Haunting: The Case of Baby Peter

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 **** 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.

 

Who are you talking about? Your link doesn't go to "Baby Peter". In the Peter case, the guy got life, so it doesn't follow that the courts couldn't work out that he did it. They did work it out and convicted him. Once again, I'm confused.

 

That is a link to the case on Baby Peter. The **** in the picture is that of the lodger. And you call what the boyfriend got "justice"? Naïve Brady Bunch justice is what I call it, a slap on the wrist for a creature, not real justice fitting the evil thing loosely called a "human".

 

Introduduce capital punishment and castration for Pedopihles but that won't solve anything
especially with our current position eg corruption.

 

"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!"

This is the part I don't get. They were certain. It was obvious, and he was found guilty.

If you're angry with the sentence, then perhaps you should aim your ire at the judicial system, rather than state - incorrectly - that the courts didn't know who did it.

A judge and jury can only go by the legal system. If a sentence seems too light, then you should look at the system, not the judge and jury.

 

I don't really buy the mother's apology too much, if she really cared she'd have done something about it but she didn't. Her possibly being able to get out in 3 years is crazy.

 

I don't think corruption is the biggest problem in our country, certainly not compared to virtually every country in Africa and any country that ends in "stan". We have lots of problems here but corruption is way down the list.

 

Last night, after I got off the computer, I think I realised what you don?t understand about my comments. Well, the thing is the creep boyfriend didn?t get found guilty for the murder of Baby Peter, only for something I think they call along the lines of "Allowing the death of", hence he only got about 10 or 14 years at best. That means the monster will probably get out when he?s in his 40?s at the latest! They said on the news that they didn?t have enough evidence to find him guilty of murder, which is plain idiotic!

 

That's very correct, they have all got off very lightly - in cases like this the death penalty should be restored - preferably by acid bath.

 

And the judge should be horse whipped through the streets for passing such an insulting sentence! It also amazes me how anyone could find it in themselves to stand in defence of such scum.

 

Well that certainly IS down to the system. The jury found him guilty of whatever charges, and so the judge could only give sentence based on that. Tnat's not the judge's fault. It's either the jury, or more likely the prosecuters.

If they didn't, they'd be disbarred.

 

Excatly its the system thats need rectifying. Death sentance wouldn't solve it either as in the past when power and corruption takes its place: its the innocent that will face the death penalty whilst the criminal will get scott free.

 

Lawyers are freelance, they represent who pays them. If they happen to be defending a murderer then so be it that is what they are paid to do.

Same way that field doctors in Iraq or Afghanistan treat enemy soldiers, because their job is to look after whoever comes to them.