WTF have I just read?

[unclebuck]

I am fully prepared to accept I am misreading this and ABU:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11644925/Man-44-inappropriately-touched-murder-victim-16-hid-remains-bush.html
I understand that Amber Gibson, 16 was murdered by her brother Conor Gibson, 20. Her body was then discovered and indecently touched by Stephen Corrigan, 44 Both men were in custody but Corrigan has now been granted bail as he is needed to CARE FOR A 16 YEAR OLD BOY!!! Please tell me I am misunderstanding in some massive way? They can't be releasing a man who assaulted a girls body and allowing him anywhere near a child can they?

AIBU?

I was wondering the same thing as I couldn’t find an answer when reading the link

This is all horrific but l am surprised people are allowed to comment on here as a member of a future jury could be reading all this and it could influence their decision.

Nobody has said anything that hasn’t been widely reported already.

Just awful. Even if the older man was connected to the girl's brother, as in a paternal role, surely to be charged on hiding the corpse he potentially could be very dangerous indeed and should never be granted bail whilst awaiting trial? I grew up in that town, I don't go back often but the story chills me to the bone. She was so young. Her own brother!

Many of the posts are quite irresponsible as there seems to be a lot of extrapolation and speculation on the thread about someone only accused of a crime. For example I am not a Scottish criminal lawyer but does any one actually know what inappropriate touching legally means in this context? But the jury issue is completely different.

OMG how is it even possible for something as horrific as this to even be real? I just can’t comprehend it!

I also wondered if ‘inappropriate touching’ could actually mean any kind of touching of a dead body without due reason. It might not mean sexual assault of some sort. If he his the body because he was basically scared of being accused of the murder then he may be a not very respectable citizen and guilty of a crime but not a terrible sexual predator.
Since I have no knowledge of the case and the judge does I have to assume the reasons were considered carefully in light of the evidence.

While I agree that this is horrible, in point of fact, almost all child molesters are gender-specific. And, in fact, this may have been necrophilia, rather than an overt attraction to a child/young person. Either way, I wouldn't want him looking after ANY child, but the young boy may not be in overt danger...although God KNOWS what he's learning!

Inappropriate touching in this case seems to very much be sexual.

Prosecutors allege that having found Amber Gibson's body sometime between November 26 and 28, Mr Corrigan touched her buttocks, breasts and other areas.

He is also accused of concealing the teenager’s body under bushes and branches to delay or prevent its discovery, concealing, altering or destroying evidence that would show he had touched her body and clothing.

www.lbc.co.uk/news/man-accused-killing-teenage-sister/

The judge’s decision does seem strange in that case. I hope there is more to the evidence that will make sense of it.

Beyond belief. Poor Amber. What a sad story and she’s almost a sideline in it because of this sh**show.

Yes that’s my thinking, it could be moving the body for example. But like you I don’t know so I haven’t jumped straight to the conclusion there is a necrophiliac on the loose with the permission of a judge and a danger to a 16 year old boy.

Thank you for clarifying that. I don’t mean to be a pedant but until this goes to trial no one can KNOW there is a sexual element. Like anyone he is innocent until proven guilty.

He has not been found guilty of anything yet. For all the revulsion on here, there is no specific offence of inappropriately touching a dead body. The offences with which he has actually been charged are relatively minor. Under the sentencing guidelines in England, there is a good chance he would end up with a suspended sentence if found guilty. I am not saying either the law or the sentencing guidelines are correct, just setting out how they currently stand.

So the judge effectively said that bail is granted but doesn’t know why?

No, that is not what the judge said. The judge said that he doesn't know why Corrigan sees the 16-year-old boy, but that the man looking after the boy needs help with him and that is why Corrigan was given bail.

Yes fair point about it still going through the justice system/presumption of innocence.

It's all just so abhorrent.

I find innocent until proven otherwise cold comfort given the lack of justice in most sexual crimes.

The legal system isn’t perfect. However the alternative is worse. It’s a bit crass of you to posit your point in relation to sexual crimes in particular as there was a prominent case last week or so where a woman was convicted of lying about a string of serious sexual offences of which she had accused a number of men. That is extremely rare but still it demonstrates the need for the presumption of innocence to prevail. It should be a comfort to you that the presumption of innocence should be preserved, no one knows when they may need to rely on it.

The scariest thing for me is not even the necrophilia side, it's the fact that after finding someone brutally murdered, instead of being horrified, repulsed, terrified, upset, he felt turned on.

My post is crass? Are you for real?

You’ve mentioned an extremely rare case, versus the pathetic conviction rate for rapists and sexual predators.

PP is not saying to stone the man regardless of evidence, they are saying its not even reassuring if he's not found guilty because many guilty sex offenders get released. Which is a totally fair statement.

I did say it was rare for a case like that to happen, but it did happen. I don’t disagree with you re the rate of conviction for sexual offences. But diluting the presumption of innocence is not going to improve those statistics.

It is extremely dangerous for everyone in society to allow the presumption of innocence to be eroded, no matter how repellent the crime a person has been charged with. It is the cornerstone of our criminal legal system. That is what I am saying.

I feel the same. I mean is practically every man capable of such horrors? That poor girl.

And we rely on the police to keep us safe. God help all women and girls. Of course mace is illegal, god forbid we have any chance of protecting ourselves.