• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Claremont Killer

rjh01 said:
I wonder what he has done in the last 20 years since then? Has he lived without breaking the law? If so what is the point in spending heaps of $ in prosecuting him? Finding out the facts can be done without prosecuting him and would reveal far more. Like where that missing third person is. It is in his interest for him to deny all knowledge of that third person. Is it to deter others? Most crimes that are solved are solved within a few years. It is rare for one to be solved after so many years.

There is also the possibility that this person is not guilty of anything. If so the trial would be a massive waste of money. Or maybe the evidence is not strong. I would not trust any witnesses to tell the truth. Forensic evidence can be faulty. So not much is left. The links in the OP give no clue as to what evidence police have.

I also wonder why the guilty person stopped committing those crimes?
Click to expand...

What a pile of steaming nonsense. He killed three people, but if he has been clean since then all is fine?

Despite psion10's conspiracy theory of police malfeasance, charging someone with murder is not an act taken lightly in Australia. I think they have their man. And his 20 years of not littering will count for absolutely nothing.
 
rjh01 said:
I wonder what he has done in the last 20 years since then? Has he lived without breaking the law? If so what is the point in spending heaps of $ in prosecuting him? Finding out the facts can be done without prosecuting him and would reveal far more. Like where that missing third person is. It is in his interest for him to deny all knowledge of that third person. Is it to deter others? Most crimes that are solved are solved within a few years. It is rare for one to be solved after so many years.

There is also the possibility that this person is not guilty of anything. If so the trial would be a massive waste of money. Or maybe the evidence is not strong. I would not trust any witnesses to tell the truth. Forensic evidence can be faulty. So not much is left. The links in the OP give no clue as to what evidence police have.

I also wonder why the guilty person stopped committing those crimes?
Click to expand...
All reasonable points but locally, the murders of these three women have never been far from the front page over the last 20 years or so. There is a strong public interest in the case.

An arrest and conviction would be quite the fillip for the police and the police commissioner. (No doubt, Colin Barnett is hoping that the good will from this arrest will extend to his government).

ETA There is no statute of limitations on murder.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Rather than put up an irony meter, I will ask you what the context of the 80s remark was.
Click to expand...

You know well enough. In the 80s and earlier decades police corruption in Australia (particularly NSW) was rife. It isn't now and there are a lot of reasons for it. But this is all off-topic.

There is absolutely no reason to imagine police in this situation have acted inappropriately.
 
psionl0 said:
So, substitute "much reduced" for "eradicated". It doesn't change much.
Click to expand...

If you want to start a thread about the reduction (or otherwise) of police corruption in Australia, knock yourself out. Keep it out of this thread.
 
lionking said:
What a pile of steaming nonsense. He killed three people, but if he has been clean since then all is fine?

Despite psion10's conspiracy theory of police malfeasance, charging someone with murder is not an act taken lightly in Australia. I think they have their man. And his 20 years of not littering will count for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

You call what I have said steaming nonsense, yet you have not made any attempt to refute my post.


psionl0 said:
All reasonable points but locally, the murders of these three women have never been far from the front page over the last 20 years or so. There is a strong public interest in the case.

An arrest and conviction would be quite the fillip for the police and the police commissioner. (No doubt, Colin Barnett is hoping that the good will from this arrest will extend to his government).

ETA There is no statute of limitations on murder.
Click to expand...

He should be prosecuted because of public interest? I think that is a rather weak point. I agree with the ETA.

So my question stands, what is to gain from the prosecution?
 
rjh01 said:
You call what I have said steaming nonsense, yet you have not made any attempt to refute my post.
Click to expand...

What's to refute? Your ridiculous opinion that someone shouldn't be prosecuted for a triple murder because 20 "innocent" years have elapsed?

Some things, like global warming is a hoax and evolution is a myth don't deserve refutation. Just like your opinion of the fate of this accused murderer.
 
rjh01 said:
He should be prosecuted because of public interest? I think that is a rather weak point.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but that is not a reason to stop pursuing a murderer and doling out parking tickets instead.

rjh01 said:
I agree with the ETA.

So my question stands, what is to gain from the prosecution?
Click to expand...
You can't have it both ways. Sending a message that you can get away with murder if enough time elapses is a bad thing.
 
psionl0 said:
I don't need to. You acknowledged that it was happening in the 1980s (or that remark is completely meaningless).
Click to expand...

I think in discussion of this specific case (and lets not run this off topic) the burden on proof is you.
 
lionking said:
What a pile of steaming nonsense. He killed three people, but if he has been clean since then all is fine?

Despite psion10's conspiracy theory of police malfeasance, charging someone with murder is not an act taken lightly in Australia. I think they have their man. And his 20 years of not littering will count for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Allegedly. Let's remember he hasn't been tried yet so we don't know what all the evidence the police have is.
 
lionking said:
What's to refute? Your ridiculous opinion that someone shouldn't be prosecuted for a triple murder because 20 "innocent" years have elapsed?

Some things, like global warming is a hoax and evolution is a myth don't deserve refutation. Just like your opinion of the fate of this accused murderer.
Click to expand...

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that we should not prosecute him, I was asking why are we doing this. That is a completely separate question. So far no good answer has come. You just bring up irrelevancies. Yet you call the question ridiculous. LOL.
 
rjh01 said:
Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that we should not prosecute him, I was asking why are we doing this. That is a completely separate question. So far no good answer has come. You just bring up irrelevancies. Yet you call the question ridiculous. LOL.
Click to expand...

No it's not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom