Friday, June 27

Colour me heartless, but...

I can't believe it took the jury fifty minutes to come to a guilty decision regarding the woman who drove around with a guy stuck in her windshield. I would have found her guilty in about 30 seconds.
Not only was this woman drunk and high, but she's also stupid, which is probably the greatest crime of them all.
I mean come on now, she hit a guy with her car, so hard that his head and shoulders were stuck in her windshield, and she didn't even call an ambulance.
I can understand her being scared, and emotionally distraught. But there is no excuse for just letting him die, having someone help dispose of the body, and then trying to cover it up by burning the car seats and other evidence.
If her reason for not calling the police was because she was drunk, had smoked pot and took ecstacy, and didn't want to be punished, then she is, in my opinion, undeniably guilty. And should have to face a full punishment of life in prison.
There's no excuse for what she did.

Thursday, June 26

Flaming Mad !

Man oh man. You've got to have some really strong views to set yourself
on fire
as a form of protest.

I don't really think lighting ones self on fire is a great idea. It just makes
you look crazy. And who the hell cares what some psycho thinks about their

If you want to get a message across traditional means are probably the best.
Picket lines, sit ins, chain yourself to a tree. But torching your body? Where's
the sense in that.

"Oooohhhh no. Lookit' that chick! She just lit her head on fire. Maybe I should
rethink all my decisions. Because obviously she finds fault in them. And
obviously she's 100% sane."

Ummmm....that's a big negative.

Anyway, what reason would you have for setting yourself on fire.

Me, the only reason I can think of, would be if I were Johnny Storm, the Human
Torch !

Tuesday, June 24

Crime Novels versus The Real Thing...

The Holly Jones murder has been a headliner for quite a while now, and even people like me, who have tried to ignore the news as of late, have managed to learn a small amount about the brutal killing and the subsequent investigation.
The odd thing is that, the more I read about this in the papers, the more I begin to think of it as some sort of James Patterson, or Jeffrey Deaver crime story. Where is Lincoln Rhyme, Lucas Davenport, or Alex Cross? Why haven't the Toronto police been able to use insight and technology to find a unique carpet fibre that can be traced back to the car mats in the suspects vehicle? Why haven't they found some sort of reclusive eye witness, or a bit of trace evidence under a finger nail, that will lead them to the killer?
After reading all these books, or watching films like Murder by Numbers, you would think the police are able to piece together a crime and solve it within moments, unless of course they're competing with a criminal mastermind. A mastermind with a cool nickname like the Night Stalker, or Jackal, or Iceman (no relation to the Ice Queen).
I guess this just goes to show me, that real life is seldom like the movies, or novels I read.
I've also wondered, if maybe some of todays criminals are reading these same crime novels, and as a result are learning about police investigation techniques. Falsifying evidence, contaminating a crime scene, things like that. Older films or novels taught criminals to wipe away finger prints. I'm wondering if modern entertainment will have them vaccuming trace elements like fibres, specks of dirt, and hairs.
Maybe they'll start scraping under their victims finger nails to remove any sort of evidence of a struggle.