MikeB Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Lee, I think it’s a typically biased Filipino media job taking the defendants statements out of context in order to make them look bad. The readers comments after the hatchet job are a hoot. Typical of all media to take defendant's statements out of context to sensationalize and sell advertisements. But if she was a bar girl with sex toys she must be guilty of murder. Makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hounddriver Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Typical of all media to take defendant's statements out of context to sensationalize and sell advertisements. But if she was a bar girl with sex toys she must be guilty of murder. Makes perfect sense. In a sad way it does make sense. They need a conviction. The authorities have staked their reputation on the suspects being white male and filipina. Who do you get to take the fall? A white guy who is out of the country and a bar girl with no alibi. Case closed.I doubt you will find many who believe justice will be done in this case but there is a lot of pressure to close the books on it. In days gone by she would have been burned at the stake as a witch on evidence more flimsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 From what I have read, it is (or was) the police contention that the license tag of the vehicle registered to Santos was deliberately altered by one letter (M to H) to match the vehicle they were looking for. When the judge incredulously asked the policemen why a suspect would deliberately alter evidence to implicate themselves they had no answer.The abduction and murder of anyone, especially a child, is a terrible and tragic event and, since there's currently no DP, whomever is guilty should be punished for life. Will they ever be caught? The level of investigative incompetence displayed in this case, on the international stage, is downright frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Posted April 4, 2011 From what I have read, it is (or was) the police contention that the license tag of the vehicle registered to Santos was deliberately altered by one letter (M to H) to match the vehicle they were looking for. When the judge incredulously asked the policemen why a suspect would deliberately alter evidence to implicate themselves they had no answer.The abduction and murder of anyone, especially a child, is a terrible and tragic event and, since there's currently no DP, whomever is guilty should be punished for life. Will they ever be caught? The level of investigative incompetence displayed in this case, on the international stage, is downright frightening. Sometimes license plates are altered before the fact, so witnesses see the wrong number. It is too bad the police were not smart enough to reply with that fact. Another example of inexperienced, incompetent police work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Nobody just kills and disposes of a young girl unless it's a sexual crime (coppers said it wasn't)...and if that is the case, they need to start looking closer at the family if they really want to find the killer.They have NOTHING on these suspects, because if they had...it would be leaked for the face saving to take immediate actions. Now?They are once again looking silly...maybe the police should begin actually learning how to solve crimes and gain some knowledge of suspect profiling regarding a murder case, instead of creating a suspect and working backwards from there. This is a little girl....they don't get murdered like that without a sexual element.My cousin is a sex crimes detective in New York...we talked about this case and he said it's usually a trusted family member if it involved sexual abuse before the killing, or a loner and there would be others. One thing that puzzled him...the way the body was "supposedly" dumped (I do not believe anything with this case being fed to us)...made it seem to him at least, it could be straight out murder...but that is simply so rare that there must be things not being truthful. IMHO, two more people are being framed...because the cops won't expand into common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted April 6, 2011 Author Posted April 6, 2011 Interesting, if the below quote is true, and if the evidence is not planted, which I feel would be way overboard because one of the victims might come forward to confirm that the photos were taken by someone else, then it seems those two are in fact guilty of at least child porn, and if that is true, then it would not be a far stretch to believe that they might also be guilty of snatching the girl to pose for photos, paid or forced, and then when something went wrong, possibly killing her, or her falling down and injuring herself in an attempt to get away.So if the below is true, then I sure hope this couple does not get off on a technicality. If the motion is granted, the Pajero and other items confiscated from Santos' residence—which includes sex toys, bed linen, and a USB flash drive allegedly containing 200 photos of children and pornography—will be returned and cannot be used as evidence. The story where the quote was taken from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyAway Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 So if the below is true, then I sure hope this couple does not get off on a technicality. If the motion is granted, the Pajero and other items confiscated from Santos' residence—which includes sex toys, bed linen, and a USB flash drive allegedly containing 200 photos of children and pornography—will be returned and cannot be used as evidence. The story where the quote was taken from Since when are one's "Constitutional Rights" considered a technicality? I do not remember the judges name that said that here in the US. It comes down to Police procedure and chain of evidence control. Technicalities or Rights were put in place by the founding fathers to prevent police from breaking down peoples doors without probable cause.Comes down to police training and proper evidence collection. Rules are rules. Rights are Rights, not "Technicalities." If they do manage to have evidence dismissed and no charges can be proven, I have a feeling Philippines would not be a very safe place for them to live anymore. Good ole Wild West/Vigilanty mentality I am thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted April 6, 2011 Author Posted April 6, 2011 So if the below is true, then I sure hope this couple does not get off on a technicality. If the motion is granted, the Pajero and other items confiscated from Santos' residence—which includes sex toys, bed linen, and a USB flash drive allegedly containing 200 photos of children and pornography—will be returned and cannot be used as evidence. The story where the quote was taken from Since when are one's "Constitutional Rights" considered a technicality? I do not remember the judges name that said that here in the US. It comes down to Police procedure and chain of evidence control. Technicalities or Rights were put in place by the founding fathers to prevent police from breaking down peoples doors without probable cause.Comes down to police training and proper evidence collection. Rules are rules. Rights are Rights, not "Technicalities." If they do manage to have evidence dismissed and no charges can be proven, I have a feeling Philippines would not be a very safe place for them to live anymore. Good ole Wild West/Vigilanty mentality I am thinking of. Yes but would it not be better for them to be tried in a court of law, rather than killed by family rule? That is basically why I wrote what I did, to not let off a guilty party and to have them have their day in court rather than killed. The British boyfriend is out of the country, so no trial will mean he gets off scot-free and only she ends up possibly killed, while not even being found guilty of the crime, so what if she is innocent and killed by the family, that would mean the true killers of the little girl get off scot-free, and to kill again.Rules and laws are there to protect people, but when real evidence is dismissed and a person gets off, then that too is a travesty of justice. Laws were put into place to protect peoples rights, but once that evidence is gathered and the evidence is strong, letting those who are guilty off because of an error in judgement is foolish. I would rather see the police officers who wrongfully collected the evidence punished for their error, than see a criminal get off after committing a crime. IMO the law is there to make sure rights are not violated, not to let people off for crimes they actually committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyAway Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 I understand your point. It is just a double edged sword when it comes to the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Well, if he HAD child porn on his computer, he won't get much protection from the Brits, even if he is innocent of the murder. BTW, says children AND pornography. Does this mean he had a few of his GF's family members on his computer with a few porn videos? Or...children engaged or depicted in child pornography? Seems too odd to be running a child porn ring WITH a older pinay, but she IS a bargirl.She's been on the seedy side of the sex world and the dominant foreigners with control issues and twisted fantasies for years, so could of seen and been involved with all sorts of the weird shat sexpats ask for.....from foot fetish sucking slimeballs to photo taking perverts of underage catfights and now...very young girls.Say what you want, third world countries attract some perverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts