Jump to content

Killer released


LeazesMag
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 years is a long time to be behind bars - on the other hand it sounds a bloody dreadful crime - what was his defence? Was he on drink or drugs???

 

TBH Leazes I'd want to know a lot more about this guy before letting him out............. at 53 he still has real potential for harm if they get it wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to comment on this one Leazes / Rob?

 

Appeal as drug dealer walks free

Prosecutors are considering an appeal against a decision to spare a drug dealer prison because jails were full.

 

Thomas Scarth, 19, of Redcar, received 100 hours community service and a 12-month suspended sentence, after being found with 83 wraps of heroin.

 

He was freed at Teesside Crown Court by Judge Guy Whitburn who blamed "overflowing" jails for the sentence.

 

Cleveland's Chief Crown Prosecutor Martin Goldman said Scarth should have been sent to jail.

 

He said: "The number of cases that are actually referred to the Court of Appeal are very low and sentences have to be very wide of the mark before they are referred.

 

"So there are certainly no guarantees, but our barrister believes this case should have attracted custody and that is why we are looking into it."

 

Scarth, of Roseberry Road, Redcar, pleaded guilty to possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply.

 

Sentencing him, Judge Whitburn said judges were advised not to jail people for relatively minor offences to help overcrowding in prisons.

 

He said: "Prisons are full to overflowing. You are a young man and we are urged not to imprison young men for offences of this nature if they are of a comparatively minor scale."

 

But Teesside senior Judge Peter Fox condemned the remark and said judges were not advised to take the prison populations into account.

 

He said: "I stress, the prisons are not full and that is not a consideration for any judge when passing sentence.

 

"Can I also make it very plain, that there has been no such communication or direction either from any official in government of senior member of the judiciary, to any judges like myself or Judge Whitburn to take the prison population into consideration. "

 

Judge Whitburn declined to comment on the case.

 

So the jails aren't full and even the little scroats brief expected him to be banged up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the name of God goes on in the heads of these people? What part of their brain actually allows them to carry out physical actions resulting in the murder of a 4 year-old, a 2-year old, and a 9 month-old baby and then impale them on railings? It's just incomprehensible. Utterly, utterly unfathomable. He should be kept locked up and tortured every single day for the rest of his life.

Edited by catmag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's a little distateful but I'm curious as to the impaling on railings thing. Did he impale them on separate railings or was it kebab style? Either way it's an unusually disturbing detail and I'm amazed he's even been considered for release albeit it was over thirty years ago. I'm sure it'll take considerable police resources to stop someone tracking him down and doing something equally disturbing to him. Perhaps coating him in flour and water and dipping him head-first into a man sized vat of boiling chip fat would be too good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the name of God goes on in the heads of these people?  What part of their brain actually allows them to carry out physical actions resulting in the murder of a 4 year-old, a 2-year old, and a 9 month-old baby and then impale them on railings?  It's just incomprehensible. Utterly, utterly unfathomable. He should be kept locked up and tortured every single day for the rest of his life.

75995[/snapback]

 

now catmag....as i've always advocated gruesome punishments for gruesome crimes, no remission, life for a life, or life means life, and been continuallty slaughtered for it ... i can't decide if you are taking the piss or not :lol:

Edited by LeazesMag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty conviced she's deadly serious - what's more, I agree with her...

76065[/snapback]

 

it goes without saying, IMO what she proposes is getting off lightly.

 

Must adnit though, instead of slowly burning them at the stake, torturing them for 50 years in jail has its merits ..... only problem with that is somewhere down the line some do gooder will try and get them out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty conviced she's deadly serious - what's more, I agree with her...

76065[/snapback]

 

 

This from the woman who gets upset about someone killing a cat............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Victims' mother critical of trip

A mother whose three children were killed by their babysitter has criticised the decision to allow the murderer out of prison on unsupervised trips. Dorothy Urry, 54, said that David McGreavy was still a risk to the public, adding that she was still haunted by the deaths of her children: Paul, 4, Dawn, 2, and Samantha, 9 months.

 

A lodger at Mrs Urry’s home in Worcester, McGreavy, 54, was babysitting the children when he used a razor and curtain wire to kill them after the youngest started crying. He then impaled the bodies on a neighbour’s railings. He was jailed for life in 1973. "

 

 

I am seriously worried about this guy - either he is someone who "snaps" very very easily or he is of pretty low intelligence

 

Neither of those conditions are easily susceptible to treatment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty conviced she's deadly serious - what's more, I agree with her...

76065[/snapback]

 

 

This from the woman who gets upset about someone killing a cat............

76092[/snapback]

 

:lol:

 

Looks to me like she also gets upset about someone killing children too. What exactly was your point? That she shouldn't want unpleasant things to happen to child-murderers because she doesn't like unpleasant things to happen to cats? Strange way of thinking, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty conviced she's deadly serious - what's more, I agree with her...

76065[/snapback]

 

 

This from the woman who gets upset about someone killing a cat............

76092[/snapback]

 

I don't understand your point really, Rob. Yes, I get upset about someone killing cats. As Gemmill said, I also get upset about someone killing innocent children. I find it despicable and unimaginable. As for the 'eye for an eye' thing - I don't really know why I would want someone to be tortured daily, as in logic and reason, I know that it's just as bad. It just makes me angry that an adult can do something like this to bairns and I can't understand what makes them do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - unfortunately emotion is a pour basis for decisions and jurisprudence I'm afraid

76108[/snapback]

 

Which is why I'm not a lawyer. Emotions however are very real, and there have been several times in my professional career where I have had to treat and care for patients that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire should I encounter them in the street. However, I have a professional duty of care and have to get on with it. Doesn't mean I do so with a happy heart - I just have no grounds for professional conscientious objection in these cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I'm not a lawyer.  Emotions however are very real, and there have been several times in my professional career where I have had to treat and care for patients that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire should I encounter them in the street.  However, I have a professional duty of care and have to get on with it.  Doesn't mean I do so with a happy heart - I just have no grounds for professional conscientious objection in these cases.

76191[/snapback]

 

A citizen of a democracy should have far more to do with how the guilty are punished than a lawyer, they're just cogs in a machine that we are supposed to be building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - unfortunately emotion is a pour basis for decisions and jurisprudence I'm afraid

76108[/snapback]

 

Which is why I'm not a lawyer. Emotions however are very real, and there have been several times in my professional career where I have had to treat and care for patients that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire should I encounter them in the street. However, I have a professional duty of care and have to get on with it. Doesn't mean I do so with a happy heart - I just have no grounds for professional conscientious objection in these cases.

76191[/snapback]

 

Well, knowing one or two people working in law, I know that most judges have emotions too. It's just about to deal with them - especially in the way they are entitled to it by law. Nobody is going to make easy decisions, especially in cases like the one this topic is about. But to be fair, how much of background information do people on here have. What was the original sentence in detail? What's the tariff? What about the concrete decision of the parole board?

 

There is no mistake about the original crime being horrific. And I can understand people demanding draconic punishment. But on the other hand, over 30 years in prison is already a very long time. And the life afterwards will most likely not be an easy one. The murderer will most likely remain an outcast until the end of his life (just because of that it would already be madness to return to his former home). Other things judges have to make their mind up are about the danger to public. Again this depends on the original crime. It was horrific and shocking, yes. But was it sexually motivated? If not then the danger of reoffending is pretty low as it is "normal" murderers. He killed his own children, if it wasn't for some kind of sadistic affection he won't do it again. I could go on and on about the process of decision making that is (legally) required.

 

I don't want to be patronising (especially not to catmag, whose post I chose to respond to), but I often wonder how quick people are able to make their conclusions on the base of very little facts. That's why I normally chose to keep away from these discussions. They are most often misleading and have nothing to do with how things really are and work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - unfortunately emotion is a pour basis for decisions and jurisprudence I'm afraid

76108[/snapback]

 

Which is why I'm not a lawyer. Emotions however are very real, and there have been several times in my professional career where I have had to treat and care for patients that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire should I encounter them in the street. However, I have a professional duty of care and have to get on with it. Doesn't mean I do so with a happy heart - I just have no grounds for professional conscientious objection in these cases.

76191[/snapback]

 

Well, knowing one or two people working in law, I know that most judges have emotions too. It's just about to deal with them - especially in the way they are entitled to it by law. Nobody is going to make easy decisions, especially in cases like the one this topic is about. But to be fair, how much of background information do people on here have. What was the original sentence in detail? What's the tariff? What about the concrete decision of the parole board?

 

There is no mistake about the original crime being horrific. And I can understand people demanding draconic punishment. But on the other hand, over 30 years in prison is already a very long time. And the life afterwards will most likely not be an easy one. The murderer will most likely remain an outcast until the end of his life (just because of that it would already be madness to return to his former home). Other things judges have to make their mind up are about the danger to public. Again this depends on the original crime. It was horrific and shocking, yes. But was it sexually motivated? If not then the danger of reoffending is pretty low as it is "normal" murderers. He killed his own children, if it wasn't for some kind of sadistic affection he won't do it again. I could go on and on about the process of decision making that is (legally) required.

 

I don't want to be patronising (especially not to catmag, whose post I chose to respond to), but I often wonder how quick people are able to make their conclusions on the base of very little facts. That's why I normally chose to keep away from these discussions. They are most often misleading and have nothing to do with how things really are and work.

76231[/snapback]

 

 

So you think we should cut his knackers off then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Isegrim but it sstill a hell of a decision to have to take - I'd feel happier if the probation Service had a good record of monitoring people out on license but the record isn't very good.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.