Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

Original poster

Missing woman

24 replies

PirateSmile · 14/12/2015 17:26

Helen McCourt went missing in 1988 and her body has never been found. The man who was convicted of her murder is now eligible for parole. Helen's mother has campaigned for the murderer to be refused parole unless he reveals the whereabouts of Helen's body.
The justice minister has said he'll meet with Mrs. McCourt but she fears this meeting may well be too late and the man who killed her daughter will walk free from prison.

I think that there should be more pressure on the Government to take this case seriously. I hope others agree.

OP posts:

OddSocksHighHeels · 14/12/2015 19:16

That's awful. Depending on where the body is though it might not be possible to get it back even if he can be certain of an exact location. It's a long time.

Original poster

PirateSmile · 14/12/2015 19:42

I think he could at the very least give an indication, if not the precise location.

It's appalling to think he could be released whilst still withholding the truth.

OP posts:

OddSocksHighHeels · 14/12/2015 19:46

He should. And it would be wonderful if they could find the body and allow for a proper burial for her family.

It's still a control thing for him I imagine, he'll be enjoying the fact that he has this "power" over them.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 14/12/2015 20:10

That poor women. Not even getting to lay her daughter to rest. Why does the law pussy foot around these disgusting specimen. He should have been made to tell them where her body was.

nancy75 · 14/12/2015 20:13

I think parole should only ever be granted if the person shows suitable regret for what they have done, if he won't tell the family what he did with a body it says to me that he is not really sorry for his crime

LittlestLightOnTheTree · 14/12/2015 20:14

How would you 'make him' tell?

Pipestheghost · 14/12/2015 20:16

I was reading about this today and I back the families proposing that convicted murderers don't get parole/released until they reveal the location of their victims bodies.
The enduring pain of these families must be awful

ajandjjmum · 14/12/2015 20:16

You can't make him, but you can with-hold his freedom until he does. Scumbag. I heard the mother interviewed this morning - nearly 30 years of not knowing - my heart went out to her.

PinkSquash · 14/12/2015 20:19

I agree to withholding the right to freedom unless they give the location of the body. Although I know that there are genuinely innocent people in prisons who did not do the crime they are convicted of. So I don't know.

I really hope the McCourts get lay Helen to rest and grieve fully.

Original poster

PirateSmile · 14/12/2015 20:31

It's definitely a control thing and he shouldn't even be considered for parole unless he's willing to with the family in locating Helen's body.

The Justice Minister should be speaking to Mrs. McCourt as a matter of urgency. it's atrocious to think she could spend any more time worrying her daughter's killer could be released in the New Year.

OP posts:

stayathomegardener · 14/12/2015 20:33

Any online petitions we can sign to support her?

Whoknewitcouldbeso · 14/12/2015 20:36

Thing is I imagine he is still maintaining his innocence? If not him then many of these convicted criminals are and they are never going to admit to the crime which means they won't reveal important details such as this.

Original poster

PirateSmile · 14/12/2015 20:37

Good idea stayathomegardener

www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-introduce-helen-s-law

OP posts:

Original poster

PirateSmile · 14/12/2015 20:37

That is his choice Whoknewitcouldbeso but why then should he be freed?

OP posts:

BarbarianMum · 15/12/2015 12:32

I don't think that people who don't show contrition for their crimes (admitting guilt, assisting the authorities in recovering the body) should be elegible for parole. However, although that would be a good thing in this case, it does truely stuff you up if you are a miscarriage of justice - I can think of several cases where falsely convicted murderers (later clearer on appeal) serve longer than average sentances because they won't admit their "guilt".

I wouldn't support indefinite incarcaration without better safeguards tbh.

DinoSnores · 15/12/2015 17:41

I thought that one of the criteria for parole was that they showed remorse for their crime and would be unlikely to reoffend, so hopefully that does mean that her murderer would not be freed.

londonrach · 16/12/2015 20:31

1988 isnt that long ago why is he being released as surely life is life and he has murdered someone so should get life. Poor helens mother not being able to bury her. Agree with you op.

prh47bridge · 16/12/2015 21:03

He was convicted in 1989. The judge set the minimum tariff at 16 years. He therefore became eligible for parole in 2005. When it has come before the parole board previously he has been refused parole, in part due to his refusal to reveal the location of the body. He continues to maintain his innocence although the evidence against him seems pretty conclusive.

I don't think that people who don't show contrition for their crimes (admitting guilt, assisting the authorities in recovering the body) should be elegible for parole

That is pretty much how it works, although not quite in the way you describe. If you are eligible for parole your case goes to the parole board. You are unlikely to get parole if you do not show contrition.

hesterton · 16/12/2015 21:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Vevvie · 22/12/2015 18:28

There was overwhelming DNA evidence, which was found even more overwhelming at a later appeal.

prh47bridge · 23/12/2015 13:18

In the Helen McCourt case there is no real doubt that the man convicted is guilty of her murder. It is therefore not unreasonable for the parole board to refuse to release him due to his refusal to reveal the location of the body.

I think hesterton was commenting more generally rather than on this particular case. What if this principle was applied to other cases where there is more room for doubt. And she does have a point.

There was a case a while ago where a man was convicted of a sex offence. There was good reason to believe the conviction was unsafe and he continued to protest his innocence. As a result he was not released on parole and was transferred to a secure psychiatric hospital on the grounds that he was delusional, the primary evidence for this being his refusal to admit to the offence. He remained in detention for more than double his sentence.

usernamesandgingerbreads · 23/12/2015 13:33

God this was near me and I remember it well. The poor poor mother. I think if there is overwhelming evidence and no doubts then he shouldn't be released if he doesn't say where she is. That said I seem to remember some connection with the canal so it may not be possible :(

abbsismyhero · 23/12/2015 16:26

i think in the face of overwhelming evidence their liberty should be withheld until they show the location of the body although the moors murderers really put the family's through it though and i would not like to see a repeat of that they got to go on day trips and "forgot" where they buried them so they got to go out again

sunflowerfi · 27/12/2015 22:34

I am from the village where this terrible murder occurred. He should not even be considered for parole until he reveals what he did with Helen's body and shows remorse.
However; from what locals say he most likely had others involved and is afraid to implicate them and face the repercussions and is therefore safer inside.

Flip

Swipe left for the next trending thread