Social ðŸ¦¹ Crime.

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
Not quite the same situation, but I was getting a ride home with a mate and his son after a movie last year, and coming up a street in central Welly while talking about random stuff he suddenly had to swerve to avoid what he thought looked like one of those big soft toys like you win at a fair (I didn't see what he was swerving from), but carried on driving in a "well that was weird... what were we talking about" kind of way.

Turns out it was a person who had been hit not long before us and someone else pulled over to check not long after us (as advised by the police we both gave statements to, after they found his details via number plate on CCTV). So while we didn't hit them (though was close), I can easily see how the unexpected can rattle your brain to carry on in "I don't know how to deal with this, just move forward" ways.



EDIT: was this incident for the record...

www.nzherald.co.nz

Police identify car that fatally hit Wellington person

Police said the driver may not know they hit someone.
www.nzherald.co.nz www.nzherald.co.nz
 
WA Warrior said:
Yeah I know, I’m not defending them I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is 3 evil people decided to carry on after running someone over, absolute madness.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, not suggesting you are defending them. I meant there is no way they wouldn't have known they had hit something and something that big I'm pulling over to check my car out at the very least.
 
Inruin said:
Yeah, sorry, not suggesting you are defending them. I meant there is no way they wouldn't have known they had hit something and something that big I'm pulling over to check my car out at the very least.
Click to expand...
Nah I didn’t take it that way, I’m just trying hard not to believe there are such wicked people around you know.
Yeah exactly, you would check right.
 
WA Warrior said:
Nah I didn’t take it that way, I’m just trying hard not to believe there are such wicked people around you know.
Yeah exactly, you would check right.
Click to expand...

Rather than wicked people we are more likely talking about callous self interested types of people of which in the age of the interweb there are millions.

More than likely these folk thought rather than go to court and potentially risk incarceration for no more than driving down the road, they will just keep going.

The chances of three drivers not identifying a body in the road is zero.
At that hour often times drivers have had a tipple or a toke or a snort, another reason to drive on and not be done for manslaughter.
 
FormerlyJamesW said:
Yip.

Bit of a strange one eh? You reckon he did it?
Click to expand...
Yeah I do. The strangle marks consistent with his belt on her neck is just one piece of evidence that’s strange, along with the knot from the rope she supposedly hung herself not sliding down the balustrade with the tightnesses of the knot in consideration to her weight hanging and the rope too long. Some massive inconsistencies
 
Noitall said:
Yeah I do. The strangle marks consistent with his belt on her neck is just one piece of evidence that’s strange, along with the knot from the rope she supposedly hung herself not sliding down the balustrade with the tightnesses of the knot in consideration to her weight hanging and the rope too long. Some massive inconsistencies
Click to expand...

For sure.

Plus he kept changing his story, too.

The problem with these cases is that, when you put them in front of a jury you have to connect the dots very well. Can't convict on vibes alone.

I'm really curious why they didn't drug test him and subpeona his phone immediately. Although, my suspicion is that the law ties the polices hands in this regard.
 
I took the pov that he is innocent (as per the standard eh).

I find it troubling when Murder suspects choose to speak to the media. But ok that is not in of itself incriminating. It does suggest a personality type where you feel you need to persuade other people.

He has just said the first thing that I find very concerning, he mentions when his lawyer friend told him to walk out of the Police interview that he wanted t 'help put this thing together.

That is not the statement of someone who has been party to finding a death by suicide, in which case you would not feel the need to 'help put this thing together' instead you would stick to the facts, on the face of it, nothing to solve, I found my wife hanging, end of story.

Blaming the dead wife for the meth, while distasteful, is not a crime, I do not believe him, however it makes sense that he would lie about the drugs - again that does not incriminate him with murder. He is a high functioning druggie who used his wifes absence to get off a meth rap and reputation.


All the signs are there that he is the heavy user (watch his mouth movements, he has to bury his tongue behind his lower lip to stop it repeatedly involuntarily poking out from Meth dopamine pathway damage.

So towards the end of his first media interview he says that the police had a hypothesis and were not willing to consider other scenarios.

There is only one scenario he should be talking to, the one he say's is the truth, the truth as he was presented with it in his own experience having found her. To say scenarios plural...in this regard is potentially damming imo.

And then he comes up with an encephalitis (a brain infection) scenario of his own, causing psychosis, as a side effect to the Covid vaccine.

The pathologist report is incriminating.

His strangulation search is incriminating.

He had motive.

The Jury it seems were stupid. They showed that by virtue of the questions they asked the court, they literally showed they did not understand the court process for the duration of the trial.

Was there enough evidence to convict? I would say so in my opinion (any stupid Jury should have understood that the google search was the evidence they needed for a guilty verdict).
 
sup42 said:
I took the pov that he is innocent (as per the standard eh).

I find it troubling when Murder suspects choose to speak to the media. But ok that is not in of itself incriminating. It does suggest a personality type where you feel you need to persuade other people.

He has just said the first thing that I find very concerning, he mentions when his lawyer friend told him to walk out of the Police interview that he wanted t 'help put this thing together.

That is not the statement of someone who has been party to finding a death by suicide, in which case you would not feel the need to 'help put this thing together' instead you would stick to the facts, on the face of it, nothing to solve, I found my wife hanging, end of story.

Blaming the dead wife for the meth, while distasteful, is not a crime, I do not believe him, however it makes sense that he would lie about the drugs - again that does not incriminate him with murder. He is a high functioning druggie who used his wifes absence to get off a meth rap and reputation.


All the signs are there that he is the heavy user (watch his mouth movements, he has to bury his tongue behind his lower lip to stop it repeatedly involuntarily poking out from Meth dopamine pathway damage.

So towards the end of his first media interview he says that the police had a hypothesis and were not willing to consider other scenarios.

There is only one scenario he should be talking to, the one he say's is the truth, the truth as he was presented with it in his own experience having found her. To say scenarios plural...in this regard is potentially damming imo.

And then he comes up with an encephalitis (a brain infection) scenario of his own, causing psychosis, as a side effect to the Covid vaccine.

The pathologist report is incriminating.

His strangulation search is incriminating.

He had motive.

The Jury it seems were stupid. They showed that by virtue of the questions they asked the court, they literally showed they did not understand the court process for the duration of the trial.

Was there enough evidence to convict? I would say so in my opinion (any stupid Jury should have understood that the google search was the evidence they needed for a guilty verdict).
Click to expand...
He was off his face in many of those interviews, he couldn’t get words out quick enough and got vocabulary muddled at times. That’s the thing with p, you just want to talk. I say p as opposed to meth because they are different in that p is pure, crystals. Could it be that some of the experts presiding over the case had a bearing in the jury’s decision? I truly can’t believe he was found innocent and makes me consider that if he wasn’t the prominent eye doctor, and perhaps just an average Joe, would they have come to the same conclusion? Certainly some oddities in their marriage also with her participation sexual adventures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom