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?

Same. Ignore the mra, your comment wasn't crass at all

It wouldn’t surprised me if he killed himself. He isn’t actually able to “care” for anyone is he - he’s a deeply horrible human being who abused many women - he will be beaten in prison - he’s a coward - he will do what many of these men do when they have to face the consequences. I really hope social services are all over this - the child he’s going back to will need longer term care anyway. I hope the fucker doesn’t decide to end the child’s life too.

It seems she had parents (an article says they changed their Facebook profiles to pictures of Amber) and one elder sister at least. I wonder why she was in a children’s home? It’s sad that even there she wasn’t safe from her brother.

Just when you thought men couldn’t get any scummier.

I wonder why there are pictures of Amber, her parents, her sister etc plastered on articles but none of her brother accused of murder?

Presumably Amber, the 20 year old brother, and 16 year old boy are all siblings, and the 44 year old is their father/other relative, the elderly man is the grandfather.
The 16 year olds identity is being protected here.

This is not the day to post your #NAMALT drivel. A man has been accused of murdering his sister and another man of assaulting her murdered body.

Men are scum.

Who said anything about NAMALT? I would never say anything along those lines. You are making massive, incorrect assumptions

Mra? You couldn’t be further from the truth.

The poor conviction rate for rapists and sexual predators is nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. For cases that get to court the conviction rate is pretty good - around 70% of cases result in a conviction. The 6% figure for rapes that is often quoted is the proportion of reported rapes that result in a rape conviction. The vast majority of reported rapes never get to court, the main reason being complainants withdrawing their complaint. That is what we need to tackle if we want to see more sex offenders convicted, not weakening the presumption of innocence.

The judges comments are just so bizarre

What in the judge's reported comments is it that you think is bizarre?

Poor Amber, I feel sick reading what happened to her and it reminds me of the case of those poor sisters who were murdered in a London park and then police officers took photos of them..

What the actual fuck is wrong with some men?!!!!!

Also wondering this.

I interpret their comments as being very carefully worded to protect the identities of those involved, and possibly to prevent information pertinent to the trial from being made public until that point.

@ANonnyMouse1 💔❤️

The judge said: 'I don't know what motivates you to see the boy.

'The man looking after the needs help with him and if it wasn't for that you would not be getting bail now.

This ☝If the judge does not know why this 44 year old who has interfered with a murdered child's body wants to see the boy, why is he releasing him to facilitate this?

Yes I understand that the strange wording is to protect identities. The "I don't know what motivates you to see the boy." seems to be a specific quote

Does anyone know if there is a complaints mechanism for someone being given bail?

It sounds like you are implying nefarious intent?

From reading the articles I think it’s fair to assume that the elderly man is not the parent of the 16 year old. It’s also fair to assume that the elderly man is caring for the child in an official capacity. They took advice from a “professional” who I would assume would be involved in the case of the 16 year old boy. That professional believes that the risk to the boy of losing that contact is greater than the risk of maintaining the contact. Perhaps (probably)based on information that we are not aware of.

I'm not implying anything - I'm asking for help understanding the weirdest new report I have ever read!

Because the older man who looks after the boy needs help and the accused provides that help. The judge doesn't know why the accused chooses to help looking after this boy, however there is clearly no evidence that it is for nefarious purposes or bail would not have been granted. I don't find that at all bizarre.

YABU to use the "What have I just read" trope. I always want to send people off for comprehension lessons when they write that.

I do. I think that a man who interferes with the body of a dead 16 year old girl and choses to hide her body rather than inform the Police has shown he has no moral compass and no conscience. How can such a person be considered fit to look after a 16 year old with ADHD? It makes no sense whatsoever that this an can both have committed this crime and be considered a suitable carer.

This.

Any of us, or anyone we love, could be on the wrong end of a horrific incorrect allegation. We would all be outraged if we didn't have the presumption of innocence as a starting point.

Absolutely disgusting what he did and awful that they have given him bail!
Why would he be allowed out for this reason. Why would they let him care for any child at all. The child should be put in care if no family come forward to take them. Although it says he is staying with an elderly man.

Maybe he should have thought about what would happen to the child before committing this crime.

I don't live all that far from this area too, makes you sick.

You don't know what evidence was in front of the judge and are not in a position to form a reliable view on this. I'm prepared to bet that there is social services input in this situation and that there was a report from them, and it's not for the judge to override their views, particularly given that this man has not been convicted of anything.

The simple fact is that, by its nature, this is not a crime that the man is at substantial risk of committing if on bail with conditions, nor is it an offence that is likely to attract a custodial sentence. I don't think the judge had any choice but to grant bail.

Trope? Sorry but I don't get it? I don't understand the article and thought I was misreading it, no such luck unfortunately.