That picture of the Southport killer

[User09678]

That has been circulating today.

Remember that sweet boy that was in all the reports at the time? The one who looked about nine?

Can anyone think of any other serious criminal who has pictures of them as a child out in the press?

For those people who think there has been a cover up or other such idiocy, how do you explain guilty verdicts on every single charge within a six month timeframe? This is the best possible outcome to this horrific crime.
for the posters still bleating on about this not being a terrorist act, you are not wrong, but this is exactly why the law will now be changed. There is a reason why Radakubana targeted a dance class for young girls instead of walking into the nearest gym and trying to murder the men using it. Same goes for the Manchester bomber who targeted an Ariana Grande concert, instead of for example a 50 Cent concert.

The picture we are talking about now would have added significant fuel to that already burning fire. They were trying to suppress public backlash.

But mugshots are never released ahead of a trial. Wayne Couzens’s wasn’t, Brianna Ghey’s killers’ weren’t, Lucy Letby’s wasn’t. They followed standard procedure in this case - nothing was deliberately suppressed.

DancingOctopus · Yesterday 17:49

Porcuporpoise · Yesterday 17:46
In what way is it hidden?
**
The murdered girls' parents were not in court because they were told that the trial was starting tomorrow

According to News at Ten, it was expected that a jury would be selected and charges put yesterday. The trial was then expected to begin today. Instead, he pled guilty, unexpectedly, to all charges.

So, there will be no trial. His next court appearance will be for sentencing.

No one was “hiding” anything.

Im relieved for the families that he changed his plea and they will not be forced to relive it all again in court.

No, "they" were adhering to the usual protocol. Mugshots are not released until after a trial and only if a guilty verdict is reached.

Not really. You can be glad about his words. They are just that.

What happened to skipping posts anyway

At this stage all anyone can do is say things.... what would anyone expect him to do? turn back time???

The real question is what was the then Tory Govt doing or rather not doing, that enabled this man to slip through the net?

The Tories, rather than being the "party of law and order" have allowed this man to do as he wished, the buck stops with them.

You really believe he isn’t going to hold a public inquiry or change the law @EasternStandard ?

You won't ever give Starmer credit for anything, even when what he says aligns with what you have said.

His mugshot is both scary and hilarious like I can’t help but laugh although it’s certainly unnerving. I first saw it by scrolling down, so all I initially saw was the hair, forehead and eyes. The top half of that image is scary. The pose with the mouth is childish. He just definitely doesn’t seem part of any normal society.

What do you mean @User09678?

I'm not talking about a mugshot, just not a picture so misleading that it would make a volatile public believe it was deliberate.

Lucy Letbys pictures were out long before her trial, they didn't use one of her when she was 7 or 8 years younger https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/16332233.home-searched-baby-murder-arrest-belongs-chester-childrens-nurse/

It's the eyes, and separately that he is hiding his mouth in that funny grimace - quite like how he was allowed to hold his sweater over his face in court and remain silent.

With both of these things I'm not sure how he wasn't required to show his face properly as a formality. You'd imagine any defendant would have to present themselves in an identifiable way at the point of a mugshot being taken, and in front of a judge.

I was responding to snark

We’ll see, public inquiries are often used to kick cans down the road rather than make changes now.

Plus what people really want is for there not to actually be this terror, and that would take something I doubt will happen. So all it takes is another event and it’s just seen to be words.

Yes I’m aware how you feel about Starmer don’t worry.

But I thought it was a cease engaging situation?

@toobigformyboots

Well, if Wikipedia says it...

The inauguration has to occur between 73 and 79 days following the election. It may typically be held on 20th, but certainly doesn't have to be and at the time the trial date was set it wasn't set in stone. And that's aside from the fact the trial was set to start on 21st January.

That’s your answer? Word soup? Ok.

that would take something I doubt will happen

What do you think should happen?

Are people still banging on about the trial being set at the same time as the US inauguration? My god, people are stupid.

Yes. You can certainly infer that he was likely difficult throughout the legal proceedings, if that’s the best the police/court could do.

No that’s my answer.

Do you think everyone trusts Starmer? I mean you do but clearly he has lost a lot of support since the GE

His press conference likely won’t change that

Something about a ‘line in the sand’, it’s just words

And then if there’s another event?

@User09678 it depends what photos are available. Most photos will either be lifted from social media eg Facebook, school website or given by family. My son (now late teens) from mid teens was not keen on having his photo taken, so God forbid if there ever was a need for a photo of him to be put out in the news it would likely be a school photo for a clear picture of his face.

Everything could be written off as ‘just words.’ It’s a meaningless slur used by people with an agenda.

What part of "Letby had tons of adult photos available on social media and Rudakubana had none" are you struggling with?

The papers and TV use the best/most recent picture they can get, every time. They were unusually starved for content in Rudakubana's case, perhaps in part because of his antisocial tendencies.