Jump to content

Holy ****ing hell


Ulysses

Recommended Posts

William H. Bonney
3 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I was going to crack a joke involving my wife but now is maybe not the time. 

 

Is she in a coma too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dino Velvet said:

 

Tell me about it. 

:lol:

 

No wonder there's no tread anymore if you've been there. 

 

 

But seriously, that's a shitty story and clearly there's people even more ****ed up than the good(ish) people of JKB land. Poor ****ing kid as well. That's going to be a hell of a thing to deal with when they're older. I wonder if they'll tell the child? Probably up to whoever adopts them, if the kid can hopefully get adopted. 

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
7 minutes ago, bikerjambo said:

 

Oooh, hark at Mr Fussy!

 

:whistling:

OK maybe I could have worded it better. I was looking for the story about the busrd who allegedly caught a dose off a bloke who worked in the morgue and when she went to the doctors it could only be caught from having fun with dead bodies or animals. Transpired it was fake news though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

How could staff possibly be unaware she was pregnant? It seems like the sort of thing you'd notice.

 

Covering it up to save themselves

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

Sometimes it feels like it.... 

 

Considering cannabalism is right your streets nothing would surprise me ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Considering cannabalism is right your streets nothing would surprise me ??

There's probably a joke about eating out in there, but I'm bloody knackered so will leave that to someone else..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jlv2004 said:

No need.

 

Are you saying it's definitely not another immaculate conception and the Son of God has just been born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

Oh well, at least it will be a nice surprise when she comes round.

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans really can have zero morals, dignity or respect. 

 

Edited by Pans Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge of Djoum
23 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

You seem to find necrophilia articles quite easily...

 

Image result for suspicious gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge of Djoum
4 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Rangers fans really can have zero morals, dignity or respect. 

 

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, iantjambo said:

All male employees at the nursing home are to have a DNA test.

 

 

That's just sexist, it's only a matter of time before Germaine Greer and the metoo lot are all over this! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is horrifying in so many levels. Chances of her getting pregnant from a one off incident seem very slim, for starters.

 

How the heck did they not notice she was pregnant? It can happen but it seems crazy to think that people who take care of her didn’t notice changes to her body.

 

And docs apparently have confirmed that while she’s in a vegetative state and would have been unable to use her own strength to actively push the baby out when in labour, it’s very likely she can feel pain. ? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A man, a male nurse in the facility has been arrested regarding this case. The womans family state she was not in a coma, she has serious disabilities because of numerous childhood seizures. She is aware of what is going on but because of her disabilities is unable to communicate or advise anyone of things that have or are happening to her. In a way it makes it worse what she went through, because she knew what was happening but unable to stop it. A tragic tale, and again mans inhumanity to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sutherland’s defense attorney David Gregan said:

“There’s no direct evidence that Mr Sutherland has committed these acts. I know at this point there’s DNA. But he will have a right to his own DNA expert.”

 

Paternity test says it's his baby. Mother has been comatose since the age of three. No direct evidence that there was sex without her consent?

 

:cornette:

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Sutherland’s defense attorney David Gregan said:

“There’s no direct evidence that Mr Sutherland has committed these acts. I know at this point there’s DNA. But he will have a right to his own DNA expert.”

 

Paternity test says it's his baby. Mother has been comatose since the age of three. No direct evidence that there was sex without her consent?

 

:cornette:

 

She could have been artificially inseminated by a jilted colleague of course. This ones gonna need Jessica Fletcher and Columbo to team up. 

 

Just one one more thing...

 I bet that this guy gets invited to have  access to the child the worlds that fecked up just now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad obviously they figured out who did this.

 

I'm surprised if he gave his DNA up freely, which you're not required to do in the US unless you're arrested--and you can only be arrested if there is probable cause, i.e. enough evidence to demonstrate a likelihood that this guy was the culprit already.

 

So from a purely legal point of view, if he gave up his DNA voluntarily, he's a ****ing idiot, but thank goodness he did.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cade said:

Sutherland’s defense attorney David Gregan said:

“There’s no direct evidence that Mr Sutherland has committed these acts. I know at this point there’s DNA. But he will have a right to his own DNA expert.”

 

Paternity test says it's his baby. Mother has been comatose since the age of three. No direct evidence that there was sex without her consent?

 

:cornette:

 

I'd be hesitant to condemn someone at this point based solely on DNA evidence. There's been plenty of people that have been incorrectly convicted due to the inappropriate use of this type of evidence. New Scientist article here. It doesn't look good for the guy but if you're unfamiliar with the lab techniques and statistical analysis used it's best to let due process take its course before assuming someone is guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

I'd be hesitant to condemn someone at this point based solely on DNA evidence. There's been plenty of people that have been incorrectly convicted due to the inappropriate use of this type of evidence. New Scientist article here. It doesn't look good for the guy but if you're unfamiliar with the lab techniques and statistical analysis used it's best to let due process take its course before assuming someone is guilty.

 

This is very true. It's not like CSI, but that's the popular image we have for obvious reasons. There have been massive scandals of lab misconduct in the US, with literally thousands of adulterated samples of all sorts of things, from drugs, breath tests, hair, blood, DNA, to even fingerprints, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the people behind these travesties getting relative slaps on the wrist compared to the lives they've destroyed and thousands of years of unjustified incarceration they've inflicted.

 

This guy probably did it but that's all the more reason to play the whole process out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its my understanding all the male employees were asked to give a DNA sample.I suppose to not do so if everyone else did would be highly suspicious. I just saw a short statement in the original news item that stated the girl was not comatose, the family seemed to take exception to that. It said that she had awarewness of things, enjoyed being read to and enjoyed being visited. She is reported to have had multiple seizures as a child, and is unable to communicate. The description of her condition is being given now as a state of vegetation, not comatose. I take this to mean her primary problem is not she is out of it, more that she is just incapable of doing anything. She it is said would have been aware of giving birth and what is involved, just could do nothing about it, which to my mind is worse than the original comatose state.

There was a picture of the suspect on one show, he is African American, looks like a big guy, seems to have one lazy eye, and does not really look like the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Its my understanding all the male employees were asked to give a DNA sample. I suppose to not do so if everyone else did would be highly suspicious. I just saw a short statement in the original news item that stated the girl was not comatose, the family seemed to take exception to that. It said that she had awarewness of things, enjoyed being read to and enjoyed being visited. She is reported to have had multiple seizures as a child, and is unable to communicate. The description of her condition is being given now as a state of vegetation, not comatose. I take this to mean her primary problem is not she is out of it, more that she is just incapable of doing anything. She it is said would have been aware of giving birth and what is involved, just could do nothing about it, which to my mind is worse than the original comatose state.

There was a picture of the suspect on one show, he is African American, looks like a big guy, seems to have one lazy eye, and does not really look like the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

The bit in bold: It would, but it would not be sufficiently legally suspicious to amount to grounds to then demand his DNA, though. Which is why I commented that he's an absolute idiot if he went along with giving a DNA sample voluntarily. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

The bit in bold: It would, but it would not be sufficiently legally suspicious to amount to grounds to then demand his DNA, though. Which is why I commented that he's an absolute idiot if he went along with giving a DNA sample voluntarily. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, indeed.

Not sure how it works, but could his DNA already have been on file for previous crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, superjack said:

Not sure how it works, but could his DNA already have been on file for previous crimes?

 

I am not sure but I am sure that there is probably some other evidence be it of character, or just that when approached about the DNA he fessed up. There would have had to be some physical evidence for them to search records for his DNA if they had that evidence the DNA collection may not have been necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, superjack said:

Not sure how it works, but could his DNA already have been on file for previous crimes?

 

DNA collection, as far as I know, is not routine for most police departments in the States the way a photograph and fingerprints are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

I am not sure but I am sure that there is probably some other evidence be it of character, or just that when approached about the DNA he fessed up. There would have had to be some physical evidence for them to search records for his DNA if they had that evidence the DNA collection may not have been necessary.

 

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

DNA collection, as far as I know, is not routine for most police departments in the States the way a photograph and fingerprints are.

Thanks for the answers. Like others have said, I just can't imagine him being stupid enough to give a voluntary sample. Might have been something he said when asked for a sample then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, superjack said:

 

Thanks for the answers. Like others have said, I just can't imagine him being stupid enough to give a voluntary sample. Might have been something he said when asked for a sample then.

 

I just did a little googling, and it's not helped clarify things much, because reporting on legal process is almost as bad as on things like scientific studies. Best I can gather, the company tried to get its employees to do DNA tests and were told they could not compel those. Then the police department obtained a search warrant for the DNA of "all male employees" at the care facility. I can imagine this warrant will be challenged pretrial by this guy's attorney as lacking probable cause as to him specifically, and therefore illegal. I think the attorney wisely has not said as much in his press conference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I just did a little googling, and it's not helped clarify things much, because reporting on legal process is almost as bad as on things like scientific studies. Best I can gather, the company tried to get its employees to do DNA tests and were told they could not compel those. Then the police department obtained a search warrant for the DNA of "all male employees" at the care facility. I can imagine this warrant will be challenged pretrial by this guy's attorney as lacking probable cause as to him specifically, and therefore illegal. I think the attorney wisely has not said as much in his press conference.

 

 

I never saw that information, thats interesting and sure opens a whole new to me activity.

Just for a wee bit of fact and humor in a similar way, I had an interesting experience mysel many years ago, and I mean many.

Two of us one night in Edinburgh arrested an impaired driver. At  Braid Place Police station such suspects were examined by a doctor and a urine sample required. The arrested man said he could not urinate, but was in desperate need of a bowel movement. The older station sergeant said in all my years I have never seen a man have a bowel movement without passing some urine, so go to the toilet in the cell there and Bob will go with you and if you do urinate he will catch it in this wee cup. We did, he did, I did, and the sample was obtained and he was later convicted, the obtaining of the sample was never entered in evidence. Now they would class it as an illegal search.?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

 

I never saw that information, thats interesting and sure opens a whole new to me activity.

Just for a wee bit of fact and humor in a similar way, I had an interesting experience mysel many years ago, and I mean many.

Two of us one night in Edinburgh arrested an impaired driver. At  Braid Place Police station such suspects were examined by a doctor and a urine sample required. The arrested man said he could not urinate, but was in desperate need of a bowel movement. The older station sergeant said in all my years I have never seen a man have a bowel movement without passing some urine, so go to the toilet in the cell there and Bob will go with you and if you do urinate he will catch it in this wee cup. We did, he did, I did, and the sample was obtained and he was later convicted, the obtaining of the sample was never entered in evidence. Now they would class it as an illegal search.?.

Bob I always knew you liked to take the ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2019 at 07:58, Justin Z said:

I'm glad obviously they figured out who did this.

 

I'm surprised if he gave his DNA up freely, which you're not required to do in the US unless you're arrested--and you can only be arrested if there is probable cause, i.e. enough evidence to demonstrate a likelihood that this guy was the culprit already.

 

So from a purely legal point of view, if he gave up his DNA voluntarily, he's a ****ing idiot, but thank goodness he did.

 

Maybe they took DNA from his clothes, work area, etc. The alleged Original Night Stalker didn't volunteer to give a sample, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I and I apologise to him for speaking to an extent for him, but I think the point he was making was that U.S. law is pretty strict about having a warrant to seize property or items that may be used as evidence. I think there was another case in the news recently where males refused to give samples for DNA checks and it was upheld it was their right to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...