Policeman who killed in-law 'feared losing kids'
In this case I find it incredible not only that he was granted bail in the first instance and secondly that "Judge John Bevan, who made the decision, said he "could not remember" why he had taken the unusual step of freeing a man accused of murder". Could it be because the judge is senile and or that both the police inspector and the judge belong to the funny handshake brigade?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
2 comments:
In this case we have no evidence the judge is senile or a Mason, but plenty of evidence that in a high-profile case where you've just been rung up by a story-seeking tabloid, it's best to stick to what's in the transcript, since that's why you keep them.
In this case, it's quite likely that a middle aged man of good character accused of a domestic crime would get bail, although obviously this runs the risk of something like this happening, which is quite an extraordinary thing.
tom: Admittedly there is no evidence. However, one of the effects of senility is forgetfulness and the judge has stated he cannot remember why he granted bail. Or, if they were both masons then he would not wish to give that as a reason for granting bail.
As you suggest, in your second paragraph, it could be simply for the reasons stated. And, I agree, going on to commit another killing is very rare.
Still, I wouldn't be the devilish advocate if I didn't get up to a bit of mischief and putting my tongue in my cheek.
BTW, why don't you use my photoshop of Blair pulling Brown in the Royal Coach to improve your header? You might find it fitting.
Post a Comment