Latest kid killer guilty (Aaliyah Morrissey case)

[candor]

The murderer has gone not guilty. He must love himself so bad - like any half cornered psychopath.

I can guarantee any reader he is guilty of premeditated murder - & more. No trial is needed for this one.
Theres no doubt he inflicted the injuries - he admitted that. He has admitted jealousy of the child ='s motive. He has form. End of story. Not quite... just yet.

For the sake of the family of this child and for Aaliyahs sake I hope with all my heart the scum does not fool the misinformed jury into returning manslaughter.

Curran is a murderer. The court and jury is not going to hear all. He is guilty as sin. I hope he never comes out.
And by that I do not mean preventive detention. Cancel that mans life privilege. In fact...why do we even bother with trials for rare gems like Curran.

Its time we started a secret assassin branch of the NZ Police. Past time.

Aaliyah 12 November 2007

A description of the violent beating which killed Tauranga two-year-old Aaliyah Morrissey has been heard in court.

Twenty eight-year-old Michael Curran is accused of beating Aaliyah while she was in his care in September 2005. His trial for her murder began this morning at the High Court in Rotorua.

Crown Prosecutor Greg Hollister-Jones says Aaliyah died from a brain injury, after her head was slammed against a solid object. He says doctors found a total of 33 separate external bruises and abrasions all over her body.

Mr Hollister-Jones says Curran was a friend of Aaliyah's family and the two-year-old regularly visited his house with her mother. He claims Curran became agitated with Aaliyah, as she became too clingy, which is when the abuse started to happen.

[howdamnhard]

Bring back capital punishment.:mad:

[Headbanger]

Pity they are wasting money on a trial, cover him in blood and throw him to a pack of wild dogs.

Then round up every piece of scum already in Jail for causing harm to a child and give them the same treatment.

Then, we can start moving down the list.

[Laava]

What about Scott Watson???????????????:blink:

[ManDownUnder]

Its time we started a secret assassin branch of the NZ Police. Past time.

I'm just amased we still bother with a Justice system at all. I mean you obviously have all the facts, and you're more than capable of coming to a verdict.

Hell - who needs judges either? Candor for Ministery of Justice!

[devnull]

Well candor would get my vote

Scumbags that harm kids deserve NO mercy whatsoever.
They revoked their right to life when they committed the crime...

[jrandom]

Scumbags that harm kids deserve NO mercy whatsoever.

As opposed to scumbags that harm adults? That's not quite so bad, you reckon? Fuck, looks like I gave up my right to sympathy when I left primary school. Hope I never get beaten or murdered, now; nobody will give a shit. I'm not small and cute.

[bane]

What about Scott Watson???????????????:blink:

although I dont know enough about this case to make a judgement either way, it's a good point.

I heard this morning about a case in England were a man spent 15 years in jail convicted of the rape and murder of an eleven year old. DNA evidence eventually showed he was an innocent man.

To me, a "life means for life" prison sentence is far preferable to capital punishment.

[Mully]

To me, a "life means for life" prison sentence is far preferable to capital punishment.

See, I think, for once, that the US has done a good job. Personally, I'm not a fan of the death penaly, but I like the idea of degrees of murder.

Where they admit it or there is no doubt whatsoever, and it's premeditated or commited while commiting another crime, first degree and death penalty.

If there is any doubt about the guilt (including Scott Watson & David Bain), second degree, life without parole. With a chance to do a David Bain and get a retrial/trial quashed.

Reckless endangerment (i.e. you should have known that someone could die by your actions, for example drink driving causing death) 3rd degree, 25 years minimum before parole.

Plus, to get a parole hearing, you have to have achieved something in jail (education, etc), rather than just behaved yourself.

Fuck this "10 years, out in 6" bullshit that we run now.

[MisterD]

As opposed to scumbags that harm adults? That's not quite so bad, you reckon? Fuck, looks like I gave up my right to sympathy when I left primary school. Hope I never get beaten or murdered, now; nobody will give a shit. I'm not small and cute.

Neither, as we can readily ascertain from your knife-fetish threads, are you defenceless.

[devnull]

As opposed to scumbags that harm adults? That's not quite so bad, you reckon? Fuck, looks like I gave up my right to sympathy when I left primary school. Hope I never get beaten or murdered, now; nobody will give a shit. I'm not small and cute.

nope, but I can tell you that as a parent, anyone harming my kids would face some fairly substantial retribution. Regardless of the length of sentence...

What pisses me off is these scumbags that are thugs when their victim is small and defenseless, with absolutely no chance of getting away or defending themself.

Sounds like you're pretty screwed though... I'm still cute - my wife told me so :bleh:

[candor]

Man Down Under. After the verdict all the facts will come out. I do know them, or enough anyway - from the horses mouth. I just think its wrong that the jury only can after the verdict.This disgusting case will have more developments.

Would we try Hitler before a jury on a charge of only killing one jew. And ensure the jury had no info about he rest?! Don't really think so. I might be sounding "emotional" but when the legal system is a ass that's what it is.

This guy suggested to Police in his initial interviews that perhaps it was manslaughter ie not murder. The system had conditioned him to think this way - to trust he could "weasle out".

[Patrick]

Fuck this "10 years, out in 6" bullshit that we run now.

If only it was that long. Try 10 years out in 4..... and home D for much of that 4....

[RantyDave]

As opposed to scumbags that harm adults? That's not quite so bad, you reckon?
Yes. Adults have at least the first chance of defending themselves - be it talking their attackers out of it, running like fuck, or turning round and doing the bastards themselves. But toddlers? She was, what, two? No hope.

Dave

[Toaster]

The whole justice system here is a joke. Way too soft and too long in the court system for justice for the victims - if they even get any justice. Prisons are bloody holiday camps too. It is a disgrace.... just makes the defence lawyers very very rich on legal aid for all the no-hoper crims that likely take benfits as well - so taxpayers get double-screwed over.

[candor]

If only it was that long. Try 10 years out in 4..... and home D for much of that 4....

So really if you've got a niggling urge to kill someone - the consequence you're looking at is having to get pizza hut to deliver, rather than dine in awhiles. What country would be the :2guns:psychopaths choice to live in?

[jafar]

If only it was that long. Try 10 years out in 4..... and home D for much of that 4....

You are shitting me, out in 4 ?? How many do you have to kill to get a decent sentence ?:mad:

[Patrick]

You are shitting me, out in 4 ?? How many do you have to kill to get a decent sentence ?:mad:

Dunno... Govt won't answer that one either. look at the referendum a few years ago, 95% of the voters said "harsher penalties"... Instead we got home D and parole like the example given..... but I digress....

[jafar]

Dunno... Govt won't answer that one either. look at the referendum a few years ago, 95% of the voters said "harsher penalties"... Instead we got home D and parole like the example given..... but I digress....

Striking an officer in the royal navy in the 1700's would get you 'keel hauled' or hanged.:gob:
Stealing a loaf of bread got you deported to Australia.
Seems we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous :angry2:
Now we have gangs of youths running around beating the crap out of anyone they feel like & all they get is a ride home in a police car. :Oops:

[Mully]

Dunno... Govt won't answer that one either. look at the referendum a few years ago, 95% of the voters said "harsher penalties"... Instead we got home D and parole like the example given..... but I digress....

Didn't 95% of the population also vote for 99 MPs in the same referendum??

Or am I imagining things again?

[Patrick]

Didn't 95% of the population also vote for 99 MPs in the same referendum??

Or am I imagining things again?

Nope... talk about "Up Yours" from the Govt to the mass majority....

[pritch]

Ahhhh but Matt Robson said we didn't understand.

I understand that Matt Robson has multiple university degrees but is a complete and utter fuckwit... The very epitome of what you get if you educate an idiot...

Once upon a time they got one third off for good behaviour, now thanks to Matt it's more like two thirds. Oh, and don't worry too much about the behaviour needing to be good either.

Talk about a revolving door. I also seem to recall that home detention was never to be an option for crimes of violence?

[darkwolf]

Prison is no longer a deterent. Prison has better living standards (in most cases) than most of these people can provide for themselves, and all they've got to do is commit a crime considered serious enough.

If you REALLY think about it, they commit a crime, a victim suffers (I can't think of a victimless crime) the offender gets locked in a cell sure, BUT, they don't have to make reparations to the victim, they don't have to work anymore, they get free food, free accomodation, free membership to the gym, free education, free healthcare, free power, free phone, (not 100% sure but) free internet and if they are "that way inclined" free sex.

Explain to me where the deterent is. And this is excluding the term "institutionalised"

Then the government decides that because too many people are enjoying their stay in prison, they decide to let people out earlier, they don't do the time for the crime and then don't like having to fend for themselves.

Instead of hardening up, NZ has provided a No.8 wire (read temporary) solution. It fixs prison "overcrowding" now but does nothing to deter future criminals.

This seems to be a common problem in NZ - temporary fixs - I mean look at the way the "patch" the roads. But that's off topic, so I'll leave it there.

[candor]

Baring in mind the child had horrific multiple stomping injuries...

His mother has gone in to bat for him it seems, to say it would have been accidental (no intent).
Today the jury heard this character enhancing perjury from him - a jury not allowed to know his history, yet. And he was presented as a good family man.

"It's my fault that she collapsed because I shook her but I didn't bruise her, punch her or whack her or touch her or do anything apart from shaking her. I didn't hit her because I'm not that sort of person. I never intended to hurt her, I just wanted her to stop crying."

It seems he and / or dirty defence lawyer are trying to shift the blame or create reasonable doubt - onto her grieving Mum. Perhaps we should send Judges to the Ureweras to learn to be snipers when "appropriate".

Echos of the police baton trials. Scum Wives / scum Mums and cuckoo trial rules must stop giving F-wits credibility.

Fingers crossed he'll get charged with perjury for the "I'm not that sort of person" BS. Easily disproven.

[Patrick]

Baring in mind the child had horrific multiple stomping injuries...

His mother has gone in to bat for him it seems, to say it would have been accidental (no intent).
Today the jury heard this character enhancing perjury from him - a jury not allowed to know his history, yet. And he was presented as a good family man.

"It's my fault that she collapsed because I shook her but I didn't bruise her, punch her or whack her or touch her or do anything apart from shaking her. I didn't hit her because I'm not that sort of person. I never intended to hurt her, I just wanted her to stop crying."

It seems he and / or dirty defence lawyer are trying to shift the blame or create reasonable doubt - onto her grieving Mum. Perhaps we should send Judges to the Ureweras to learn to be snipers when "appropriate".

Echos of the police baton trials. Scum Wives / scum Mums and cuckoo trial rules must stop giving F-wits credibility.

Fingers crossed he'll get charged with perjury for the "I'm not that sort of person" BS. Easily disproven.

That is when the prosecution can step in and disprove that claim... including previous convictions showing he is that sort of person...

[Patrick]

See he went down for it...

Good job...

Was on bail for Manslaughter at the time of thie kiddie murder too, I see....

Dunno if this is the "past" you were referring to????

[crashe]

See he went down for it...

Good job...

Was on bail for Manslaughter at the time of thie kiddie murder too, I see....

Dunno if this is the "past" you were referring to????


Yep this is now the second time that someone has killed again while out on bail (for killing someone).
There maybe other cases, but can not recall them at the moment.

The guy was charged with the man-slaughter of a woman killed 10 months before this little one was murdered for crying. Yet at the time of the little one's murder he was out on bail.

I hope the courts add on his 18 years for murder (before applying for parole) on top of the time that he is serving for the man-slaughter of the woman.
Not sure how much time he got for that - anyone know???????

-- years + 18years (before parole) = ????years to be served.......????


This is one person who should remain inside until he dies, as he has now killed twice. Is he now classed as a serial killer????

[Hitcher]

Cases like this worry me at times. Solo mothers, with children to different fathers and at least one big dog, seem to be pathologically attracted to unsavory members of our community who can be best described as "fucking losers". Some of these young women are attractive and otherwise reasonably intelligent. Is there some spectacularly powerful pheromone that Dwayne Hoodie and his mates exude that make women lose all sense of reason? I mean, what's going on here?

If I was a young lady (and the Elf thread suggests that may be a possibility) I wouldn't want "men" like this on the same side of the street as me, let alone close enough to passionately pound my pudenda.

[candor]

Yes Patrick - that killing was part of the past I was referring to. His prior murder... erm manslaughter (NZ deflationary pressure on charges). Also his prior rape in a Park toilet he got others to alibi him for, so got off. Also his prior molestation of a 12 year old (proved to court satisfaction).... and no doubt he was also an animal torturer. T'would be par for the course.

I was interested when you said the prosecution could raise past matters if he had made a false claim like "I'm not that kind of person". You'd think that would be natural justice (if thats the word)... but the Herald said that his past was unable to be raised, lest it prejudiced the trial.

Not raising it prejudiced it though - jurors got a presentation so biased they or even that crucial one juror might easily have believed this was an isolated incident of loss of control. It was just damn lucky he did not con this jury like he often has before. Prolly only because Police used emotive tactics, by presenting the bashing evidence in graphic detail - one juror vomited I believe.

Hitcher - I've heard some women go for "tough guy" types, as for some insane reason they believe this offers them protection, in what can be a predatory world. The Mum in this case was not stereotype solo, but recently seperated. She is a nice person, maybe was too trusting. But Maori streets are often like a big community where neighbours babysit for each other. As he was "married" and looked after his own kids, and as the wife is a friend singing praises how great he is then why would you expect your worst nightmare?

She was obviously vulnerable to attentions of this long term slimeball (like his prior victim who he also entrapped into an affair) with the marital breakup. Not in her wildest dreams did she imagine he would have the past he did. She knew he was on bail in connection to something serious, but had been reassured by what she saw (a family man). He was going round saying words like "if the Police really thought I was dangerous I'd never have been bailed - cos that would be just too crazy, eh - its all a misunderstanding".

He had well conned everyone around him that he was not guilty of the other "death", with what I must give full marks for, was a very convincing story (what kind of psychopath worth their salt can't spin some prize BS tho).

Pudenda?

[spudchucka]

I was interested when you said the prosecution could raise past matters if he had made a false claim like "I'm not that kind of person". You'd think that would be natural justice (if thats the word)... but the Herald said that his past was unable to be raised, lest it prejudiced the trial.

Its part of the rules of evidence. The prosecution can't base any part of their case on the defendant's past actions or prior convictions. However, if the defence elects to offer "character evidence" then the prosecution can offer evidence in rebuttal, which could be prior convictions etc.

Its true that by excluding this evidence the jury does not have a complete understanding of the person but they aren't there to judge the person, they are just there to decide whether the person is guilty of the offence charged based upon the proven facts. The judge has all the information relating to the defendant's past convictions etc and has to take these factors into consideration when sentencing.

Jury selection is a critical factor, if they get it right they, (the jury) should be intelligent enough to see through the defence smoke screens.

[ManDownUnder]

Now we have gangs of youths running around beating the crap out of anyone they feel like & all they get is a ride home in a police car. :Oops:

Course they get a ride home - they need to be safe!

tsk tsk tsk- you clearly don't share the Nanny state's priorities.!

[doc]

I just can't understand how someone can defend someone like this and take money for it.

[scumdog]

I just can't understand how someone can defend someone like this and take money for it.

And not just on this clear-cut case either..but that's human rights for you - they are allowed to have a 'fair' trial and be defended by people who are paid for by your taxes whether YOU agree the persons guilty or not:angry2:

As you were

[Patrick]

I suppose he was found guilty on the facts of the case only... not from his priors, which have little/nothing to do with the actual case in hand... that is how the system is supposed to work apparently.

A good result. Bloody oxygen thieves.......