Last July, Kyle Clifford murdered three people (his ex-girlfriend, and
her sister and mother). He has admitted the murders. He then shot
himself with the same weapon used in two of the murders, and is now paralysed.
There is forensic evidence that suggests he raped his ex- before killing
her, which Clifford denies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g02npjjkjo
Is there that much difference in the murder sentence, if the rape is
proved? It seems quite a palaver to go through if the end result (if
found guilty) is a rape sentence that runs concurrently with the murder sentences.
Last July, Kyle Clifford murdered three people (his ex-girlfriend, and
her sister and mother). He has admitted the murders. He then shot
himself with the same weapon used in two of the murders, and is now paralysed.
There is forensic evidence that suggests he raped his ex- before killing
her, which Clifford denies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g02npjjkjo
Is there that much difference in the murder sentence, if the rape is
proved? It seems quite a palaver to go through if the end result (if
found guilty) is a rape sentence that runs concurrently with the murder sentences.
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
Last July, Kyle Clifford murdered three people (his ex-girlfriend, and
her sister and mother). He has admitted the murders. He then shot
himself with the same weapon used in two of the murders, and is now
paralysed.
There is forensic evidence that suggests he raped his ex- before killing
her, which Clifford denies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g02npjjkjo
Is there that much difference in the murder sentence, if the rape is
proved? It seems quite a palaver to go through if the end result (if
found guilty) is a rape sentence that runs concurrently with the murder
sentences.
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does
seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his
own actions.
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
Last July, Kyle Clifford murdered three people (his ex-girlfriend, and
her sister and mother). He has admitted the murders. He then shot
himself with the same weapon used in two of the murders, and is now
paralysed.
There is forensic evidence that suggests he raped his ex- before
killing her, which Clifford denies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g02npjjkjo
Is there that much difference in the murder sentence, if the rape is
proved? It seems quite a palaver to go through if the end result (if
found guilty) is a rape sentence that runs concurrently with the
murder sentences.
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does
seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his
own actions.
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:04:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
Last July, Kyle Clifford murdered three people (his ex-girlfriend, and
her sister and mother). He has admitted the murders. He then shot
himself with the same weapon used in two of the murders, and is now
paralysed.
There is forensic evidence that suggests he raped his ex- before killing >>> her, which Clifford denies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g02npjjkjo
Is there that much difference in the murder sentence, if the rape is
proved? It seems quite a palaver to go through if the end result (if
found guilty) is a rape sentence that runs concurrently with the murder
sentences.
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does
seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to
prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his
own actions.
There will be a minimum term specified. It will be interesting to see the judge's sentencing remarks and what they say about the effect if any of the rape charge (whatever the outcome) on that term.
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was time and money well spent.
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was time and >> money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in
some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired
for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was
time and
money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in
some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
On 7 Mar 2025 at 10:58:16 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was time and
money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in
some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
I really doubt if the CPS would have brought the charge if the victims' family
did not want them to.
Why should the defendant get away with refusing to plead
to the charge which probably embarrassed him, and his righteous self-image?
On 07/03/2025 10:58, GB wrote:
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired
for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was
time and
money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in
some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
As always with rape trials, there must be a risk that the jury will not
find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, for the victim or
her family, can seem like another slap in the face, another form of rape.
But as the saying goes, fiat justitia ruat caelum.
On 7 Mar 2025 at 11:17:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/03/2025 10:58, GB wrote:
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury retired
for less than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think
that was time and money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in >>> some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
As always with rape trials, there must be a risk that the jury will not
find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, for the victim or
her family, can seem like another slap in the face, another form of rape.
But as the saying goes, fiat justitia ruat caelum.
In this case that was not remotely likely. They found incontrovertible medical evidence that he had sexual intercourse with her while she was
tied up and just before he killed her. He could hardly claim she
consented. His only defence was a biological impossibility for which
he offered no expert evidence. So in this case I don't see there was
any real risk of any other verdict.
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does
seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to
prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his
own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does >>> seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to >>> prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his >>> own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison
because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
mike
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison
because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
On 07/03/2025 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Mar 2025 at 10:58:16 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury
retired for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was
time and
money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted him in >>> some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
I really doubt if the CPS would have brought the charge if the
victims' family
did not want them to.
It should have had nothing to do with them. The CPS is supposed to be independent and bring to trial those whom they think they have a
reasonable prospect of being convicted. They have the public interest
to protect as well.
Why should the defendant get away with refusing to plead
to the charge which probably embarrassed him, and his righteous self-
image?
Because it's not a requirement to plead. If a defendant refuses to do
so, a plea of not guilty will be entered on his behalf.
In this case that was not remotely likely. They found incontrovertible medical
evidence that he had sexual intercourse with her while she was tied up and just before he killed her. He could hardly claim she consented. His only defence was a biological impossibility for which he offered no expert evidence. So in this case I don't see there was any real risk of any other verdict.
On 2025-03-07, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison
because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
This is a peculiar comment given that there's unlikely to be any "folk" whatsoever "pressing" for this, unless we count the murderer himself,
and perhaps his mother.
On 08/03/2025 00:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-07, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison >>>> because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
This is a peculiar comment given that there's unlikely to be any "folk"
whatsoever "pressing" for this, unless we count the murderer himself,
and perhaps his mother.
I don't know how paralysed the guy is, but if he is quadriplegic, say,
then it may be a serious undertaking for the prison service to look
after him. I don't think the state should, in effect, murder him through wholly inadequate care, and I doubt there are many on this forum who
would think that, either.
So, the question is where he can be most cost-effectively looked after.
It won't much matter whether the hospital bed he is in is in a prison,
or some other institution.
So, I'm not pressing for compassionate release, but I'm also not
pressing for him to be in a prison if he can be more cheaply looked
after elsewhere.
On 08/03/2025 00:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't know how paralysed the guy is, but if he is quadriplegic, say,
then it may be a serious undertaking for the prison service to look
after him. I don't think the state should, in effect, murder him through wholly inadequate care, and I doubt there are many on this forum who
would think that, either.
On 2025-03-07, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison
because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
This is a peculiar comment given that there's unlikely to be any "folk" whatsoever "pressing" for this, unless we count the murderer himself,
and perhaps his mother.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
I would guess "yes", on the basis that there's unlikely to be any
significant number of people deliberately injuring themselves to
obtain benefits, and indeed the person in question here did not
do so.
On 8 Mar 2025 at 10:17:02 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 00:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-07, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison >>>>> because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
This is a peculiar comment given that there's unlikely to be any "folk"
whatsoever "pressing" for this, unless we count the murderer himself,
and perhaps his mother.
I don't know how paralysed the guy is, but if he is quadriplegic, say,
then it may be a serious undertaking for the prison service to look
after him. I don't think the state should, in effect, murder him through
wholly inadequate care, and I doubt there are many on this forum who
would think that, either.
So, the question is where he can be most cost-effectively looked after.
It won't much matter whether the hospital bed he is in is in a prison,
or some other institution.
So, I'm not pressing for compassionate release, but I'm also not
pressing for him to be in a prison if he can be more cheaply looked
after elsewhere.
Every prisoner could be looked after more cheaply elsewhere!
The additonal
care costs do to his paraplegia (below the chest according to reports) are likely to be only marginally more in prison than at home. The only additional cost is likely to be security clearance for carers. There are quite a lot of old, frail people in prison so this is likely to be routine.
On 07/03/2025 18:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
In this case that was not remotely likely. They found incontrovertible
medical
evidence that he had sexual intercourse with her while she was tied up
and
just before he killed her. He could hardly claim she consented. His only
defence was a biological impossibility for which he offered no expert
evidence. So in this case I don't see there was any real risk of any
other
verdict.
I don't know enough about the sensitivity of DNA testing to know whether
the defence was a biological impossibility. As you implied, if it were possible, we'd have expected the defence to have found an expert to say so.
On 7 Mar 2025 at 22:30:48 GMT, "miked" <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder,
does seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will
he go to prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a
result of his own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for
prison because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
mike
There would be a lot of skiers and rugby players out of luck if they couldn't!
I don't see benefits as a reward for moral worthiness.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does >>> seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to >>> prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his >>> own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison
because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
On 07/03/2025 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 07/03/2025 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Mar 2025 at 10:58:16 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 06/03/2025 18:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
As it turned out the rape trial only took 3 days and the jury
retired for less
than an hour before finding him guilty. Personally I think that was
time and
money well spent.
I believe the bereaved father sat through the trial in the public
gallery. One justification for the trial would be if it comforted
him in
some way. But, I have no idea whether it comforted him or just
distressed him further.
I really doubt if the CPS would have brought the charge if the
victims' family
did not want them to.
It should have had nothing to do with them. The CPS is supposed to be
independent and bring to trial those whom they think they have a
reasonable prospect of being convicted. They have the public interest
to protect as well.
Why should the defendant get away with refusing to plead
to the charge which probably embarrassed him, and his righteous self-
image?
Because it's not a requirement to plead. If a defendant refuses to do
so, a plea of not guilty will be entered on his behalf.
In the good old days, hundreds of years ago, if a person refused to
plead he/she would be placed on the ground, heavy weights placed on
their chest, the weights would gradually be increased, and if necessary
the person would be "pressed to death".
Now, that's what I call resilience.
On 08/03/2025 09:58, The Todal wrote:
In the good old days, hundreds of years ago, if a person refused to
plead he/she would be placed on the ground, heavy weights placed on
their chest, the weights would gradually be increased, and if
necessary the person would be "pressed to death".
Now, that's what I call resilience.
The legal history of this for anyone interested is as follows:
At the beginning of the 13th Century, criminal cases in England could be tried either by ordeal or by judicial combat. To solve the problem introduced in 1215, (when the Fourth Lateran Council forbade clergy from participating in the ordeals), the accused was allowed to submit to
trial by jury instead of trial by battle (which, in any case, was not an option for those accused by the community or for females).
As trial by combat was still an option, the accused could not be forced
into trial by jury and had to submit to it voluntarily by entering a
plea thereby seeking judgment from the court.
This created an unworkable system where only those who had volunteered
for potential punishment could be dealt with by the criminal justice
system, an alternative being to try them under Admiralty law instead.
On Sat, 08 Mar 2025 00:11:35 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Mar 2025 at 22:30:48 GMT, "miked" <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder,
does seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will >>>>> he go to prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a
result of his own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for
prison because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
mike
There would be a lot of skiers and rugby players out of luck if they
couldn't!
I don't see benefits as a reward for moral worthiness.
But are you a minority ? Because a lot of people do. Even if they choose
not to articulate it as such.
And it's not necessarily a bad mark ? To a certain extent, some people
can be considered the authors of their own misfortune.
It may not be politically correct, but I do begrudge my taxes going to
people who *chose* to fuck around when the offer of free education was
made and therefore emerge into the modern world bewildered by numbers and letters and expecting various subs to make up the shortfall.
At the beginning of the 13th Century, criminal cases in England could be tried either
by ordeal or by judicial combat. To solve the problem introduced in 1215, (when the
Fourth Lateran Council forbade clergy from participating in the ordeals), the accused
was allowed to submit to trial by jury instead of trial by battle (which, in any case,
was not an option for those accused by the community or for females).
On 8 Mar 2025 00:11:35 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2025 at 22:30:48 GMT, "miked" <mike@library.net> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 0:06:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 07:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:25, GB wrote:
The prosecution, to prove that he committed rape as well as murder, does >>>>> seem to me to be a waste of money and court time. Not only will he go to >>>>> prison for life anyway, he is also seriously disabled as a result of his >>>>> own actions.
Careful.
There'll already be a bunch of folk ready to press for his early
compassionate release on the basis that he is too vulnerable for prison >>>> because of his physical infirmity and disabilities.
On a side issue to this, if someone deliberately disables themselves by
their own actions, can they still claim sickness benefits?
mike
There would be a lot of skiers and rugby players out of luck if they couldn't!
How mant skiers and rugyb players *deliberately* disable themselves?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:13:03 |
| Calls: | 9,822 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,639 |