Renton 17745 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Surprised Rob hasn't posted this yet. Naturally, if it is him, I hope he gets life, although I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is for this type of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I think he'll get off - it was 20+ years ago and there is a statute of limitations on all crimes of ?7? years on just about everything but Treason and murder..... A spell in the stocks might be a good idea - he must be a complete idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I can actually remeber hearing the tape on the news all those years ago. It caused quite a furore up here at the time as you can imagine. I bet the sick c*nt thought he'd got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 from the beeb:- "while West Yorkshire Police were chasing the scent of a Wearside suspect, the real Ripper was free to carry on his chilling campaign - murdering three more women. Mr Oldfield never recovered from what he regarded as a humiliation. He took early retirement and died in Wakefield in 1985, at the age of 61. Although he was never the subject of a massive manhunt in the wake of the case, the hoaxer was blamed for altering the course of the Ripper inquiry to devastating effect. He also left police with a £1m bill for the publicity drive, which included billboard and national newspaper adverts. Yet any efforts to catch "Wearside Jack" were officially abandoned in September 2003, with police saying they would be unable to prosecute any suspect because of the time that had elapsed. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 So he may have got away with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17745 Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 from the beeb:- "while West Yorkshire Police were chasing the scent of a Wearside suspect, the real Ripper was free to carry on his chilling campaign - murdering three more women. Mr Oldfield never recovered from what he regarded as a humiliation. He took early retirement and died in Wakefield in 1985, at the age of 61. Although he was never the subject of a massive manhunt in the wake of the case, the hoaxer was blamed for altering the course of the Ripper inquiry to devastating effect. He also left police with a £1m bill for the publicity drive, which included billboard and national newspaper adverts. Yet any efforts to catch "Wearside Jack" were officially abandoned in September 2003, with police saying they would be unable to prosecute any suspect because of the time that had elapsed. " 47209[/snapback] Incredible. What a stupid law, can someone explain to me the justification for it? If he did it, he did it. Also, I don't understand how this tallies with the fact he has been arrested, or with Ronnie Biggs for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 (edited) partly its due to the fact that its almost impossible to have all the evidence you would have if it happened last month - people shred documents, their memories go or change.......... so a "fair" trial is very difficult also the police have better things to do like chasing current crime rather than something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away the arrest - I don't know - but it may be to do withe fact the coppers announced they'd "Lost" the evidence this summer - maybe someone else totaly............ or he was stupid enough to brag. An arrest is not a Guilty verdict (whatever anyone on here thinks) - a decent lawyer will have him out in no time I suspect but it allows the coppers to say they've closed the case Briggs was on the run - he'd been tried and escaped from prison -so he still had his time to do - totally different Edited October 19, 2005 by Rob W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Surprised Rob hasn't posted this yet. Naturally, if it is him, I hope he gets life, although I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is for this type of thing. 47206[/snapback] Perverting the course of justice is the charge I think. Not sure what the punishment is for that type of crime. Echoing the sentiments above, I bet he thought he'd got away with it, sick fucker. I can remember posters on the buses showing his handwriting incase anyone recognised it (back when buses were yellow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Surprised Rob hasn't posted this yet. Naturally, if it is him, I hope he gets life, although I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is for this type of thing. 47206[/snapback] Perverting the course of justice is the charge I think. Not sure what the punishment is for that type of crime. Echoing the sentiments above, I bet he thought he'd got away with it, sick fucker. I can remember posters on the buses showing his handwriting incase anyone recognised it (back when buses were yellow). 47286[/snapback] as far as I understand only murder and treason are limitless so he will get off - there is a possibility of a Section 32 claim under the Limitataion Act 1980 but it's very dodgy ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaser 1054 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 You a Barrister or Solicitor Rob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 no - a prisoner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3977 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I've read that the original letters have been destroyed by the "primitive" testing available at the time but they do have some envelopes which are still pristine which could be used for modern DNA based testing. As an aside I remember it as one of the first "official" acknowledgments that people from Sunderland weren't Geordies or at least spoke very differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaser 1054 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 no - a prisoner 47409[/snapback] in what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 no - a prisoner 47409[/snapback] in what way? 47422[/snapback] In his own tiny mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 So if it is too late to charge him will his identity be revealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toplass-101 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 They have named him, 49 year old John Humble. On the news tonight, they also said that after the police received the tapes, Peter Sutcliffe was questioned 3 times by the police, but was released as he didn't have a North East accent and a 3 further women were murdered. I hope they can lock him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 there is a possibility that he could be done for manslaughter (although it would probably be involuntary manslaughter). At the end of the day his actions were at least partly responsible for the deaths of between 1 and 3 women. The hard part I suppose would be proving how many (if any) of those three would have survived if he hadnt done what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 no - a prisoner 47409[/snapback] in what way? 47422[/snapback] In his own tiny mind 47426[/snapback] "brain the size of a universe and all they can ask me to do is ....ouch! ouch!! ouch!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 there is a possibility that he could be done for manslaughter (although it would probably be involuntary manslaughter). At the end of the day his actions were at least partly responsible for the deaths of between 1 and 3 women. The hard part I suppose would be proving how many (if any) of those three would have survived if he hadnt done what he did. 47448[/snapback] He wasn't there and he can argue that he wasn't in charge of the police investigation - won't wash - if those bastards at Railtrack can get off HE won't face a manslaughter charge And trying to bang him up for "wasting police time" 26 years ago??? No its "name and shame time" only I'm afriad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17745 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Pleaded guilty I see. Hope he gets at least 10 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4825002.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 is he going to do it again? is he a danger to the public? Fine him £ 20,000 and bind him over for good behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17745 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 is he going to do it again? is he a danger to the public? Fine him £ 20,000 and bind him over for good behaviour 108324[/snapback] His actions potentially cost lives, and certainly cost probably millions of pounds of taxpayers money. Punishment is part of the function of the penal system, as is deterrent. Not the sole function, but an important aspect. The fact it happened over 20 years ago does not make his actions any less despicable. In fact, the fact he never came forward and to this day has continued wasting tax payers money makes it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I agree with Renton but I thought Rob might just be trying to wind-up Leazes tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 His actions potentially cost lives, and certainly cost probably millions of pounds of taxpayers money. Punishment is part of the function of the penal system, as is deterrent. Not the sole function, but an important aspect. The fact it happened over 20 years ago does not make his actions any less despicable. In fact, the fact he never came forward and to this day has continued wasting tax payers money makes it worse. 108333[/snapback] Is justice about crime prevention or exacting revenge, though? If putting him away serves no preventative purpose then it's blatantly vengeance and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17745 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 His actions potentially cost lives, and certainly cost probably millions of pounds of taxpayers money. Punishment is part of the function of the penal system, as is deterrent. Not the sole function, but an important aspect. The fact it happened over 20 years ago does not make his actions any less despicable. In fact, the fact he never came forward and to this day has continued wasting tax payers money makes it worse. 108333[/snapback] Is justice about crime prevention or exacting revenge, though? If putting him away serves no preventative purpose then it's blatantly vengeance and nothing more. 108337[/snapback] Well not locking him away would say volumes to would-be hoaxers, wouldn't it? Without getting too philosphical about crime, order and jurisprudence, I believe people should pay for their crimes, yes. Usually this has the added bonus of deterrence and allows for rehabilitation. If this man is truely repentful for what he has done, he should welcome the sentence tbh. Btw, to put this into perspective, one of my mates once got done for setting a fire alarm off during a school exam. He got 2 years in a young offenders institution. On the basis of that, this hoaxer would die in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now