Man admits to murder but is found not guilty

[Rockfan]

When I say rights violated I don't mean by beating a confession out of him any way here goes the rant.

Some guy here (NZ) murdered someone and in his trial pled not guilty but some how, I'm not sure of the details, he admited he done it, but when it was recored he didn't know it was being recorded or something and it violated his rights so he still got found not guilty. I say fuck the rights, the admited it, chuck him in jail, what do you rekon?

P.S. I put this here so everyone cound have a say but if mods think it should be moved fair enough.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:18 AM
When I say rights violated I don't mean by beating a confession out of him any way here goes the rant.

Some guy here (NZ) murdered someone and in his trial pled not guilty but some how, I'm not sure of the details, he admited he done it, but when it was recored he didn't know it was being recorded or something and it violated his rights so he still got found not guilty. I say fuck the rights, the admited it, chuck him in jail, what do you rekon?

P.S. I put this here so everyone cound have a say but if mods think it should be moved fair enough.
This is what leftist attorneys have done to common sense.

It's absolutely mind blowing, isn't it?

[which doctor]

Shit like this happens all the time. This person knows that he was very close, and almost got caught. I expect that this person won't try to kill anyone anytime soon. I do however believe that all rights should be respected regardless.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 28 2005, 01:25 AM--> (Emperor Sam @ Dec 28 2005, 01:25 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 01:18 AM
When I say rights violated I don't mean by beating a confession out of him any way here goes the rant.

Some guy here (NZ) murdered someone and in his trial pled not guilty but some how, I'm not sure of the details, he admited he done it, but when it was recored he didn't know it was being recorded or something and it violated his rights so he still got found not guilty. I say fuck the rights, the admited it, chuck him in jail, what do you rekon?

P.S. I put this here so everyone cound have a say but if mods think it should be moved fair enough.
This is what leftist attorneys have done to common sense.

It's absolutely mind blowing, isn't it? [/b]
I think any decent attorney would do this, it is thier job.

If the piggies want to throw somone in jail they better follow the rules, personally i have no problem with this.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Dec 28 2005, 01:47 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Dec 28 2005, 01:47 AM)
Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 28 2005, 01:25 AM

[email protected] 28 2005, 01:18 AM
When I say rights violated I don't mean by beating a confession out of him any way here goes the rant.

Some guy here (NZ) murdered someone and in his trial pled not guilty but some how, I'm not sure of the details, he admited he done it, but when it was recored he didn't know it was being recorded or something and it violated his rights so he still got found not guilty. I say fuck the rights, the admited it, chuck him in jail, what do you rekon?

P.S. I put this here so everyone cound have a say but if mods think it should be moved fair enough.
This is what leftist attorneys have done to common sense.

It's absolutely mind blowing, isn't it?
I think any decent attorney would do this, it is thier job.

If the piggies want to throw somone in jail they better follow the rules, personally i have no problem with this. [/b]
You have no problem with an admitted killer going free on a technicality?

Ahh, the incredible common sense of the left.

I wonder how you would feel if this scumbag killed one of your loved ones next.

[Delirium]

This has nothing to do with leftists, no matter how much you claim it does. This has to do with my personal hatred for the establishment. If you want to play games, how do you feel about the systematic murder that is war?

[which doctor]

It also has to do with respecting others rights. If you let this one go, then what will happen? Other peoples rights won't be respected. In capitalism we have few rights, but I still want to uphold them.

[Rockfan]

You can talk all you like about how it's leftists that have done this but they are center left PC libirals. I guess your right FoB but a confessions a confession.

[Zangetsu]

People are punished for crossing boundaries in society, not respecting other peoples rights, ie. Killing someone, not respecting their right to life. The right to a fair trail is another such right that exists in most societies. If his confession was illegaly obtained then it shouldnt be used in his trial, that doesnt give him immunity to the charge, it simply means that other evidence, if it is avialable will furfil the burden of proof or the prosecusion will simply fail. If it was easier to get people locked up, then MORE innocent people would be found guilty of crimes they didnt actualy commit. A "technicality" is also a word some people use for 'principles that should be applied when dealing with any accused member of society', would you like us to remove those principles? Would it really be worth a better conviction rate?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:18 AM
I say fuck the rights, the admited it, chuck him in jail, what do you rekon?
This, my friend, is the rationale behind systematical use of torture by police.

Let's quote Nikolai Ivanovitch Bukharin:


I plead guilty of all the crimes attributed to me, regardless of having committed them, regardless of even having known about them.

Luís Henrique

[Counter-Insurgent]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 28 2005, 02:08 AM
This has nothing to do with leftists, no matter how much you claim it does. This has to do with my personal hatred for the establishment. If you want to play games, how do you feel about the systematic murder that is war?
By not answering my question it is you who are playing games. Answer the question.

[Rockfan]

Ok fair enough but the thing is hes still out there, and he done it thats what bugs me.

[VonClausewitz]

I think it's pathetic. Political correctness and all this human rights crap has no place in law (aswell as it having no place in many other large public institutions), and should not be allowed to be used to free murderers and other assorted scum. If the man admitted he committed murder, then he should be locked up, regardless of whether or not he knew his confession was being recorded.

He might have been, after all, one of those smartarses that takes the 'right to remain silent' to the nth degree. I say welldone and lock him up.

[Xvall]

You have no problem with an admitted killer going free on a technicality?

Not really, in this case. I woudn't be to horrified if he was dead, but it really doesn't matter. I doubt he's going to do it again, so it's not like imprisonment is necessary to prevent him from committing future crimes. At this point the punishment serves no practical material purpose; it's all just for show, because we want to make society look tough on crime, or whatever.

[ComradeOm]

Surprisingly enough I find myself agreeing, to a degree, with VonClausewitz. I for one do have a problem with someone who admitted his guilt going free. I know the whole slippery slope argument about infringing rights, but isn't the entire point of the justice system to arrest and sentence the guilty?

In this case its mindboggling that the man should be freed simply because he didn't know he was being recorded.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This doesn't make sense.

The only way it could be true is if he originally confessed, but the confession was taken in a way which was illegal; and then he later recanted his confession.

Because if he confessed, but the confession was thrown out, he could then just confess again to the court! You may ask "why would he do that?", and the answer would be "the same reason he confessed the first time!"

There are rules on how confessions can be extracted for a reason. Obviously people can be made to give confessions of things they haven't done under specific circumstances.

[VonClausewitz]

There are rules on how confessions can be extracted for a reason. Obviously people can be made to give confessions of things they haven't done under specific circumstances.

He wasn't tortured or anything, just unaware of police recording. Why would he admit it to a police officer anyway ? It's not the general topic of conversation one would usually take up with a police officer.

[Rockfan]

I think he was recorded with out knowing but in not entirly sure, I just heard it on the radio. This has got me caught up, I don't like the idea of infiringing on peoples rights, but if you kill someone you should be punished.

[TeamAmerica]

There is no excuse for this, and anyone who is satisfied with the outcome would benefit from close introspection as to how much common sense and rationality they possess.

[deak]

First off, this is a completely pointless thread being that we have absolutly no information about "some guy" in NZ. I'm sorry but without any information about this case it is completely pointless to even talk about this shit. However I will say just one thing, confessions alone cannot convict a person (although I admit ignorance to NZ's judicial system). Confessions are merely ONE piece of evidence in a trial. People have been found to confess to things they have not done many many times, just as people don't confess to crimes they have done many, many times. Physical evidence always weighs heavier. Furthermore, there are necessary rules that regulate the activities of cops, and if they actually followed them instead of feeling that they can act in any way they wish, then things like this wouldn't happen. If this man does kill someone else, the burdon lies on the shoulders of police officers who believe that the law does not apply to them. If a saftey inspector for Ford allows a line of cars to be manufactured with faulty saftey belts then the responsibility doesn't lie on the worker who made the car or even the man driving the car, but the ones in charge who were responsible for following the proper procedures. Your police failed you by not following the rules and therefore allowing someone supposedly guilty to go free, not the judge or jury or liberals or whatever boogyman you want to blame. If you a person who truly believes in the justice of your system, then you should understand the importance of presidence and procedure, and that by allowing inconsitancies, and allowances for the disregard of procedures that are in place to protect the impartiality and concistancy of a judicial system, you completely negate any claims of having a workable and credible judicial system (not that I could give a wit about the occidental view of "justice" but that is a matter for a different, and possibly more productive, debate). Sorry, but THAT my friend IS common sense.

Please, next time provide an article.

[Loknar]

Do some of you see what you are saying? That he doesnt need to be locked up because he wont do it again.

Does it matter? A human life cant be replaced. The worst thing done here is letting this man off.

And btw, what if he does kill again? It is in the interest of all society that he should be locked up so he doesnt do this again. As with releasing sex offenders, it is not worth the risk.

[TeamAmerica]

Well, by this logic, the US should noit be held accountable for making a mistake on WMD intelligence.

They won't do it again.

[deak]

Do some of you see what you are saying? That he doesnt need to be locked up because he wont do it again.

Does it matter? A human life cant be replaced. The worst thing done here is letting this man off.


well does locking him up replace the human life? so by the same argument you could easily say that locking him up does nothing. it punishes him yes, and so maybe that is good enough for you, however I tend to believe that to dissregard all the IMPORTANT aspects of law like due process and impartiality is a much more dangerous thing than having a murderer (or a SUPOSED murder) out on the streets. It's not a matter of who this guy is, it's a matter of having a judicial system that doesn't just make up the rules as it goes along or have police that feel they can disregard this procedure or law because it's not convenient. If you were arrested for something you did not do, you would EXPECT that the police would follow the procedures and not change shit just because they felt like the law was getting in their way of a conviction, so I would expect the same for someone even if he admitted he did the crime. You cannot have it both ways. Is it fair in this case, possibly not, but again, as I said before, confessions are not the end all of proof. Again, I'm not aware how it works in NZ, but even if a confession gets thrown out of court, if there is enough physical evidence to back up a conviction then he would have been convicted (which is why i wonder if this thread wasn't spun from the get go). However, if a case is resting soley on a confession, then it will be difficult to prove guilt ESPECIALLY if there is a hint that anything shady is going on. This is COMMON SENCE! Western law theory is based on common sence and burdens of proof and science, not on emotion or whether you think something is horrible or not. This is why the burden of this falls on the police for not acting within the proper protecal. So if you want to be pissed off, yell at the police for abusing their athourity time and time again.

The other miraculous thing is that I'm sitting here defending western judicial process, but it seems to me that even a flawed system such as is in place is still better than a process that would be controlled simply on emotion and inconcistancies as some people seem to be promoting.

[Morpheus]

This is not a credible story because there are no sources. Either post some evidence that this actually took place, or stop spreading rumors.

[Rockfan]

Fuck I went and looked for an artical yesterday but I couldn't find one on stuff.co.nz, I dpn't no where to look for it, I whould give an artical if I could, still the point isn't really what happened or anything it's that he litrally got away with murder but I see where your coming from.

[ricardsju]

The New Zeland police are very well known to convict the wrong person then not bothered to convict the real person after everything has come out. The goverment also plays it hand at this by encouraging the media and others not to hurt the morale of the police.

(The Goverment is mostly made up of Labour Party a member of socialist international, sadly they are becoming more of a liberal democrat than a social democrat party)

--------------------------------------------------

Kaitaia woman Judith Garrett says her faith in the justice system has been "blown away" by the not-guilty verdict for the man charged with murdering her daughter, Katherine Sheffield.
A day after a jury found him not guilty of killing Ms Sheffield at Mangonui in September, 1994, Noel Clement Rogers was once again behind bars.
"I was really cheered up by that," said Mrs Garrett, who was stunned by Friday's verdict.
Rogers, 32, was to appear in Auckland District Court today charged with assaulting four police officers, breaching the peace, disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest at a house in St Heliers, Auckland, on Saturday.
Mrs Garrett said any ideas she had that Rogers would behave "sensibly" after the trial had now been "trashed".
"I hope he goes on being really stupid and spends the rest of his life in prison," she said.
Rogers was charged with the 23-year-old's murder after a conviction against his uncle, Lawrence Lloyd, for her manslaughter was quashed.

> source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3509377a12855,00.html) <
plus more indepth info

---------------

Television New Zealand has been blocked by the High Court from airing a police video of Noel Rogers apparently confessing to killing Katherine Sheffield.
Rogers was acquitted of Ms Sheffield&#39;s 1994 murder amid emotional scenes in the High Court at Auckland on Friday night.
Now he is battling TVNZ to stop its Sunday programme airing the video confession, which the jury who found him not guilty never saw.
The Court of Appeal ruled in October police had breached Rogers&#39; Bill of Rights by filming it, namely his right to silence and right to legal counsel.
This afternoon Justice Helen Winkelmann granted an interim injunction against TVNZ, stopping it airing the video tonight. Lawyers will head back to court on Thursday to argue the case again.
Rogers is back in custody, arrested just 12 hours after his acquittal.
An alleged dispute between him and family members at a St Heliers house early Saturday morning allegedly culminated in him spitting blood at police.
He will appear in court tomorrow charged with assaulting four police offices, breaching the peace, disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest.
Ms Sheffield&#39;s case has now seen two men charged with killing the 23-year-old in Mangonui in September 1994, but neither legally identified as her killer.
In 1995 Rogers&#39; uncle Lawrence Lloyd was convicted of her manslaughter and spent seven years in prison.
His conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal last year on the basis police thought Rogers was the killer.

> sourse (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3508715a12855,00.html) <
plus more indepth info

[Rockfan]

Thanks man, are you from New Zealand.

[ricardsju]

nah no worrys, we desperately need more outside socialist/communist/anarchist
analysis on our so called socialist government and their policies,anyway I live near CHCH.

[Rockfan]

Yeah true but well theres just not that many of us here., I&#39;m from Rotorua, I&#39;m going to CHCH for a week on the 8th, are there many comrades down there that you know of cos theres none here lol.

[pedro san pedro]

i thought that you lived in dunedin?

i feel tht, as far as police forces go, new zealand has some of the best. i would never ever consider offering a new zealand police officer a bribe and have found them to be really good in protest situations when compared to other those of other countries

[ricardsju]

pedro san pedro

They are just really thugs in uniform, they would get away with a lot more if they had guns. plus no one likes them anymore, they once were a real part of each community.

UMR research published in the Sunday Star Times showed that just 59 per cent of those surveyed felt the police were doing "a good job" – down from 78 per cent in 1996.

> source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3528422a10,00.html) < tho its being pushed by the Natas so its only 85% correct.

-----------------------------------------
Rockfan

Sorry this turned into a very off topic rant about chch instead of a reply:

I have meet a few Stalinists here in CHCH, they seem to be over obsessive about the maori party liking it to the national front. One Stalinist told me that given any power he become a tyrant himself so I have kept out of joining anything not wanting to be near them. The national front is emigrating from the SI west coast to CHCH like crazy, they wear NF tops in the outer (low income but mostly white) suburbs without anything being said. But once in the inter-city, the little hoods(ganstsa wantabes) will say something then mostly run away.

I have talked to the hoods here. They do think along the same lines as us but on a much more meeker track. As they will not believe that their culture is being easily imposed on them to become criminals for the capitalist elite to use to scare the bourgeoisie into fear and hiding in their excessive and expensive gated community on the edge of chch. So that the bourgeoisie now become segregated from the rest of society and therefore they believe (and support with money) anything that the new zealand or canadian ( or US if anyone watchs primetv) government controlled media are told to push in support of.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 27 2005, 09:08 PM--> (Emperor Sam &#064; Dec 27 2005, 09:08 PM)You have no problem with an admitted killer going free on a technicality?[/b]

Oh, shut up, you whiny rightwing hypocrite&#33; People like us don&#39;t write the laws; people like you do. You would think that, given this fact, you would try to uphold them. But no&#33; The "rule of law" only applies when the law is in your favor. If not, then fuck it, right?


Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 09:08 PM
Ahh, the incredible common sense of the left.

Hey, somebody has to inject some common sense into this whiny screed of yours.


Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 09:08 PM
I wonder how you would feel if this scumbag killed one of your loved ones next.

I would feel that it is especially necessary to carry out every aspect of the investigation and prosecution according to the rule of law, in order to avoid something like this happening.

Miles

[BuyOurEverything]

Well, the details of this case have not been given, so I can&#39;t really give my personal opinion, however:


This is what leftist attorneys have done to common sense.

No, it&#39;s called an adversarial justice system buddy. Don&#39;t like it? Move to Iran.

Also, confessions are notoriously inaccurate. Any first year psychology student can tell you that you can get a huge percentage of people to admit to crimes they had nothing to do with using legal standard procedure police interrogation techniques. Moralize all you want, it&#39;s fact, confessions are a poor judge of guilt or innocence.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 4 2006, 08:33 PM
i thought that you lived in dunedin?


Haha na me and Lena were pritty long distance, but were just mates now.

Stalinists in CHCH, I had this idea that there were quite a few punks and hippies who were quite far left, I new about the national front, I was down there for the under 15 national rugby tortament and we were out one night, got on a bus (of course being a rugby team there were lots of Polys and Moari&#39;s), and there was the woman saying she&#39;d get people on to us and she had a swastika tat, it was fucked up.

[Ian]

You should have yelled at her a bit, stolen her belongings

[pedro san pedro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:02 PM


They are just really thugs in uniform, they would get away with a lot more if they had guns. plus no one likes them anymore, they once were a real part of each community.

UMR research published in the Sunday Star Times showed that just 59 per cent of those surveyed felt the police were doing "a good job" – down from 78 per cent in 1996.

> source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3528422a10,00.html) < tho its being pushed by the Natas so its only 85% correct.


my point was that they are a dman sight better than most police forces

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:09 PM
You should have yelled at her a bit, stolen her belongings
Yeah if I wanted to get throwen off the tour?&#33;?