FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Ireland

Killed because she was organising a party

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

There's a bleak story on the independent this afternoon of a lady that was killed in Kerry because she was accused of organising a party. Terrible stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilderMan
over a year ago

dublin

Is this the article? It doesn't read as a 'because' to me. Just a headline. An incidental fact seperate to the murder. The independent at its ''barely a step above tabloid' best

http://indo.ie/3sQGDX

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That poor woman and her little girl,heartbreaking

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is this the article? It doesn't read as a 'because' to me. Just a headline. An incidental fact seperate to the murder. The independent at its ''barely a step above tabloid' best

http://indo.ie/3sQGDX "

Did the reveal that detail to discredit the deceased? Surely the police are at fault if it has nothing to do with her murder. An innessary detail.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Muck taking by the accused's defence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is this the article? It doesn't read as a 'because' to me. Just a headline. An incidental fact seperate to the murder. The independent at its ''barely a step above tabloid' best

http://indo.ie/3sQGDX

Did the reveal that detail to discredit the deceased? Surely the police are at fault if it has nothing to do with her murder. An innessary detail."

Agreed 100%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ichael McCarthyMan
over a year ago

Lucan

I'm sure if you were charged with murder you'd try anything if you thought it would sway a jury. An awful lot of people seem to believe anything that's written in a newspaper or mentioned on the radio. Who knows, our own favourite site might get a mention yet.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *al2001Man
over a year ago

kildare

She was murdered because she had the misfortune to cross paths with a vicious evil bastard

way i read it it was mentioned by a witness in the trial and was reported then

it seemed to me as it might be relevant as a motive for guy she was casually seeing to kill her,jealousy

anything thats mentioned in a high profile criminal trial will get reported in papers which is kind of different to them breaking stories about ppls private lives

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm trying to figure out how saying she was a swinger would "sway" a jury?

It's not exactly the same thing as accusing someone of being a pedophile if someone killed a pedophile cause they harmed kid is say free them ffs,but a swinger ??? Seriously

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm trying to figure out how saying she was a swinger would "sway" a jury?

It's not exactly the same thing as accusing someone of being a pedophile if someone killed a pedophile cause they harmed kid is say free them ffs,but a swinger ??? Seriously "

I don't think it was ment to discredit her, or sway the jury. The gards or prosecution mentioned it to show that he was jealous, which would be a motive... If you're an evil bastard

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ichael McCarthyMan
over a year ago

Lucan


"I'm trying to figure out how saying she was a swinger would "sway" a jury?

It's not exactly the same thing as accusing someone of being a pedophile if someone killed a pedophile cause they harmed kid is say free them ffs,but a swinger ??? Seriously "

Who said anything about her being a swinger?

.

Who said anything about anyone accusing her of anything?

.

Things that are said as part of a defence in a courtroom are not generally said to make conversation. The motive is always to put some grain of doubt into the minds of the jury. Not having read the original article, all I know it's what was posted above me. I'm not quite sure where you're going with your response apart from throwing in the word swinger which wasn't there before that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugarcplCouple
over a year ago

Sugartown


"I'm trying to figure out how saying she was a swinger would "sway" a jury?

It's not exactly the same thing as accusing someone of being a pedophile if someone killed a pedophile cause they harmed kid is say free them ffs,but a swinger ??? Seriously "

Because that opens the possibility of her seeing numerous men and/or women for sexual trysts. Therefore the more people that she is seen to be meeting for sexual purposes, the less likely that the person in the dock can be seen to be a prime suspect as the reasons for her murder are duted and fragmented.

I loved watching Matlock back in the day

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Unfortunately the media just want a story. . ANY STORY. . . . A jury just determines who puts up the better case. . . Rights or wrongs don't come into either much. . . Pity

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

An awful article, they show a photo of her child, then imply witout proof that she was sleeping with lots of men.

The article says he met her to get some dvds off her, no talk of sex occurred. Later he repaid her with a bottle of drink, no conversation took place. He later heard off 3rd parties that she sleeps with lots of men.. what the actual fuck has that got to do with anything?

It's more likely he knew she was leaving so decided to rape and murder her, no? Who organises a swingers party by askig radom men who knock at the door to take part?

The article is just trying to slur the girl, and the photo of the 8 year old in the pic, they should be ashamed, it should be illegal, the kids lawyers should sue them. Disgusting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

From what I can get from this story is that this fella called to her house had a cup of tea and glass of wine in 25 mins. She mustn't have like him to spend that short of time with him. He called a few days later with a bottle of morgan's for her and she didn't let him in the gaff and had no convo. Now if someone called to your house you liked with a gift/bottle of morgan's you would invite them in. He obviously wasn't getting anywhere with her and got jealous and killed the mother and child. #bastard

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugarcplCouple
over a year ago

Sugartown

The man is a suspect and the law gives a suspect presumption of innocence. People saying he is guilty and that he killed her shouldnt do so.

At the very least you will have egg on your face if he is found not guilty, or if the judge directs the jury to find him not guilty.

Folks harping on about how the media is unjust, yet in the same breath demonise a suspect from what they have read in the media, before any verdict has been reached

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The man is a suspect and the law gives a suspect presumption of innocence. People saying he is guilty and that he killed her shouldnt do so.

At the very least you will have egg on your face if he is found not guilty, or if the judge directs the jury to find him not guilty.

Folks harping on about how the media is unjust, yet in the same breath demonise a suspect from what they have read in the media, before any verdict has been reached"

People are not saying he killed her, but that the article supplies as much evidence that she is not a swinger and he is the killer as it does for her being a swinger.

Also, egg on face? From what I have read the egg would be on the criminal justice systems face, not on the people who point out the garbage in this article.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugarcplCouple
over a year ago

Sugartown

A person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

If there is a single doubt a person must be found not guilty. It is the law.

So far there has not been a single shred of dna evidence connected to the accused whatsoever mentioned in the case. If I was a juror that lack of evidence alone would sway me towards a not guilty verdict. All that blood yet no dna evidence against the accused.

Anyone recall the Sophie Toscan DuPlantier murder and the stitchup of Ian Bailey?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugarcplCouple
over a year ago

Sugartown

And yes NSWN posters have said that he killed her.

"He obviously wasn't getting anywhere with her and got jealous and killed the mother and child"

You yourself asked the following rhetorical question: "It's more likely he knew she was leaving so decided to rape and murder her, no?"

So yes in closing, posters have asserted that he killed her as being fact.

Thank you for listening.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ichael McCarthyMan
over a year ago

Lucan


"The man is a suspect and the law gives a suspect presumption of innocence. People saying he is guilty and that he killed her shouldnt do so.

At the very least you will have egg on your face if he is found not guilty, or if the judge directs the jury to find him not guilty.

Folks harping on about how the media is unjust, yet in the same breath demonise a suspect from what they have read in the media, before any verdict has been reached"

That makes sense to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"A person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

If there is a single doubt a person must be found not guilty. It is the law.

So far there has not been a single shred of dna evidence connected to the accused whatsoever mentioned in the case. If I was a juror that lack of evidence alone would sway me towards a not guilty verdict. All that blood yet no dna evidence against the accused.

Anyone recall the Sophie Toscan DuPlantier murder and the stitchup of Ian Bailey?"
. Well said . I find it quite frighening how little evidence someone people require to assume that someone is guilty. Just browsed through the article in the independent . I only want to see people convicted if the beyond all reasonable doubt criteria is satisfied . I have no sympathy for criminals , but all convictions must be safe . Judgement should only be made when you have heard all of the evidence . Innocent unto proved guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top