putting himself in the spotlight if he was guilty. He could be doing them to play a game with the police or whatever, but at the same time, he didn't actually want his BBC interview to be broadcast, it was just to help find out details. So that would indicate he's not playing a game, or he'd want the world to hear it. There's more to this than meets the eye, if he's guilty then he deserves everything and more that'l be chucked at him, but... i have this gut feeling that the killer's still out there, and is lapping this up. Didn't Ian Huntley do a similar thing in the wake of the Soham murders?
Craig Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Didn't Ian Huntley do a similar thing in the wake of the Soham murders? Huntley was a male member of staff at the school that the girls went to though wasn't he, and i'm sure they searched his house and the media attention followed cos of that. So it was inevitable really. It just seems that this bloke has come out of nowhere, and there's absolutely no logic to what he's done if he's the murderer. Murderers usually try and hide, try and blend in with society, or play a game with the police via the media, and even then, they don't make themselves so accessible. He's done none of that though, he's needlessly brought attention to himself, unwanted attention (as demonstrated by informing the bbc that he didn't want his interview with them to be broadcast on tv). I guess the police must have some evidence though, we'll know in a few days for sure, i'm sure
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Huntley was a male member of staff at the school that the girls went to though wasn't he, and i'm sure they searched his house and the media attention followed cos of that. So it was inevitable really. But it doesn't mean he had to do an interview. Sometimes people think bringing attention to things would lead people to think exactly what you have just done. Oh he did an interview so he can't be the killer as he wouldn't draw attention to himself. You ever used the phrase "Whoever smelt it, dealt it".
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 so if it isn't this guy, how will he be compensated for his myspace page being put on the Uk News? if they have caught the right man then fine, let him rot in jail, but if not it seems pretty disgusting such publicity of personal details have been allowed to be broadcasted. Myspace pages are there for people to view, should you not wish for people to look into your life then don't have one. Personal details broadcast??? The guy did interviews for several newspapers and tv stations, he put his own identity out there.
Suffolk_fox Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 The TV, radio and newspapers throw everyone into such a frenzy though, showing the worst picture they can which looks dodgy or downright evil. They whip up anger and unrest among the general public, THEN they not only give out his address but show his house on a map on their websites and broadcasts. Then, knowing as I do that people in groups do stupids things....... well, you can imagine the implications. Don't get me wrong, if he is guilty then let him rot in jail (or hang him!) but if he is released without charge, he will forever be the subject of sideways glances, pointing and whispering. Or worse... By the way, I am an ex copper...
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Don't get me wrong, if he is guilty then let him rot in jail (or hang him!) but if he is released without charge, he will forever be the subject of sideways glances, pointing and whispering. Or worse... By the way, I am an ex copper... Don't do newspaper interviews and tv interviews then, he put himself in the public domain by doing so. I have no sympathy for someone who does things like that.
Suffolk_fox Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Don't do newspaper interviews and tv interviews then, he put himself in the public domain by doing so. I have no sympathy for someone who does things like that. I think you are missing the point - many people have given interviews about this. OK, his is a special case, but there have been prostitutes, friends, church group leaders etc. What my point is, this fella is undergoing trial by media. We have seen full spreads on him being a loner, having a myspace page, ugly photographs, etc - no doubt some people he has known in the past will come out of the woodwork and discribe him in the most awful ways. Almost all of it is negative press, not very balanced at all. There was about 5 seconds worth of film showing a prostitute from the area saying that none of the girls think it is him, and that they are all convinced the police have the wrong man. The police did not release his name, fair play to them. But I think there should be an embargo on the press coverage especially going into so much detail, digging up dirt etc. How can anyone with so much bad press get a fair trial?? Oh, and the interviews that this guy gave were, on his insistence, not intended for broadcast/publication. He was giving background information.
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 The police did not release his name, fair play to them. But I think there should be an embargo on the press coverage especially going into so much detail, digging up dirt etc. How can anyone with so much bad press get a fair trial?? Oh, and the interviews that this guy gave were, on his insistence, not intended for broadcast/publication. He was giving background information. That I agree with. I have seen it said he didn't want his bbc interview broadcast, not heard anything similar with the newspapers.
Suffolk_fox Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Don't do newspaper interviews and tv interviews then, he put himself in the public domain by doing so. I have no sympathy for someone who does things like that. Oh, and one of the prostitutes who wound up dead gave an ITV interview which was shown days before she disappeared. Will you make an exception in her case?
Daggers Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 What my point is, this fella is undergoing trial by media. Absolutely SF, having just returned from doing the shop at Asda, I am disgusted with todays coverage in the tabloids. The man may not be "normal" but that doesn't give them the right to delve into every crevice of his life and find him guilty by association. Again, as has been said, if he is guilty then let him serve a sentence - but being placed under caution is no evidence of guilt and it would do a number of people in the media and on FT well to avoid making rash judgments. I hope that one of the two gentlemen helping with inquiries is the guilty party - simply to prevent any further murders taking place. To lose a child to drugs is tragic, to lose them effectively twice in this way has to be soul crushing. For all of the parents, I hope this comes to a swift end.
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This has been dealt with in a disgusting fashion. Trial by the media. Indefensible.
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This has been dealt with in a disgusting fashion. Trial by the media. Indefensible. This is what happens when the police get mass media involved. Every time.
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Oh, and one of the prostitutes who wound up dead gave an ITV interview which was shown days before she disappeared. Will you make an exception in her case? What has that got to do with anything? She wasn't a prime suspect and hasn't been arrested on suspicion of murder. The guy admitted he was a prime suspect, if that is the case the idiot should of kept his mouth shut and let the police do their job. He brought all the media attention upon himself by doing these interviews to plead his innocence.
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This is what happens when the police get mass media involved. Every time. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. ps nearly crashed my pepper red fez machine in to a bus this morning.
Dr The Singh Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This has been dealt with in a disgusting fashion. Trial by the media. Indefensible. Sign of the times i'm afriad, media and papers are more interested in selling papers then selling the truth!!! Unfortunately alot of society have blind belief of the media!!!
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Unfortunately Mr Singh, we can't handle the truth. *strokes chin*
Suffolk_fox Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Sign of the times i'm afriad, media and papers are more interested in selling papers then selling the truth!!! Unfortunately alot of society have blind belief of the media!!! That Singh, me old, is a very true and very scary fact.
Babylon Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 but being placed under caution is no evidence of guilt and it would do a number of people in the media and on FT well to avoid making rash judgments. Who is making rash judgements? I haven't seen anyone on here saying he is definitely guilty. I said the interview certainly pointed the finger at him, but I also said "He fitted the profile of the killer exactly, seemed extremely unstable, he also had opportunity to do these things and said he has no alibi. Doesn't mean he is guilty but all came across as VERY strange to me, i'm not surprised he is number one suspect.".
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Who is making rash judgements? I haven't seen anyone on here saying he is definitely guilty. I said the interview certainly pointed the finger at him, but I also said "He fitted the profile of the killer exactly, seemed extremely unstable, he also had opportunity to do these things and said he has no alibi. Doesn't mean he is guilty but all came across as VERY strange to me, i'm not surprised he is number one suspect.". What is being said is that trial by media is wrong. I'm not going to suggest whether he is guilty or not.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.