Author Topic: Consider this scenario - Would a guilty person keep their case alive for many years?  (Read 59097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alfie

  • Guest
Why don't you tell us the answer you will be happy with and save all this messing around?
an answer which actually addresses the question posed will suffice, thanks for your rude interjection.

Offline slartibartfast

an answer which actually addresses the question posed will suffice, thanks for your rude interjection.

You're welcome, never seen such mobile goalposts.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Alfie

  • Guest
You're welcome, never seen such mobile goalposts.
Perhaps you could explain your comment, with some examples?

Offline faithlilly

Your answer above does not relate to the questions I asked.

You have yourself have ably demonstrated the answer to your question. The individuals would have kept a search alive, including requesting reviews etc,  so individuals like you could use that as a reason for believing that they were not guilty. Clever huh?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline sadie

You know the evidence so far collected was not enough to bring charges so requesting a review of that same evidence would almost certainly throw up no new evidence against you. What wasn't predicted is that funding for a new investigation  would be made available.

Risky.

Too risky had someone committed murder or some dreadful deed

No one could be sure that a new investigative force wouldn't find new evidence

Offline mercury

Risky.

Too risky had someone committed murder or some dreadful deed

No one could be sure that a new investigative force wouldn't find new evidence

Not at all, there are many many cases throughout history where no or no sufficient or direct evidence was found
All you need is a confident intellgent perpetrator and bobs your uncle


Alfie

  • Guest
You have yourself have ably demonstrated the answer to your question. The individuals would have kept a search alive, including requesting reviews etc,  so individuals like you could use that as a reason for believing that they were not guilty. Clever huh?
Why do these people care what I think, and why risk their freedom on it?  Far better to allow people like you and me to lose interest in the whole affair by slinking off into obscurity safe in the knowledge that there is no evidence against them.  That makes far more sense to me, if not to you.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 08:23:07 AM by Alfie »

Offline ShiningInLuz

Why do these people care what I think, and why risk their freedom on it?  Far better to allow people like you and me to lose interest in the whole affair by slinking off into obscurity safe in the knowledge that there is no evidence against them.  That makes far more sense to me, if not to you.
Scenario getting sillier by the moment.

Parents dispose of their child's body, and get fame and fortune in the process.  Why would they continue to seek fame and fortune?  Hmm, let me think about that.  Could it be - more fame and fortune?
What's up, old man?

Alfie

  • Guest
Scenario getting sillier by the moment.

Parents dispose of their child's body, and get fame and fortune in the process.  Why would they continue to seek fame and fortune?  Hmm, let me think about that.  Could it be - more fame and fortune?
And you don't think that's silly?  How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison?  It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before.  You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.

Offline Lace

You know the evidence so far collected was not enough to bring charges so requesting a review of that same evidence would almost certainly throw up no new evidence against you. What wasn't predicted is that funding for a new investigation  would be made available.

Is that why they asked for the case to be opened then?

Offline ShiningInLuz

And you don't think that's silly?  How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison?  It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before.  You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.
Sorry, but this has gone from silly to farcical.

The couple could appear on Celebrity Big Brother?  Honestly?  What would the inmates talk about? That sounds truly ghastly.
What's up, old man?

Offline pathfinder73

And you don't think that's silly?  How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison?  It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before.  You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.

And don't you think laughing and joking is silly in a police negotiation operation with a possible abductor? 
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Alfie

  • Guest
Sorry, but this has gone from silly to farcical.

The couple could appear on Celebrity Big Brother?  Honestly?  What would the inmates talk about? That sounds truly ghastly.
It is YOU making the claim that fame and fortune was the motivating factor.  Appearing on CBB is one route open to B and C list celebs and media personalities to pursue this.  Why is my suggestion more farcical than your suggestion that asking for a police review into their child's disappearance, thus risking their future liberty, was done to increase their fame and fortune?

Offline faithlilly

Is that why they asked for the case to be opened then?

They didn't ask for it to be reopened, they asked for the evidence so far to be reviewed.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Alfie

  • Guest
And don't you think laughing and joking is silly in a police negotiation operation with a possible abductor?
Sorry, where in my scenario does this fit in?