Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish girl missing in Melbourne

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,339 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    cikearney wrote: »
    It was being discussed on sbs yesterday that he and his defence believed that he had a case to walk or get a minimul sentence due to the fact he eventually started to cooperate and led the police to her body when many killers have not done this.
    The media might have spun it that way. And maybe the defense even acted like it thought that was a possibility.

    But my point was that they didn't actually think that. They tried to get manslaughter, and failed. After that it was always life. All that was up for debate was the non parole period.
    IrishDownUnder wrote: »
    Sometimes cases like these come down to the way a suspect was arrested & interviewed nothing to do with the fact that they murdered someone. They could be totally guilty of a murder and admit to it but if all the T’s aren’t crossed and I’s dotted they can sometimes walk free. The law is blind only cares about law.
    That's nonsense, if the trial was unlawful, then it would of simply, been a mistrial.
    That is why this scum of the earth & his lawyer thought he might walk. Even after he admitted he murdered Jill. If his defence could have proven that some part of the arrest or trial was unlawful through any precedents he might have got either a reduced sentence or even as unthinkable this is gone free.
    The defense didnt try to do that.:confused:
    After all they reduced his sentence not because he showed remorse for murdering Jill he never did. Like most murders he was only sorry he got caught. They reduced his sentence because he pled guilty and showed them where he had disposed of Jill.
    They then give him 35 years and call that life. How many people do you know only live to 35 so how can that be a life sentence? Should be a Life for a life. You take someone’s life you give up the right to live your life free.

    This is nonsense too.
    They didn't reduce his sentence. They didn't give him 35 years either. He got a life sentence, and the non parole period was increased from the standard 20 years to 35 years. There's no obligation to release him after 35 years. He could easily be denied parole and held for longer.

    I don't think there's a point in a should life be life discussion here, but if you are going to talk about it, at least try to understand it.


    No sentence imaginable is going to undo this crime for Tom or Jill's family. I think it complete pointless to even bring them into it. And some of the questioning by the media is disgraceful.


  • Options
    #123
    IrishDownUnder
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭IrishDownUnder


    Lets just say I know better than most about trials and what goes on at them and life sentence and what they really mean.

    All I'm saying is if it was a real life sentence there would be no possibility of parole after 35 years or 135 years .

    The life sentence is more for the victims. They will live with the lose of the loved one for the rest of their lives .


  • Options
    #124
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    I thought this question was ridiculous and purely looking to break the man on camera.

    Interview

    LOUISE MILLIGAN: Now, just casting your mind back, before the reasons that we're here today, to Jill, if I was to meet Jill, say, two years ago, what sort of person would I have met?


    That her ex-colleagues did this is a little under the belt.


Advertisement