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?

Did you even read it? The boy isn’t in care of the accused. He’s living with an “elderly man” with the involvement of “professionals” and he will remain in the primary care of the elderly male. I think it’s clear that there is already some level of social work involvement in the boy (I’d presume the “elderly man” is not the father of the 16 year old)

@WineDup yes I read it! If the elderly man can't cope the boy should go in to care if not one else in the family can take him. Surely that's exactly what would happen I'd say the elderly man who isn't in good health died?

What is going to happen when the accused goes to jail?

"He says the boy has respect for Mr Corrigan who can discipline him better.

"The man believes if Mr Corrigan was about then the boy's behaviour can be manageable."

Prosecutor Kath Harper stated that Corrigan has had "patchy" contact with the boy since 2008.

She added that she had read that the boy's behaviour "falls in line with his age."

Patchy contact so not even his day to day carer previously. And the behaviour "falls in line with his age". So presumably it sounds like an effort by the man's father to get him free. Probably doesn't believe the son h brought up would do that. Ugh. This is horrendous.

It sounds like he is in care already. Most of those “in care” are in kinship care. IE - in the care of a relative who isn’t the parent.

The contact with the child could be in a contact centre, for example.

@WineDup Ok I understand what you mean. I'm not familiar with the care system at all. I still don't understand that being a reason he gets out. Maybe they could have arranged somewhere in the prison for these visits.

You are guessing. And the prosecutor alleging that the boy's behaviour "falls in line with his age" doesn't mean it is true. As a previous poster says, the judge may well have had a report from social services who may have taken a different view.

And to emphasise again, Corrigan is alleged to have done these things. He has not been convicted. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence, whereas many on this thread seem to want to make decisions based on a presumption of guilt.

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Ok, insert the words 'suspected of'
What happened to child protection?

One of the reasons why I hate the UK so so much. The leniency on crimes is just ridiculous! He would be under the jail if he was in America. Bail for someone who's done something so despicably disgusting? Shocking read!

Poor poor Amber Gibson! Violated and killed by her own brother when alive and then violated even after she was dead. There is no limit to men's depravity.

Hmmm, I think, and I could be wrong, that women in particular got bored of the ‘presumption of innocence’ when it kept leading to men like Wayne Couzens, John Worboys and David Carrick being let go again and again instead of being convicted, sentenced and imprisoned - thus keeping countless other women safe from them.

How do you think posting hyperbolic messages on social media improves child protection in any way at all?

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick there entirely

You think being bewildered by a man suspected of interfering with a child's body being left in charge of a 16 year old with ADHD is hyperbole?

I don't think that is the view of the majority of people in this country. Interfering with a dead body remains a shocking taboo, even in 2023.

You posted saying so much for child protection. How do you think anything of what you’ve said will increase child protection?

I am not expecting anything I say to change anything. I am expressing shock and disgust at the fact a man suspected of such an grotesque crime against a child is being released on bail. You said this outrage was hyperbole.

Do you think the posts you make on MN change things in society, the courts etc? I think that is very odd view and again, not how most MNers or people in general think.

I find posters like yourself who spend hours "schooling" women like me - that you right off as ignorant and overly emotional on MN very interesting. What motivates you? Do you think I will change my view and find the circumstances of this case acceptable, because you do? Again, this is not likely is it.

I'll also add that what I sought from my OP was confirmation that my comprehension of the article was correct. I suspected I had misunderstood something in the text. I now know I did not and this outrageous and appalling situation is not only true, but also defended by some on MN. Both have surprised me.

I wouldn’t really say I have a motivation, but if I’m in a discussion and people are posting false or misleading information I think any one who knows that it is incorrect has a duty to correct it. Of course the ALLEGATIONS are horrendous. Saying that there is a system in place to deal with it and this is what it entails is not aimed at you or anyone else.

What false and misleading information have you corrected on this thread? Where is the hyperbole? You keep changing what you are saying the problem is. And now you say it is not aimed at me or anyone else, but you have quoted my comments and those of others telling us off for incorrect thinking.

What you are in fact doing is policing and commenting on the opinions of women who are outraged by a man suspected of such an abhorrent crime being given bail to have influence in the life of a 16 year old with ADHD. Opinions that we are entitled to hold and express.

No, I have said that people are assuming that they know everything about this matter which they don’t. I also pointed out this man has only been charged with offences, not found guilty of them. Other people were speculating about the parties’ relationships to one another when clearly that is not fair on the child in the middle of this. People also said crimes against the dead are not taken seriously which they are and others still have said basically dispose of the presumption of innocence because there is a low conviction rate for sexual offences.

As @ANonnyMouse1 has confirmed this is clearly one of those cases where there is an awful lot of key detail which the media is not allowed to report.

For example I am assuming that the murderer and the necrophile are at the least known to each other and probably within the same family which also includes the victim, the older man with failing health and the 16 year old boy.

Exactly. The guy may be the reason he is struggling and put into care instead! They haven't asked the question.

You are guessing that they haven't asked the question. The judge almost certainly had a report from social services who would definitely have asked the question.

People can be as bored as they want, it is a cornerstone of our justice system. If you were wrongly accused of an offence you didn't commit, you wouldn't find it in the least boring.

The accused may not be convicted, and if he is, he may not go to prison. They seem to have been scratching around to work out what to charge him with, and he would get credit for time already spent in prison if convicted.