Crosswords1 min ago
Serial Killer
How many people does someone have to kill before they are a serial killer?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 4getmenot. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Re: Kevin Nunn
As I see it, the men and women of the jury who heard all evidence of the case against Nunn concluded that he WAS guilty after 13 hours of deliberation. The judicial system we have is that 12 of our chosen peers judge our actions based on the evidence provided for a crime charged against us.
Only those closest to the case can know the real truth in detail, so you are either a friend of Nunns or on the investigating force. The rest of us have to trust the instinct and decision of the 12 people selected to represent our constitution in the court of law for our country.
The judge summed up the jury�s decision: "You decided that if you could not have her no-one else would.
"Exactly what you did to Dawn we don't know. I have no doubt you intended to kill her."
As I see it, the men and women of the jury who heard all evidence of the case against Nunn concluded that he WAS guilty after 13 hours of deliberation. The judicial system we have is that 12 of our chosen peers judge our actions based on the evidence provided for a crime charged against us.
Only those closest to the case can know the real truth in detail, so you are either a friend of Nunns or on the investigating force. The rest of us have to trust the instinct and decision of the 12 people selected to represent our constitution in the court of law for our country.
The judge summed up the jury�s decision: "You decided that if you could not have her no-one else would.
"Exactly what you did to Dawn we don't know. I have no doubt you intended to kill her."
Nunn did not say to Dawn Walker, 'if I can't have you no one else will' it was to his ex wife 14 years previously who alleged he said this. The judge made a mistake during the summing up.
Also one of the jury went for an job interview with Suffolk Police 3 days before the 'guilty' decision. How can this be justice?
Also one of the jury went for an job interview with Suffolk Police 3 days before the 'guilty' decision. How can this be justice?
No, the judge summed up in her own words and from her own impression that Nunn had decided that if he couldn�t have her no-one else could. That must have been the impression that Nunn and the evidence against him gave, the judge was not �quoting� anyone. That is not a miscarriage of justice. That is what summing up is about.
The jury of 12 (good and true) men and women is empanelled. It's the prosecution's job to prove the case against the accused, not their job to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant committed the crime "beyond reasonable doubt". The standard of proof in a criminal case is very high.
A member of a jury attending a job interview is irrelevant � if you are intimating juror misconduct then this should be raised as a separate issue - so long as you are 100% sure of your case against them. Clutching at straws comes to mind. It may well be decided that during his 22 years in prison that the decision is overturned on appeal due to some further evidence being found, but as at the 14th December 2006 we can only assume that the judge and jury were correct and that this person is a jealous violent evil murdering who deserves to be where he is.
Sorry if you feel so strongly as to his innocence, but clearly the evidence, impression and verdict of the jury does not concur with you or his sister. As said by Yolande, this is the system of law that we live and abide by.
The jury of 12 (good and true) men and women is empanelled. It's the prosecution's job to prove the case against the accused, not their job to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant committed the crime "beyond reasonable doubt". The standard of proof in a criminal case is very high.
A member of a jury attending a job interview is irrelevant � if you are intimating juror misconduct then this should be raised as a separate issue - so long as you are 100% sure of your case against them. Clutching at straws comes to mind. It may well be decided that during his 22 years in prison that the decision is overturned on appeal due to some further evidence being found, but as at the 14th December 2006 we can only assume that the judge and jury were correct and that this person is a jealous violent evil murdering who deserves to be where he is.
Sorry if you feel so strongly as to his innocence, but clearly the evidence, impression and verdict of the jury does not concur with you or his sister. As said by Yolande, this is the system of law that we live and abide by.
The recent killings appear to be as a result of Ipswich Police wrongly convicting Kevin Nunn?! There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT and sounds to me like hopeful conjecture on your part. There are few (ie hardly any) similarities. Furthermore, it was a jury of 12 men and women drawn from a representative part of our population who convicted this man after a fully defended trial (and presumably all the points made on the website were put to the jury as part of his defence). The police investigate the case, the jury convict or acquit. And unless and until it is overturned on appeal, the conviction remains safe. Unless of course, someone is doing this to make everyone THINK that Kevin Nunn was wrongly convicted - in which case, they a) are even sicker than I thought and b) need to get the MO correct.
Why is it then that his 'co defendent, Nigel Hill, who he did not know, was acquitted during the trail, when it was the prosecutions case that Hill 'assisted' Nunn.
He has no previous convictions or violence.
Most cases of this type will lead to a defendent with a criminal or known sexual deviant/violent past...as in the case of Huntley.
Kevin Nunn is innocent. He has never and would never hurt anyone especially someone he loved.
He has no previous convictions or violence.
Most cases of this type will lead to a defendent with a criminal or known sexual deviant/violent past...as in the case of Huntley.
Kevin Nunn is innocent. He has never and would never hurt anyone especially someone he loved.
Yes, you are right. I wasn�t there. But 12 people (plus the CPS) representing me (us) were , and it is they who concluded their verdict on our behalf having listened to the evidence and seen and heard the individual accounts within a court of law. If on appeal, the courts find that there has been a miscarriage of justice � AND he is innocent of the crimes against him, then so be it, the man deserves to be freed. If the conviction is upheld then we must rely on our judicial system being legal, correct and appropriate.
excuse the above - I missed a page. It is obvious who mindhunter is - I think we all know that - and the appeal was thrown out BEFORE court as having 'no merit' - I think that says it all. And YES I was in court and I did hear the evidence and he was and is GUILTY. However he is not a serial killer - thanks to our justice system he didnt get the chance to torture anyone else!
I'm new to this site, so forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place. It astounds me that people actually believe that "the jury" is impartial, trustworthy, or in possession of the "facts." Our system is heavily weighted on the side of the prosecution/police/CPS - evidence is routinely suppressed, ignored or conveniently lost. Our media are allowed outrageous licence before and during cases where the accused is (apparently) entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am not in any way connected to Kevin Nunn or his family, yet a cursory glance at the goings on in this case leave me both speechless and terrified.
So, his sister set up a website that is "hopelessly biased" - 2 questions - who else cares enough to get the truth out there, and wasn't the case against him "hopelessly biased?"
Kevin Nunn didn't kill Dawn Walker any more than I did - based on the facts of the case, there's simply no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. If you don't agree, first visit that "hopelessly biased" website, then go check out the facts. Ask yourself, at every step of the way, "If this were happening to me, and I knew I was innocent, what would I do? How could I prove it?" It will shock you to realise you can't prove your innocence, even in a country where you're not required to do so.
Our world famed Criminal Justice System is rotting from the core out - we are locking up innocent people daily, and the majority of us don't even know it's happening. Visit www.innocent.org.uk just for starters. Do so with open eyes, because the next sister/brother/mother/father/wife/ husband setting up a "hopelessly biased" website might be you. And only you will know that your so-called bias is at the very heart of our CJS - it's called "The Truth."
So, his sister set up a website that is "hopelessly biased" - 2 questions - who else cares enough to get the truth out there, and wasn't the case against him "hopelessly biased?"
Kevin Nunn didn't kill Dawn Walker any more than I did - based on the facts of the case, there's simply no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. If you don't agree, first visit that "hopelessly biased" website, then go check out the facts. Ask yourself, at every step of the way, "If this were happening to me, and I knew I was innocent, what would I do? How could I prove it?" It will shock you to realise you can't prove your innocence, even in a country where you're not required to do so.
Our world famed Criminal Justice System is rotting from the core out - we are locking up innocent people daily, and the majority of us don't even know it's happening. Visit www.innocent.org.uk just for starters. Do so with open eyes, because the next sister/brother/mother/father/wife/ husband setting up a "hopelessly biased" website might be you. And only you will know that your so-called bias is at the very heart of our CJS - it's called "The Truth."
I have to applaud the comments made above. Someone earlier described the jury as 12 good and true men/woman. Godd and true my ****. Most probably 12 men/women who did not want to be there, 12 men/women who were easily baffled by all the conflicted stories from both the prosecution and the defence, 12 men/women who were, (as is the norm these days) to go home at the end of each day and discuss the case with all and sundry, 12 men/women who were allowed to go search the internet for news reports on this case and then make thier decisons. I am afraid there is nothing good and true about the jury system in this country anymore. If this is the only system that we can rely on to bring justice in this country it is time we all got together and outlawed the jury system because it stinks.
The comments in the above message I completely echo. They are all true. Look at other miscarriage of justice cases, Glyn Razzel, convicted of murdering his wife when she hasd simply disappeared, Simon Hall, convicted of murdering an old lady just because he did not have an alibi, Bradley Allardyce convicted for having a bit of blood on his shoe and Chris Nudds convicted of killing a traveller who simply went missing, www.justice4chris.co.uk
Come on everybody, wake up and smell the coffee, JUSTICE, the justice sysytem in this country does not know the meaning of the word justice.
The comments in the above message I completely echo. They are all true. Look at other miscarriage of justice cases, Glyn Razzel, convicted of murdering his wife when she hasd simply disappeared, Simon Hall, convicted of murdering an old lady just because he did not have an alibi, Bradley Allardyce convicted for having a bit of blood on his shoe and Chris Nudds convicted of killing a traveller who simply went missing, www.justice4chris.co.uk
Come on everybody, wake up and smell the coffee, JUSTICE, the justice sysytem in this country does not know the meaning of the word justice.
