I?m talking about the case of Baby Peter here. Can someone help me understand something? There?s a toddler in a house who?s "mysteriously" being smashed into the next century and eventually dies in a cot smothered in blood, right? And there so happens to be a psychotic, violent paedophile with a liking for Nazis and the induction of pain living in the very same house, right? So why the hell are the courts not certain it?s him who murdered the kid!!!! I mean, it?s so obvious who did it you?d have to be brain dead not to put 2 and 2 together and realise who did it! You all know what happened? The fiend baby molester boyfriend used the kid as a target for his evil behaviour and hobbies (I also believe he was into Kung Fu weapons), on the occasion inviting his mate lodger in to make it more "interesting", and the mother just let him get on with it. And the courts can?t see this?! And another thing, why is the law protecting the identity of this evil creature? What, are they afraid that he might come to some harm via one of the millions of people out here who?d want some "fun" with him before stringing the c*** up? If so then that makes the law as bad as the scum who slowly murdered that little toddler! And don?t get me on the subject of the creep?s so-called "sentence", because it?s a joke, a bad one at that! I can't tell you how much I'd like to be let lose on the crap who did that. Just give me a few hours in a locked room armed with a baseball bat, a pair of knuckledusters, a sharp knife and a length of rope, then let's see how tough the creep is! On a closing note my heart goes out to the poor little guy. So innocent, so helpless, so haunting... Comments please.