oscar;1183564 wrote: I'll try to find out when the 'Panarama' documentry is on for you.
What makes my blood boil is that when these vernmin are sentenced, we the tax payers will keep them for the rest of their lives.
:-5I said that in an earlier post here and as a tax payer who has worked hard all my life I resent help keeping Monsters like that alive and if that upsets anybody well so be it but its the bloody truth.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Women are bitchy and predictable ...men are not and that's the key to knowing the truth.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Carolly;1183568 wrote: I said that in an earlier post here and as a tax payer who has worked hard all my life I resent help keeping Monsters like that alive and if that upsets anybody well so be it but its the bloody truth.
oscar;1183564 wrote: I'll try to find out when the 'Panarama' documentry is on for you.
What makes my blood boil is that when these vernmin are sentenced, we the tax payers will keep them for the rest of their lives.
:-5
Same probs over here too. Life in prison for them but guess who foots the bill?:-5 And to think these poor kids who do survive will have loads of probs down the road. Breaks your heart.:-1
oscar;1183564 wrote: I'll try to find out when the 'Panarama' documentry is on for you.
What makes my blood boil is that when these vernmin are sentenced, we the tax payers will keep them for the rest of their lives.
:-5
Same probs over here too. Life in prison for them but guess who foots the bill?:-5 And to think these poor kids who do survive will have loads of probs down the road. Breaks your heart.:-1
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
qsducks;1183569 wrote: Same probs over here too. Life in prison for them but guess who foots the bill?:-5 And to think these poor kids who do survive will have loads of probs down the road. Breaks your heart.:-1 Social services are there to protect children like baby P. Not only do our taxes go in keeping vermin like this in prison but also pay the wages of inept idiots who can't do the job they are hired for.
When you look at baby P's family...... Grandfather.... Pedophile. Mothers boyfriend..... baby rapist...... Lodger..... Pedophile.
And then they haven't got the brains to remove the child from the home dispite police advice to do so. :-5
When you look at baby P's family...... Grandfather.... Pedophile. Mothers boyfriend..... baby rapist...... Lodger..... Pedophile.
And then they haven't got the brains to remove the child from the home dispite police advice to do so. :-5
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
oscar;1183574 wrote: Social services are there to protect children like baby P. Not only do our taxes go in keeping vermin like this in prison but also pay the wages of inept idiots who can't do the job they are hired for.
When you look at baby P's family...... Grandfather.... Pedophile. Mothers boyfriend..... baby rapist...... Lodger..... Pedophile.
And then they haven't got the brains to remove the child from the home dispite police advice to do so. :-5
Social Services is a joke in this country too babe:-5.
When you look at baby P's family...... Grandfather.... Pedophile. Mothers boyfriend..... baby rapist...... Lodger..... Pedophile.
And then they haven't got the brains to remove the child from the home dispite police advice to do so. :-5
Social Services is a joke in this country too babe:-5.
-
daBunnyWendy7
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:55 pm
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
oscar;1183553 wrote: There is a 'Panorama' prog coming up on tv shortly about the boyfriend who allegedly killed and tortured baby P. Through out all the investigations in Harringy council and failing to protect baby P, they insisited that they knew nothing of the boyfriends existence and claimed they had been duped by the mother who was a cunning liar. The Panarama investigation found that this was not true and now four other Social services staff relating to the case have been sacked. Social services were aware of the boyfriend all the time and even had a video of baby P's mother talking about him. They just failed to check the sicko out.
It was also revealed that the lodger who is also awaiting sentence for baby P's death is also a pedophile.
OH MY!!! I am so sickened by this. People who were terrible criminals were sent to a desolate area in Australia ( which I hear is a beautiful country. No offense intended!) The were left alone with each other to try to survive on their own. Perhaps we should build an asylum where the heinous child abusers are left to try to raise their own food ,ect. I feel they never are cured of their despicable desire to harm little ones!!!
It was also revealed that the lodger who is also awaiting sentence for baby P's death is also a pedophile.
OH MY!!! I am so sickened by this. People who were terrible criminals were sent to a desolate area in Australia ( which I hear is a beautiful country. No offense intended!) The were left alone with each other to try to survive on their own. Perhaps we should build an asylum where the heinous child abusers are left to try to raise their own food ,ect. I feel they never are cured of their despicable desire to harm little ones!!!
Wendybunny
Everyone can make the world a better place!
Everyone can make the world a better place!
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
daBunnyWendy7;1183582 wrote: OH MY!!! I am so sickened by this. People who were terrible criminals were sent to a desolate area in Australia ( which I hear is a beautiful country. No offense intended!) The were left alone with each other to try to survive on their own. Perhaps we should build an asylum where the heinous child abusers are left to try to raise their own food ,ect. I feel they never are cured of their despicable desire to harm little ones!!!
Yes, let them all fend for themselves with no taxpayer monies going to them.
Yes, let them all fend for themselves with no taxpayer monies going to them.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
The appeal details in full from tonights Daily Mail.
What i find odd in all of this, is that baby P's mother was found not guilty of cruelty to the little girl because when she walked in and saw him him on top of the girl, she said 'Don't do that' and then left the room. They are arguing now about the childs evidence but surely the mother of baby P's account was taken into consideration by the jury also?
The thug responsible for the death of Baby P is set to use human rights legislation to appeal over his conviction for raping a two-year-old girl.
Lawyers for the sadistic brute made eight separate attempts to have his rape trial thrown out at the Old Bailey.
Now they are expected to take the case to the Appeal Court, arguing that his victim, now four, was too young and 'incompetent' to give evidence.
And they will claim that the 32-year-old's right to a fair trial, set out in Article Six of the Human Rights Act, was breached.
The news came as it also emerged that:
The mother of Baby Peter, as he can now be known, could be released from prison as early as next year.
The council involved in the Baby P scandal was accused of hiding evidence that could have saved his life.
And that the rape victim, who is now four, will be given anonymity for life to protect her.
Baby Peter's stepfather was convicted of her rape last week, after his victim became one of the youngest ever to give evidence against her attacker.
The little girl's shocking testimony was at the centre of the trial, and she was forced to endure cross- examination so severe that she called the room where she gave her evidence the 'evil room'.
The little girl who was raped by Baby P's killer gave evidence to the court by a video link
Her rapist's defence team is now considered 'certain' to launch an appeal against that conviction, a legal source revealed.
The source said: 'They consider the verdict to be almost inconsequential. They intend to take the case straight to the Court of Appeal.'
More...Public anger as Baby P's mother could be out of prison by next year as guilty plea means sentence is cut by a third
How Haringey council chiefs could have saved Baby P's life but kept vital information from police
MELANIE PHILLIPS: Child victims SHOULD have a voice in court but the grilling of the Baby P rape girl was an unnecessary abuse
Any application to the Appeal Court would rely on the same arguments that the legal teams had used to try to derail the rape trial.
They will argue at greater length that the trial should not have gone ahead, and that the conviction is unsafe.
In the event that they were successful, the Appeal Court could uphold the rape conviction, quash it, or order a retrial.
But a retrial is considered unlikely because the Crown Prosecution Service would be reluctant to ask the little girl to repeat her ordeal in the witness box.
Children's charities have already criticised the fact that the youngster was subjected to 45 minutes of cross-examination during the trial.
Defence lawyers for Baby Peter's mother and her boyfriend had argued before the case that the pair could not receive a fair trial because of their notoriety over his torture and death.
Peter was found dead in his blood-spattered cot on August 3, 2007.
Baby Peter was found dead with horrendous injuries including eight broken ribs and a snapped spine
Eight of his ribs had been broken, his spine was snapped and one of his teeth had been knocked out with such force that it was found in his stomach.
The defence lawyers said the couple were so infamous that any jury would be biased against them, and argued that therefore the prosecution should be dropped.
Lawyers said that the pair, who were not identified by newspapers or broadcasters, had been 'named and shamed' on the internet, and called on the Attorney General to investigate the cyber hate campaign.
They said the only evidence against the couple was the testimony of the girl, captured on a police video when she was three years old, and given in the courtroom two weeks ago, when she was four.
Before she gave her evidence, defence lawyers said she was too young to remember her horrific ordeal or to be able to communicate it to a jury.
They said her police video should not be shown to the court because officers interviewing the child had effectively put words into her mouth by asking leading questions.
But trial judge Stephen Kramer, QC, ruled against them and the girl went on to give evidence via a video-link.
She told the jury: 'It was not nice what he did. He hurt me. It hurt all day.'
The judge and barristers listen to the girl as she gives evidence at the trial
The defence then argued that her evidence was flawed because they had been unable to cross-examine her properly.
The girl was subjected to cross- examination by two highly trained defence lawyers, which has triggered a storm of protest from children's groups who questioned why she was subjected to such an ordeal.
In court, Bernard Richmond, QC, defending Peter's stepfather-said the girl was ' incompetent' to give evidence.
The majority of his questions to the frightened four-year-old were met with silence.
He said: 'It is our submission that her evidence, on which the Crown's case stands or falls, is beset by inherent weaknesses, vagueness, inconsistency and contradiction such that a jury, properly directed, could not properly convict on the available evidence in this case.'
He added: 'At any time where she was either asked to give detail or even to say in evidence what happened, she was unable to do so.
As a consequence the reality is that any proper examination of what happened, beyond mere yes or no questions, is reduced to an exercise of such simplicity that it becomes unfair.
'There comes a point where, with respect, one bends over far too far for a child witness to get a fair trial.'
His criticisms were denied by the prosecution, who said that the girl had been confused by the complex questions posed by the defence lawyers.
Judge Kramer ruled that the girl was competent to be a witness, and that there was enough evidence for the prosecution to continue.
Mr Richmond then called no evidence on behalf of Peter's stepfather, but suggested to the jury that the girl had made up the rape to get attention.
He said: 'You have got to look at her, not with those cute, vulnerable, rose-coloured spectacles that you use in everyday life, but with the harsh glare that you use as a jury.'
Baby Peter's stepfather was convicted by a majority verdict, with ten of the 12 jurors finding that he was guilty of the brutal rape.
His girlfriend, Peter's mother, was found not guilty of cruelty in relation to the rape.
Lawyers for Baby Peter's stepfather were last night unavailable for comment.
What i find odd in all of this, is that baby P's mother was found not guilty of cruelty to the little girl because when she walked in and saw him him on top of the girl, she said 'Don't do that' and then left the room. They are arguing now about the childs evidence but surely the mother of baby P's account was taken into consideration by the jury also?
The thug responsible for the death of Baby P is set to use human rights legislation to appeal over his conviction for raping a two-year-old girl.
Lawyers for the sadistic brute made eight separate attempts to have his rape trial thrown out at the Old Bailey.
Now they are expected to take the case to the Appeal Court, arguing that his victim, now four, was too young and 'incompetent' to give evidence.
And they will claim that the 32-year-old's right to a fair trial, set out in Article Six of the Human Rights Act, was breached.
The news came as it also emerged that:
The mother of Baby Peter, as he can now be known, could be released from prison as early as next year.
The council involved in the Baby P scandal was accused of hiding evidence that could have saved his life.
And that the rape victim, who is now four, will be given anonymity for life to protect her.
Baby Peter's stepfather was convicted of her rape last week, after his victim became one of the youngest ever to give evidence against her attacker.
The little girl's shocking testimony was at the centre of the trial, and she was forced to endure cross- examination so severe that she called the room where she gave her evidence the 'evil room'.
The little girl who was raped by Baby P's killer gave evidence to the court by a video link
Her rapist's defence team is now considered 'certain' to launch an appeal against that conviction, a legal source revealed.
The source said: 'They consider the verdict to be almost inconsequential. They intend to take the case straight to the Court of Appeal.'
More...Public anger as Baby P's mother could be out of prison by next year as guilty plea means sentence is cut by a third
How Haringey council chiefs could have saved Baby P's life but kept vital information from police
MELANIE PHILLIPS: Child victims SHOULD have a voice in court but the grilling of the Baby P rape girl was an unnecessary abuse
Any application to the Appeal Court would rely on the same arguments that the legal teams had used to try to derail the rape trial.
They will argue at greater length that the trial should not have gone ahead, and that the conviction is unsafe.
In the event that they were successful, the Appeal Court could uphold the rape conviction, quash it, or order a retrial.
But a retrial is considered unlikely because the Crown Prosecution Service would be reluctant to ask the little girl to repeat her ordeal in the witness box.
Children's charities have already criticised the fact that the youngster was subjected to 45 minutes of cross-examination during the trial.
Defence lawyers for Baby Peter's mother and her boyfriend had argued before the case that the pair could not receive a fair trial because of their notoriety over his torture and death.
Peter was found dead in his blood-spattered cot on August 3, 2007.
Baby Peter was found dead with horrendous injuries including eight broken ribs and a snapped spine
Eight of his ribs had been broken, his spine was snapped and one of his teeth had been knocked out with such force that it was found in his stomach.
The defence lawyers said the couple were so infamous that any jury would be biased against them, and argued that therefore the prosecution should be dropped.
Lawyers said that the pair, who were not identified by newspapers or broadcasters, had been 'named and shamed' on the internet, and called on the Attorney General to investigate the cyber hate campaign.
They said the only evidence against the couple was the testimony of the girl, captured on a police video when she was three years old, and given in the courtroom two weeks ago, when she was four.
Before she gave her evidence, defence lawyers said she was too young to remember her horrific ordeal or to be able to communicate it to a jury.
They said her police video should not be shown to the court because officers interviewing the child had effectively put words into her mouth by asking leading questions.
But trial judge Stephen Kramer, QC, ruled against them and the girl went on to give evidence via a video-link.
She told the jury: 'It was not nice what he did. He hurt me. It hurt all day.'
The judge and barristers listen to the girl as she gives evidence at the trial
The defence then argued that her evidence was flawed because they had been unable to cross-examine her properly.
The girl was subjected to cross- examination by two highly trained defence lawyers, which has triggered a storm of protest from children's groups who questioned why she was subjected to such an ordeal.
In court, Bernard Richmond, QC, defending Peter's stepfather-said the girl was ' incompetent' to give evidence.
The majority of his questions to the frightened four-year-old were met with silence.
He said: 'It is our submission that her evidence, on which the Crown's case stands or falls, is beset by inherent weaknesses, vagueness, inconsistency and contradiction such that a jury, properly directed, could not properly convict on the available evidence in this case.'
He added: 'At any time where she was either asked to give detail or even to say in evidence what happened, she was unable to do so.
As a consequence the reality is that any proper examination of what happened, beyond mere yes or no questions, is reduced to an exercise of such simplicity that it becomes unfair.
'There comes a point where, with respect, one bends over far too far for a child witness to get a fair trial.'
His criticisms were denied by the prosecution, who said that the girl had been confused by the complex questions posed by the defence lawyers.
Judge Kramer ruled that the girl was competent to be a witness, and that there was enough evidence for the prosecution to continue.
Mr Richmond then called no evidence on behalf of Peter's stepfather, but suggested to the jury that the girl had made up the rape to get attention.
He said: 'You have got to look at her, not with those cute, vulnerable, rose-coloured spectacles that you use in everyday life, but with the harsh glare that you use as a jury.'
Baby Peter's stepfather was convicted by a majority verdict, with ten of the 12 jurors finding that he was guilty of the brutal rape.
His girlfriend, Peter's mother, was found not guilty of cruelty in relation to the rape.
Lawyers for Baby Peter's stepfather were last night unavailable for comment.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
dabunnywendy7;1183582 wrote: oh my!!! I am so sickened by this. People who were terrible criminals were sent to a desolate area in australia ( which i hear is a beautiful country. No offense intended!) the were left alone with each other to try to survive on their own. Perhaps we should build an asylum where the heinous child abusers are left to try to raise their own food ,ect. I feel they never are cured of their despicable desire to harm little ones!!!
bunny we dont want them here now,and we do have a beautiful country.how the hell is this allowed that their names are kept a secret so that they can have a fair trial omg i cant beleive that,and he may only get 14 years wot's wrong with the system i thought it was suposed to protect the innocent not the bloody crims.this makes me so angry it happens all the time wen are these so called judges going to get it right.i would cut his dick of and shove it down his throut till it chocked him.
bunny we dont want them here now,and we do have a beautiful country.how the hell is this allowed that their names are kept a secret so that they can have a fair trial omg i cant beleive that,and he may only get 14 years wot's wrong with the system i thought it was suposed to protect the innocent not the bloody crims.this makes me so angry it happens all the time wen are these so called judges going to get it right.i would cut his dick of and shove it down his throut till it chocked him.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Ally;1183761 wrote: bunny we dont want them here now,and we do have a beautiful country.how the hell is this allowed that their names are kept a secret so that they can have a fair trial omg i cant beleive that,and he may only get 14 years wot's wrong with the system i thought it was suposed to protect the innocent not the bloody crims.this makes me so angry it happens all the time wen are these so called judges going to get it right.i would cut his dick of and shove it down his throut till it chocked him.
Exactly...see how he likes it.
Exactly...see how he likes it.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Ally;1183761 wrote: bunny we dont want them here now,and we do have a beautiful country.how the hell is this allowed that their names are kept a secret so that they can have a fair trial omg i cant beleive that,and he may only get 14 years wot's wrong with the system i thought it was suposed to protect the innocent not the bloody crims.this makes me so angry it happens all the time wen are these so called judges going to get it right.i would cut his dick of and shove it down his throut till it chocked him.
14 years for killing a baby and raping another? That is a disgusting sentence, he should be getting death along with that sorry excuse for a mother who allowed it to happen.
:mad:
14 years for killing a baby and raping another? That is a disgusting sentence, he should be getting death along with that sorry excuse for a mother who allowed it to happen.
:mad:Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
tracy829;1190507 wrote: 14 years for killing a baby and raping another? That is a disgusting sentence, he should be getting death along with that sorry excuse for a mother who allowed it to happen.:mad:
The mother has just said how upset she is about what happened to her Baby Peter bla bla bla.............abit bleedin late now..the cow... was it cause shes about to be sentenced.
:mad:The mother has just said how upset she is about what happened to her Baby Peter bla bla bla.............abit bleedin late now..the cow... was it cause shes about to be sentenced.
Women are bitchy and predictable ...men are not and that's the key to knowing the truth.
Baby of 2 is Raped by Baby Peters Killer.
Does anyone know why they dont release the adults names? I can understand keeping minor's protected but these two "adults" were convicted of crimes and I think we have a right to know who they are, mainly so someone in prison can kick the sh*t outta them on a daily basis.