Log in

View Full Version : Free to a good home: one prostitute (past use-by date, may require assembly)



jrandom
30th March 2012, 10:29
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795508

Just another news story about this Carmen Thomas shit.

Got me wondering, though. I don't think I've ever seen any reporting on the guy telling anybody why he did it. He's obviously not insane; he just came to the conclusion that he'd kill her and take a punt on getting away with it. Once it became clear that he wouldn't get away with it, he pleaded guilty. The man is rational. And, let's face it, he's not some low-life that's going to get out of jail and reoffend. This was a one-off in exceptional circumstances.

(13 years non parole is on the light side, too. Perhaps the judge knows something we don't. Or maybe the judge's mind just works like mine.)

Now, don't tell me none of you reading this have ever woken up of a morning and seriously considered whether ridding the world of someone would be worth the risk of a decade or so in the big house. You gotta wonder what she did to motivate her murder.

And, yeah, gotta be traumatic for a kid, being brought up by his grandparents and knowing that his dad saw fit to kill his mum... but perhaps that beats being brought up by a hooker. A woman who managed to piss off an otherwise decent guy to the point where he decided to follow through on murdering her probably wasn't going to make a very good mother.

Discuss.

nodrog
30th March 2012, 10:37
She sounded like a good women from what I have heard, a good solid foundation for a household.

Scuba_Steve
30th March 2012, 10:38
this is what probably sent him "over the edge"

"The deceased said to Mr Callaghan: `You don't have any say in this because you're not his father'."

kiwifruit
30th March 2012, 10:38
I don't know anything about this case.

No matter how exceptional circumstances may be, I can't empathise with the thinking "the world would be a better place without [whoever]".

jrandom
30th March 2012, 10:39
No matter how exceptional circumstances may be, I can't empathise with the thinking "the world would be a better place without Adolf Hitler".

A number of my great-aunts and uncles beg to disagree with you from beyond the grave, sir.

SMOKEU
30th March 2012, 10:44
I choose to take whatever I see in the media with a grain of salt. I'm not going to speculate on what happened, because I don't know enough facts of the case to make any judgement.

oneofsix
30th March 2012, 10:44
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795508

Just another news story about this Carmen Thomas shit.

Got me wondering, though. I don't think I've ever seen any reporting on the guy telling anybody why he did it. He's obviously not insane; he just came to the conclusion that he'd kill her and take a punt on getting away with it. Once it became clear that he wouldn't get away with it, he pleaded guilty. The man is rational. And, let's face it, he's not some low-life that's going to get out of jail and reoffend. This was a one-off in exceptional circumstances.

Discuss.

Are you a psychopath as well? To bash her to death with a kids baseball bat is rational? It took 8 blows and he reportedly stopped in the middle of the attack! I suspect what you mean is because he doesn't relate well to others he puts on a good front when in court. As to what pushed him over the edge, he wanted to be Remuera and her being alive with his kid was a reminder he wasn't.
And wtf was all that stuff in the article about the poor granny? She was estranged from her daughter and grandson before the murder. What a sob story by our wonderful press but sweet fall about the crime.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 10:49
Are you a psychopath as well?

As well as...?

Killing someone does not imply that one is a psychopath.


To bash her to death with a kids baseball bat is rational?

Well, once you've decided to kill someone, hitting them over the head with a bat is generally a good way to achieve that aim, yes.


It took 8 blows...

She probably dodged around a bit to start with.


As to what pushed him over the edge...

Ah no. You see, that's something that hasn't been reported on.

We simply don't know what the deciding factor was that saw him go ahead with the murder. Since he's pleaded guilty, it'll never come out in trial.


She was estranged from her daughter and grandson before the murder.

Unsurprising. The daughter sounds like the sort of offspring you'd be looking to estrange yourself from. Not the grandson's fault, of course, but whatcha gonna do?

GingerMidget
30th March 2012, 10:53
To truly hate someone enough to want them dead must take an extraordinary amount of anger and hurt. I can truthfully say I don't wish anyone dead, but thats not to say I don't rather dislike them. I just think there are things worse than death. Like continuing to be their obnoxious self, because god that must suck :laugh:

The media have given one side of a multi sided story, and we will never truly know his motives, or how she lived her life.

It does disgust me a little that she and Mallory Manning were referred to as "the prostitute X" rather than by just their name. What should their occupation have to do with the fact they have been murdered? Does being a prostitute mean they are a disposable resource? I may not agree with that type of occupation, but nobody deserves that fate. Oldest profession in the world after all.

SMOKEU
30th March 2012, 11:06
To truly hate someone enough to want them dead must take an extraordinary amount of anger and hurt. I can truthfully say I don't wish anyone dead, but thats not to say I don't rather dislike them. I just think there are things worse than death. Like continuing to be their obnoxious self, because god that must suck :laugh:



If anyone steals my bike then I hope they crash it and die.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 11:14
It does disgust me a little that she and Mallory Manning were referred to as "the prostitute X" rather than by just their name. What should their occupation have to do with the fact they have been murdered?

Find me a media report of a murder victim where their occupation isn't mentioned.

It's part of painting a picture of someone. Like it or not, what one does for a living does define one to a certain extent.

Even if only to the extent of making it clear that one doesn't really care what one does for a living and/or isn't qualified to do anything in particular.

And failing to mention that a woman works as a prostitute... constitutes leaving a fairly large portion of the canvas hidden.

short-circuit
30th March 2012, 11:22
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795508

Just another news story about this Carmen Thomas shit.

Got me wondering, though. I don't think I've ever seen any reporting on the guy telling anybody why he did it. He's obviously not insane; he just came to the conclusion that he'd kill her and take a punt on getting away with it. Once it became clear that he wouldn't get away with it, he pleaded guilty. The man is rational. And, let's face it, he's not some low-life that's going to get out of jail and reoffend. This was a one-off in exceptional circumstances.

(13 years non parole is on the light side, too. Perhaps the judge knows something we don't. Or maybe the judge's mind just works like mine.)

Now, don't tell me none of you reading this have ever woken up of a morning and seriously considered whether ridding the world of someone would be worth the risk of a decade or so in the big house. You gotta wonder what she did to motivate her murder.

And, yeah, gotta be traumatic for a kid, being brought up by his grandparents and knowing that his dad saw fit to kill his mum... but perhaps that beats being brought up by a hooker. A woman who managed to piss off an otherwise decent guy to the point where he decided to follow through on murdering her probably wasn't going to make a very good mother.

Discuss.

Troll King Pro :not:

mashman
30th March 2012, 11:27
I kinda know what you mean. No anger or hurt, just the common sense fact that if certain people didn't exist it would be for the better. I guess if you get to the stage that you're going to go through with it, then nothing would really matter and you could kill someone in a positive, lucid state of mind.

Katman
30th March 2012, 11:49
It took 8 blows.....



She probably dodged around a bit to start with.


Either that or he wasn't very good at it.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 11:57
Either that or he wasn't very good at it.

Well, yes, he doesn't sound like he'd had much practice at killing people.

Needs must when the Devil drives, though.

Headbanger
30th March 2012, 12:24
He did it because he is weak.

I can't see any more reason for blowing money on him then any other piece of scum, Put a bullet in his head and carry on.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 12:30
He did it because he is weak.

Can you expand on this 'weakness'?

nodrog
30th March 2012, 12:36
Can you expand on this 'weakness'?



It took 8 blows and he reportedly stopped in the middle of the attack.....

self-explanatory, he obviously needs to do more cardio.

oneofsix
30th March 2012, 12:44
self-explanatory, he obviously needs to do more cardio.

:rofl: perhaps he concentrated too much on his running and not enough on upper body strength. Could be why he used a kids bat as well, couldn't lift an adult one or anything heavier. :blink:

Headbanger
30th March 2012, 12:56
Can you expand on this 'weakness'?

Killing a bear with your bare hands is the opposite of weakness.

Killing someones mum, weak pathetic shit.

5150
30th March 2012, 13:07
Isin't it Desperation that causes people to snap and kill someone like this? We hear about the obvious actions of the killer, but there is always two sides to the storry. Not that I condone what he did.

The same could be said in the case of Mr Weatherstone, picking up a knife and stabbing his ex almost 200 times.


The question that will never be answered is what drove them to such desperation to do what they did. And by that I mean that the other side of the story is the one that died.

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 13:24
Find me a media report of a murder victim where their occupation isn't mentioned.

It's part of painting a picture of someone. Like it or not, what one does for a living does define one to a certain extent.

Even if only to the extent of making it clear that one doesn't really care what one does for a living and/or isn't qualified to do anything in particular.

And failing to mention that a woman works as a prostitute... constitutes leaving a fairly large portion of the canvas hidden.

if she had a vagina, she was eminently qualified to be a prostitute, in my submission, your Honour.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 13:25
Killing someones mum, weak pathetic shit.

I'm trying to pin down your logic here.

Do you have a theory about the killer's motivation to share, or is your contribution going to be limited to pointing out that killing her with a baseball bat was easier than killing a bear while unarmed?

In related news, water remains wet, etc.

Actually, come to think of it, I'd tend to suspect that you'd need to be a bit less rational to kill a dumb animal that'd done you no wrong than you'd be to kill someone who you had reason to believe was likely to carve a trail of havoc through society that started with your own child.

Just, y'know. Just sayin'.

Headbanger
30th March 2012, 13:33
I'm trying to pin down your logic here.


Just, y'know. Just sayin'.

No you're not, Your trying to give credence to the shithead logic that motivated the post to start the thread.

Its a weak act by a weak man, If you are looking to assign some sort of respect to a calculated act or series of events then you're a tool.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:01
shithead... weak... weak... you're a tool.

You're indulging in a spot of table-thumping assertion here. But you have no theories to share about why the man might've done it, yes?

See, being 'weak' doesn't generally just make people go out and start killin' on people. Generally what happens is, the dead person does something to piss the killer off.

And generally, the killer is obviously a person of either limited intelligence or low emotional maturity, whose judgement was compromised by one or t'other to the extent of doing something that benefited nobody and got them locked up.

However, I'm not sure that that applies, here. Limited intelligence, evidently not. Low emotional maturity, no evidence to suggest that beyond the killing itself.

So the question is... what was the perceived benefit of the killing to the killer?

An otherwise respectable and relatively high-functioning member of society planned and executed a cold-blooded murder, attempted to hide the evidence, and quietly pleaded guilty when that attempt failed. It's an interesting deviation to the usual pattern of 'dumb fuck snaps and kills someone, then either sits blubbing in a police interview room about how sorry they are, or angrily denies responsibility in the face of the obvious'.

Responding emotionally oneself and ranting about actions being 'weak' is... missing the point.

Headbanger
30th March 2012, 14:06
Dismissive of your supposed point.

Your assessment of his intelligence is meaningless, Fucker made the worst decision of his life and everyone else gets to suffer, Its a weak act, and on par with every other douchebag who dealt with his issues by bashing someone who was practically defenseless to death with a weapon.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:08
I got nothin'.

That's all right dude. Just sit back and follow the thread quietly then, or wander off and talk about motorbikes.

:sunny:

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 14:14
One does find oneself more in agreement with the position stated by Mr H Banger than the position stated by Mr J Random, which can be summarised in the proposition: It matters not, forsooth, the reason 'twere done, the fact of such doing, motivation aside, is enough to bring sanction"

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 14:15
However, I'm not sure that that applies, here. Limited intelligence, evidently not. Low emotional maturity, no evidence to suggest that beyond the killing itself.

So the question is... what was the perceived benefit of the killing to the killer?

An otherwise respectable and relatively high-functioning member of society planned and executed a cold-blooded murder, attempted to hide the evidence, and quietly pleaded guilty when that attempt failed. It's an interesting deviation to the usual pattern of 'dumb fuck snaps and kills someone, then either sits blubbing in a police interview room about how sorry they are, or angrily denies responsibility in the face of the obvious'.
.

you're arguing against yourself.

I suggest that just because he might appear to be the things you said, the fact he did what he admitted to doing demonstrates he is not.

next please.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:21
It matters not


just because he might appear to be the things you said, the fact he did what he admitted to doing demonstrates he is not

I believe this to be an unwarranted leap.

It must be acknowledged that sometimes, there be folks needin' killin'. Hitler is canonical, and it's shades of grey from there on down.

My original post can be expanded to the question of whether, given a sufficiently light penalty (thirteen years in jail isn't the worst thing ever) and a sufficiently problematic target, killin' on one's own authority, against the dictates of society, might not very occasionally be the act of a sane, functional, and emotionally mature individual. Sanction being accepted and balanced against the benefit of the act itself, etc.

Edit: as a side point, I'd suggest that the value of the death penalty as a deterrent only applies to this very small minority of murderers. One suspects it would've deterred Mr Callaghan.

kiwifruit
30th March 2012, 14:30
I want to wade in some more but you're such a bastard to argue with

Headbanger
30th March 2012, 14:30
I believe this to be an unwarranted leap.

It must be acknowledged that sometimes, there be folks needin' killin'. Hitler is canonical, and it's shades of grey from there on down.



Someones mum to Hitler?

Fuck me, thats the unwarrented leap.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:31
Fuck me, thats the unwarrented leap.

It's a conscious reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

Edit: I'm not claiming equivalence, just using Hitler to illustrate the truth of the fundamental proposition that sometimes, folks need killin'. He's handy like that.

MisterD
30th March 2012, 14:45
Edit: I'm not claiming equivalence, just using Hitler to illustrate the truth of the fundamental proposition that sometimes, folks need killin'. He's handy like that.

Yes, but there's always the case of that decendent of an American airman and a British girl that discovers a cure for cancer, isn't there...

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 14:46
It's a conscious reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

Edit: I'm not claiming equivalence, just using Hitler to illustrate the truth of the fundamental proposition that sometimes, folks need killin'. He's handy like that.

GODWIN

GODWIN !!!

GODWIN!!!!!

sorry, its the law.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:46
GODWIN

GODWIN !!!

GODWIN!!!!!

I triggered it in, like, the second post, and nobody called it, so I figured I'd just keep on trying.

Actually, I believe Godwin's Law doesn't really apply until we start calling each other Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 14:49
I believe this to be an unwarranted leap.

It must be acknowledged that sometimes, there be folks needin' killin'. Hitler is canonical, and it's shades of grey from there on down.
.

my emphasis.

Must it? must it really? because a shitload of buddhists, hindus, and normal people would suggest that in fact, it must not, In fact they would argue that you are just as bad as the murderer morally speaking for saying (or doing) the same thing he did.

GIGO.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 14:51
Must it? must it really?

If a human does more harm in the world than the action of removing them from it would itself constitute, then yes, yes it must.

I argue only for the possibility of that being the case, here, by the way. Not for its applicability in any particular instance.


a shitload of buddhists, hindus, and normal people

Are you suggesting that Buddhists and Hindus aren't normal?

And since when have Hindus been pacifists?

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 15:10
If a human does more harm in the world than the action of removing them from it would itself constitute, then yes, yes it must.

I argue only for the possibility of that being the case, here, by the way. Not for its applicability in any particular instance.



Are you suggesting that Buddhists and Hindus aren't normal?

And since when have Hindus been pacifists?

Oh come on: all you've been doing is applying it to this instance\


You might be right about Hindus: all I know about Hinduism I learned from Apu on the Simpsons.

Zedder
30th March 2012, 15:13
If a human does more harm in the world than the action of removing them from it would itself constitute, then yes, yes it must.

I argue only for the possibility of that being the case, here, by the way. Not for its applicability in any particular instance.



Are you suggesting that Buddhists and Hindus aren't normal?

And since when have Hindus been pacifists?

I like your first statement there Jr, it could easily apply to you, although you did specify human. Ever thought of removing yourself?

James Deuce
30th March 2012, 15:20
One of the constants of human history is that individuals don't matter, at all. They only matter to other individuals. Life rather tends to go on. It's normal to try and imply some meaning in a person's life, otherwise it's all pointless. Unfortunately it is all pointless.

If you really want to kill people but maintain some distance yourself from the daily death of thousands, live in NZ, drive a car, use an iPad, wear a diamond ring, use a cellphone, wear designers trainers.

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 15:22
One of the constants of human history is that individuals don't matter, at all. They only matter to other individuals. Life rather tends to go on. It's normal to try and imply some meaning in a person's life, otherwise it's all pointless. Unfortunately it is all pointless.

If you really want to kill people but maintain some distance yourself from the daily death of thousands, live in NZ, drive a car, use an iPad, wear a diamond ring, use a cellphone, wear designers trainers.

will the designer want them back at any point? was it an intelligent designer?

James Deuce
30th March 2012, 15:25
I have no faith in Intelligent Design.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 15:51
Oh come on: all you've been doing is applying it to this instance

Ah, so you admit its potential validity in the theoretical case?

:sunny:

Any validity to this particular killing would only apply from the perspective of the killer himself, naturally. He killed her in the full knowledge that society would condemn him for it.

The question is, was that the case? The conscious acceptance of risk in return for a perceived benefit? I suspect so.

I wonder if he can get the internets in jail...

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2012, 16:34
Ah, so you admit its potential validity in the theoretical case?

:sunny:

...

not necessarily.: in fact, for the purposes of the discussion I will state categorically no. It is the hallmark of a civilised society that no matter how heinous the crime, and even in respect of the crime regarded as most heinous of all, i.e. premeditated murder, that a civilised society does not brutalise itself to the level of the individual who killed. [insert anti-death penalty argument here from the US].

cmoore
30th March 2012, 17:06
What nonsense, your supposition that she must have done something to deserve what she got is rubbish. You jump from this case to people in general as if you can, you can't. He killed her because he is a bad person, good people don't kill. What she may or may not have done to trigger his actions is irrelevant.

James Deuce
30th March 2012, 17:11
He killed her because he is a bad person, good people don't kill.

Uh, oh! Falling through giant hole in logic, someone throw me a line, nooooooo, miiiiiissed, byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......

mashman
30th March 2012, 17:54
The more I hear about it, it sounds like a spur of the moment killing that solved a problem and he "foolishly" tried to get away with it. Not saying that that's big or clever, but he doesn't look to have a history of slapping her around or even to have been a moody fella and a kids baseball bat isn't exactly a weapon you'd use if you were planning a murder.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 18:07
a kids baseball bat isn't exactly a weapon you'd use if you were planning a murder.

I dunno bro. Those little baseball bats are handy things. Similarly sized and weighted to a police baton (maybe a bit lighter). It'd be easy to kill or disable someone with one, and they're concealable under a coat.

I knew a guy once (unpleasant fellow) who carried one in his vehicle as a 'just in case' weapon. He could've carried a full-sized bat, a crowbar, or a knife... he had access to firearms, too, but a mini baseball bat was what he kept with him.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a weapon of choice for this situation, rather than being something that just fell to hand.

mashman
30th March 2012, 18:12
I dunno bro. Those little baseball bats are handy things. Similarly sized and weighted to a police baton. It'd be easy to kill or disable someone with one, and they're concealable under a coat.

I knew a guy once (unpleasant fellow) who carried one in his vehicle as a 'just in case' weapon. He could've carried a full-sized bat, a crowbar, or a knife... he had access to firearms, too, but a mini baseball bat was what he kept with him.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a weapon of choice for this situation, rather than being something that just fell to hand.

Fair enough. Why do you think they had an argument first? That doesn't seem like someone hell bent on murder? Did the bat belong to the boy or did he bring it? If she was a prostitute, surely there's more of an "out" (if you're planning a murder) there, than bludgeoning her to death at the house?

jrandom
30th March 2012, 18:18
Fair enough. Why do you think they had an argument first? That doesn't seem like someone hell bent on murder? Did the bat belong to the boy or did he bring it? If she was a prostitute, surely there's more of an "out" (if you're planning a murder) there, than bludgeoning her to death at the house?

Aha, that article has been entirely rewritten since I originally linked to it.

In fact, since I originally linked to it, brand new information has been released in court.

She told him his son wasn't actually his son. He grabbed something close to hand and beat her about the head until she died, then took what steps he could to cover it up.

Boring and stereotypical. Nothing further to discuss, I think. My initial hope that this was an interesting case has died stillborn.

mashman
30th March 2012, 18:25
Aha, that article has been entirely rewritten since I originally linked to it.

In fact, since I originally linked to it, brand new information has been released in court.

She told him his son wasn't actually his son. He grabbed something close to hand and beat her about the head until she died, then took what steps he could to cover it up.

Boring and stereotypical. Nothing further to discuss, I think. My initial hope that this was an interesting case has died stillborn.

Dammit House, you best hunt down a new one eh :blink:.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 18:28
Dammit House, you best hunt down a new one eh :blink:.

Might just have to go kill me a hooker or two and leave it for y'all to figure out.

:doobey:

(Edit: I wouldn't ever kill a hooker. I get on well with hookers as a rule.)

mashman
30th March 2012, 18:46
Might just have to go kill me a hooker or two and leave it for y'all to figure out.

:doobey:

(Edit: I wouldn't ever kill a hooker. I get on well with hookers as a rule.)

heh, I'll get my sister on to the case... she's rather good at hunting bad men down. It'll be a bit obvious if she's found with bleeding ears :innocent:

jrandom
30th March 2012, 18:47
i'll get my sister on to the case

pix plz

mashman
30th March 2012, 18:57
very similar to the lass below (the character, not the actress)

http://h9.abload.de/img/hotfuzz-cateblanchettk9yau.jpg

mossy1200
30th March 2012, 18:59
Killing people isnt a nice thing to do.He would have been better off finding a more constructive thing to do with hookers.
Its like he hadnt read the operation and users manual.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 19:02
very similar to the lass below (the character, not the actress)

I don't watch telly.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 19:02
Killing people isnt a nice thing to do.He would have been better off finding a more constructive thing to do with hookers.

I think his basic mistake was getting one pregnant.

mashman
30th March 2012, 19:07
I don't watch telly.

in which case it was my sister

jrandom
30th March 2012, 19:07
in which case it was my sister

7QT7bhJTkAs

mashman
30th March 2012, 19:09
heh heh


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvZgwtpPmLY

mossy1200
30th March 2012, 19:30
I think his basic mistake was getting one pregnant.

Maybe a lot of blackmail going on?

He should have asked for a refund.She was no longer fit for the purpose he had intended her for.

tri boy
30th March 2012, 19:39
Is it just me, or is this thread bordering totally distasteful.
The lass, (no matter what the reason)was bludgeoned to death, then dismembered. And members here are either trying to be detectives/look clever, or take a cheap shot at a dead woman.

Head banger nailed it.
The gutless little meathead needs a bullet.

jrandom
30th March 2012, 19:45
Is it just me, or is this thread bordering totally distasteful.

I'm a little disappointed that you think it's only bordering.

short-circuit
30th March 2012, 20:02
I'm a little disappointed that you think it's only bordering.

totally sucesstroll :yawn:

mossy1200
30th March 2012, 20:09
Nothings bringing her back and jokes aside it was gutless and theres no excuse.

If you put your meat anywhere and create life by doing so then your half responsible and need to deal with it in a more constructive way.

Mully
30th March 2012, 20:59
Early on I figured it was spur of the moment killing and then a (clearly failed) attempt to cover it up. Didn't he dispose of some clothing in a building site or some such?

I figured his logic was going to be "oh, she was a dirty prozzie. Took off and left her kid, etc" had he not been discovered.

jasonu
31st March 2012, 05:40
If anyone steals my bike then I hope they crash it and die.

Plus one to that sista!
I really wish Sean Ginty from Pukekohe was/has/will be run over by something big and sharp.

Woodman
31st March 2012, 08:30
Worked with a guy once who was a complete and utter emotional trainwreck. The cause of it was his ex wife of 15 years doing everything she could to ruin his life. He would move out of town, but she would find him, he would meet a new lady but the ex would get hold of her and make her life hell as well . She would ring employers and tell them all sorts of stuff about him. The list goes on but the poor bastards life was just fucked because of it.

He told me that he wished he had killed her because he would have been out of prison in seven years. Wasn't kidding either.

Drew
31st March 2012, 09:20
I think his basic mistake was getting one pregnant.
I disagree, I think his mistake was to be so arrogant as to think he could kill her. There is clearly something wrong with anyone who puts that much higher value on their own life, that they can take another.

Is it just me, or is this thread bordering totally distasteful.


Bordering? Fuck no! We are using a very terrible situation to generate entertainment. That aint distasteful, it's down right fucken sick.

A woman is dead, and she was killed in what I suspect is a very horrible way to die. (I've spent time in hospital after a bunch of skinheads jumped on my head repeatedly, and although you bounce in and out of consciousness, being certain you are going to die really fucks you up). Her son is now without the love and support that the very vast majority take for granted every day untill our parents pass away, or we become parents ourselves.

I can see Dans original point, from the article before it was edited, and it raises some valid questions. The only answer I can find for them is this.

No, he probably doesn't represent any danger to society from here on in. However he did kill a person, and now we as tax payers have to shell out something like $50,000 a year for the next 13 years 8 months at least. That $690,000 could be much better spent, in my opinion, on nearly anything that benefits more than one person, who has not forfeited there right to a place in society. Less the cost of however many bullets it takes to put the guy down, and body disposal.

Drew
31st March 2012, 09:25
Worked with a guy once who was a complete and utter emotional trainwreck. The cause of it was his ex wife of 15 years doing everything she could to ruin his life. He would move out of town, but she would find him, he would meet a new lady but the ex would get hold of her and make her life hell as well . She would ring employers and tell them all sorts of stuff about him. The list goes on but the poor bastards life was just fucked because of it.

He told me that he wished he had killed her because he would have been out of prison in seven years. Wasn't kidding either.

So, he thinks his life is so bad now, he could live with the guilt of killing someone in more comfort?

Changing ones name is quite simple, and moving overseas is even more so. For him to regret not killing her, is a sign to me of serious mental illness.

jrandom
31st March 2012, 09:29
I disagree, I think his mistake was to be so arrogant as to think he could kill her. There is clearly something wrong with anyone who puts that much higher value on their own life, that they can take another.

I doubt he'd argue in support of his 'decision'. And I don't think arrogance came into it, now that we know more of the story. Sounds like hearing it wasn't his kid was just too much for him to handle. Silly thing is, I bet it actually is his kid, and she was just needling him.

A lack of emotional control can lead anyone down a destructive path. There but for the grace of god, etc...

Drew
31st March 2012, 09:37
I doubt he'd argue in support of his 'decision'. And I don't think arrogance came into it, now that we know more of the story. Sounds like hearing it wasn't his kid was just too much for him to handle. Silly thing is, I bet it actually is his kid, and she was just needling him.

A lack of emotional control can lead anyone down a destructive path. There but for the grace of god, etc...That dog wont hunt.

You have an ex, and kids with her. I'm sure that she has needled you in the past, (not because of who you are(although I'd get that)) but born of frustration at something. Did ya beat her up for it? Did ya pick up your sons baseball bat and heft it a couple times calculating how many hits it'd take?

Any two people spending lots of time together, will eventually say something deliberately hurtful because they feel hurt themselves.

"She deserved it", is an arrogant statement also, because someone has clearly not considered what they themselves have done to aggrieve the victim and make them push.

I am not proud of the fact that I've been pushed to violence with people I know, but it would never have happened if I had actually tried to see their side of things.

jrandom
31st March 2012, 09:52
You have an ex, and kids with her. I'm sure that she has needled you in the past...

Not reeeeeally. Needling isn't her style. She specialises more in self-righteous disdain. But that's beside the point.

And, actually, she and I get on pretty well these days. But that's also beside the point.

My fundamental reason for this thread died when the truth about Callaghan's motivation and the circumstances of the killing came out. I should re-stress that here. It was a mystery when I posted, but the sordid and pathetic details were brought out in court later that day.

I don't disagree with anything you've posted, and I'm not interested in a death penalty debate today, so I really have nothing further to contribute.


not because of who you are(although I'd get that)

*chuckle*

slowpoke
31st March 2012, 23:45
It does disgust me a little that she and Mallory Manning were referred to as "the prostitute X" rather than by just their name. What should their occupation have to do with the fact they have been murdered? Does being a prostitute mean they are a disposable resource? I may not agree with that type of occupation, but nobody deserves that fate. Oldest profession in the world after all.


Find me a media report of a murder victim where their occupation isn't mentioned.

It's part of painting a picture of someone. Like it or not, what one does for a living does define one to a certain extent.

Even if only to the extent of making it clear that one doesn't really care what one does for a living and/or isn't qualified to do anything in particular.

And failing to mention that a woman works as a prostitute... constitutes leaving a fairly large portion of the canvas hidden.

Totally agree with GM on this one. So jrandom would look at things diffferently, give a different sentence if a teacher had been murdered in the same circumstances? That's just bollocks. If it was a couple of engineers they were talking about would they have been referred to as "the engineer X""? Like hell. Is the child involved supposed to say "Oh that's alright Mum was a hooker so she's not worth much." come sentencing time? Bullshit.

To judge someone by their profession, to say it defines them, is an absolute crock. Stereotypes have no place in court. My job is simply a means to earn $$$, I fuckin' hate it, and in no way shape or form does it define who I am.

A baker puts bread on display in a shopfront, but steal it and you cop the full force of the law.

A prostitute puts herself on display yet rape and violence are ok, expected even. It's sad that in 2012 people still see a woman, a child's mother, as worth less than a loaf of bread. Equally sad is the glib thoughtless title to this thread, and one can only hope the same lack of respect is shown upon your passing.