13 Feb 2008

Observations and questions

After reading this morning about a particularly aggressive teen being killed (accidently), I am keeping an eye open to see whether the DPP is going to charge the relative involved or not. If the article is correct, it is a clear case of self defence.

However I must point out a few observations I made in this article:

  1. Maraj's mother, Deiann Lewis, 34, a mother of 12... WTF? 34 years old and a mother of 12? The victim is 17, and is the 5th child... At this point my math gave up...
  2. In a fit of rage Maraj is said to have slapped the relative in her face with the slice of bread. Lewis said Maraj was "notorious for his temper." He had recently moved back into the family's home after he was evicted by foster mother Pauline Ferguson because of his unruly behaviour. I hope the DPP takes this into account.
  3. But Maraj persisted lunging at the relative as she sat on a chair at the dinner table. His force threw her on the ground and he began beating her with his fists, Lewis said.

    In defence, the relative is said to have grabbed the four-inch brown handled knife which was used to slice the bread that was lying on the floor.

    Let it be known the relative thrown on the floor and being beaten is also pregnant.

Relating to my Thought of the Day today, I see that three men have been spared from being tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - forging of deeds for the purposes of providing bail. 10 charges have been thrown out.

Note however that these men were also charged similarly in 2004. Unfortunately, the article does not say whether it is the same incident though I personally doubt it. What did I say about where there is smoke...?

In other news Rowley has been cleared by the Integrity Commission of wrong doing in the Landate matter.

Now, I cannot help but think this came about because he took them to court for failure to ask him to be part of the enquiry... he was not given a chance to defend himself. Still, that does not mean the other findings were not accurate, it just means the IC has no balls to back up their opinion. One wonders if the IC is going to provide proof as to why this decision came about?

I wonder how many people really believe that the gravel didn't move? Or that Rowley did not profit somehow?

Once again dunceys are accused of shooting unarmed men. Will there ever be an end? Will they ever tell the truth? Will I ever get to stop writing about them?

Comments