BBC Journalist Ray Golsing has confessed, during a TV show, to have murdered his AIDS-ridden lover in hospital after learning that nothing could be done to relieve his pain. He tells he has smothered him with a pillow while the doctor was gone, and that "nothing was said" afterwards between him and said doctor when the latter came back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKFehQYOEV0
I have just read that he got arrested by the police today.
Any thoughts? Whether we agree it is murder or not, it takes an insane amount of guts to actually reveal it through a BBC show when he could have just keep it to himself. And you can tell that he still feels bad about it.
Wow that's really amazing. Don't know what to say.
How did he come about to confess on TV?
He needs the money from selling his story.
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2010, 03:15:43 PM
Wow that's really amazing. Don't know what to say.
Murdered gay and Mart doesn't think of anything to say?
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 03:17:06 PM
He needs the money from selling his story.
Has to be. Otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 17, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 03:17:06 PM
He needs the money from selling his story.
Has to be. Otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut.
Or, just perhaps, because he does not want to keep this secret for himself anymore, and he hopes the government will amend the law in the future.
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 17, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 03:17:06 PM
He needs the money from selling his story.
Has to be. Otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut.
Or, just perhaps, because he does not want to keep this secret for himself anymore, and he hopes the government will amend the law in the future.
Then it's no longer a secret, is it? So much for that theory.
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
Or, just perhaps, because he does not want to keep this secret for himself anymore, and he hopes the government will amend the law in the future.
He'd have to be a fool to think there was any chance of that, really. Or completely isolated from reality. He is a journo after all.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 17, 2010, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
Or, just perhaps, because he does not want to keep this secret for himself anymore, and he hopes the government will amend the law in the future.
He'd have to be a fool to think there was any chance of that, really. Or completely isolated from reality. He is a journo after all.
The impact is not the same when some Joe-Blo remote in the country does it, and a BBC journalist publicly admits he has committed it on someone who was within hours of dying anyway and in excrutiating pain. Any jury will recognize that at least he didn't have the
mens rea, even though on the letter it is murder.
And anyway, they have only his word for it. The doctor wasn't a witness to the act, and the police will need an autopsy made on a man who actually was within hours of dying from AIDS.
That's pretty gross. I doubt they will find a doctor to perform it.
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:10:04 PM
BBC Journalist Ray Golsing has confessed, during a TV show, to have murdered his AIDS-ridden lover in hospital after learning that nothing could be done to relieve his pain. He tells he has smothered him with a pillow while the doctor was gone, and that "nothing was said" afterwards between him and said doctor when the latter came back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKFehQYOEV0
I have just read that he got arrested by the police today.
Any thoughts? Whether we agree it is murder or not, it takes an insane amount of guts to actually reveal it through a BBC show when he could have just keep it to himself. And you can tell that he still feels bad about it.
I suppose it takes a bit of guts to cold bloodily kill anyone. I doubt I could bring myself to kill anyone. Not even Pat, and he's a fucking rapist.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2010, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:10:04 PM
BBC Journalist Ray Golsing has confessed, during a TV show, to have murdered his AIDS-ridden lover in hospital after learning that nothing could be done to relieve his pain. He tells he has smothered him with a pillow while the doctor was gone, and that "nothing was said" afterwards between him and said doctor when the latter came back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKFehQYOEV0
I have just read that he got arrested by the police today.
Any thoughts? Whether we agree it is murder or not, it takes an insane amount of guts to actually reveal it through a BBC show when he could have just keep it to himself. And you can tell that he still feels bad about it.
I suppose it takes a bit of guts to cold bloodily kill anyone. I doubt I could bring myself to kill anyone. Not even Pat, and he's a fucking rapist.
Is there another kind?
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2010, 03:15:43 PM
Wow that's really amazing. Don't know what to say.
try to think of what you would say if he wasn't gay.
Gays killed by gays... I guess it would be more efficient that way, rather than inventing a whole system of camps
Quote from: Alexandru H. on February 17, 2010, 04:37:00 PM
Gays killed by gays... I guess it would be more efficient that way, rather than inventing a whole system of camps
What do you think HIV is? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2010, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on February 17, 2010, 04:37:00 PM
Gays killed by gays... I guess it would be more efficient that way, rather than inventing a whole system of camps
What do you think HIV is? :unsure:
God's punishment? :unsure: :pope:
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2010, 05:30:00 PM
God's punishment? :unsure: :pope:
Alas, Reagan was not a god. -_-
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2010, 03:15:43 PM
Wow that's really amazing. Don't know what to say.
Murdered gay and Mart doesn't think of anything to say?
:lol:
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 04:00:08 PM
And anyway, they have only his word for it. The doctor wasn't a witness to the act, and the police will need an autopsy made on a man who actually was within hours of dying from AIDS.
I'm no limey Barrister, but I'll bet sterling to doughnuts the brit criminal courts admit voluntary confessions in criminal cases.
:yes:
I don't know why he has decided to admit it; there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude building up over here about such cases.
Give it another ten years and the law will get amended to allow the right-to-die anyway.
Well....that's not something you see every day.
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 03:17:06 PM
He needs the money from selling his story.
Just think of the stories he'll be able to sell after going to prison
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2010, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 04:00:08 PM
And anyway, they have only his word for it. The doctor wasn't a witness to the act, and the police will need an autopsy made on a man who actually was within hours of dying from AIDS.
I'm no limey Barrister, but I'll bet sterling to doughnuts the brit criminal courts admit voluntary confessions in criminal cases.
If he pleads guilty, yes they could. If he doesn't, for whatever reasons, doesn't the requirement of evidence still holds to validate that the confession is genuine and a crime has actually taken place? After all, he might be lying, fantasizing, or seeking attention. How can someone pleading not guilty be prosecuted relying only on his confession without either physical evidence or an able witness?
And I see very well Gosling pleading not guilty as a court referral for a constitutional defence, pleading that the current law on "murder by compassion" is unconstitutional. This does exist in Canada as well, in which an accused may plead that the law as written is unconstitutional or goes counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
One possible reason that he might be confessing is that the doctor, the only person who might have been a Crown witness on the crime scene, has died, and thus Gosling is the living only person to know the truth and feels safe enough to speak openly about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2010, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 04:00:08 PM
And anyway, they have only his word for it. The doctor wasn't a witness to the act, and the police will need an autopsy made on a man who actually was within hours of dying from AIDS.
I'm no limey Barrister, but I'll bet sterling to doughnuts the brit criminal courts admit voluntary confessions in criminal cases.
But doesn't the confession need to happen before the court?
I don't see people being arrested for admitting on the air they smoked pot for example, either. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2010, 06:03:28 PM
:yes:
Would there even be a case if he decides to plead not guilty (I don't think you need to state in the court why you are pleading not guilty - he can do this with a clear conscience because he believes he did not commit murder) and then refuse to testify (which I assume he can do)?
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2010, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2010, 03:10:04 PM
BBC Journalist Ray Golsing has confessed, during a TV show, to have murdered his AIDS-ridden lover in hospital after learning that nothing could be done to relieve his pain. He tells he has smothered him with a pillow while the doctor was gone, and that "nothing was said" afterwards between him and said doctor when the latter came back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKFehQYOEV0
I have just read that he got arrested by the police today.
Any thoughts? Whether we agree it is murder or not, it takes an insane amount of guts to actually reveal it through a BBC show when he could have just keep it to himself. And you can tell that he still feels bad about it.
I suppose it takes a bit of guts to cold bloodily kill anyone. I doubt I could bring myself to kill anyone. Not even Pat, and he's a fucking rapist.
Is there another kind?
:D
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2010, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on February 17, 2010, 04:37:00 PM
Gays killed by gays... I guess it would be more efficient that way, rather than inventing a whole system of camps
What do you think HIV is? :unsure:
Hetero invention... it's too perfect to be just a random disease :cry:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on February 18, 2010, 06:39:21 AM
Hetero invention... it's too perfect to be just a random disease :cry:
Perfect? It's pretty slow at killing gays in the modern world but effective at raising healthcare expenditure.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2010, 06:55:28 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on February 18, 2010, 06:39:21 AM
Hetero invention... it's too perfect to be just a random disease :cry:
Perfect? It's pretty slow at killing gays in the modern world but effective at raising healthcare expenditure.
Exactly.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 06:22:41 PM
I don't know why he has decided to admit it; there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude building up over here about such cases.
Give it another ten years and the law will get amended to allow the right-to-die anyway.
Yeah, but even then the law won't allow faggots to just go around smothering people with pillows.
Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2010, 07:27:22 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 06:22:41 PM
I don't know why he has decided to admit it; there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude building up over here about such cases.
Give it another ten years and the law will get amended to allow the right-to-die anyway.
Yeah, but even then the law won't allow faggots to just go around smothering people with pillows.
No, it won't - because by then proper methods will have been put in place. People will no longer have to extemporise with whatever is available.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 08:28:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 18, 2010, 07:27:22 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 06:22:41 PM
I don't know why he has decided to admit it; there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude building up over here about such cases.
Give it another ten years and the law will get amended to allow the right-to-die anyway.
Yeah, but even then the law won't allow faggots to just go around smothering people with pillows.
No, it won't - because by then proper methods will have been put in place. People will no longer have to extemporise with whatever is available.
So he would still be a murderer, and would still be hanged.
There is no death penalty in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 09:25:58 AM
There is no death penalty in Europe.
Not for very much longer. It'll be back.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 02:47:31 AM
But doesn't the confession need to happen before the court?
No, most confessions are made in police stations or to others outside of court.
Quote from: Drakken on February 18, 2010, 02:22:37 AM
If he pleads guilty, yes they could. If he doesn't, for whatever reasons, doesn't the requirement of evidence still holds to validate that the confession is genuine and a crime has actually taken place?
The confession is evidence in itself. The circumstances of the confession can be offered to prove up its validity. You are correct that there still could be a defense in theory, but if the physical evidence is not inconsistent with the confession, good luck.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
The confession is evidence in itself. The circumstances of the confession can be offered to prove up its validity. You are correct that there still could be a defense in theory, but if the physical evidence is not inconsistent with the confession, good luck.
How many times have we seen people convicted based on testimony that they confessed to cellmates? Bunches. I'd say that the policy of STFU is a good one even for people other than Marti.
Incidentally, the guy has not - and said he will not - name his lover or the place or date of his death. Are you still positive this is sufficient to get a conviction out of this "confession"?
IIRC there's about 300-400 people doing time in US jails today for being the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Incidentally, the guy has not - and said he will not - name his lover or the place or date of his death. Are you still positive this is sufficient to get a conviction out of this "confession"?
Before you ask if someone is "still positive this is sufficient to get a conviction," you probably should wait until someone actually claims to be positive to begin with. Strawmen are so ugly, and you have so many dangling in front of you already.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
The confession is evidence in itself. The circumstances of the confession can be offered to prove up its validity. You are correct that there still could be a defense in theory, but if the physical evidence is not inconsistent with the confession, good luck.
How many times have we seen people convicted based on testimony that they confessed to cellmates? Bunches. I'd say that the policy of STFU is a good one even for people other than Marti.
But in these cases this was not the sole evidence. Here you have nothing - to even the victim's identity (I assume it can be traced back to some guy who died of AIDS, but can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt? I doubt it).
It's akin to Malthus's story about the guy killing another guy on some navy ship back during WW2 - I thought the conclusion back then was that it would be nigh impossible to convict someone based on that confession, so not sure what changed since then (other than the fact that this is Languish so everybody is contrarian).
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 10:11:51 AM
[But in these cases this was not the sole evidence. Here you have nothing - to even the victim's identity (I assume it can be traced back to some guy who died of AIDS, but can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt? I doubt it).
It's akin to Malthus's story about the guy killing another guy on some navy ship back during WW2 - I thought the conclusion back then was that it would be nigh impossible to convict someone based on that confession, so not sure what changed since then (other than the fact that this is Languish so everybody is contrarian).
I wasn't making a comment about this case, per se. I was simply pointing out an application of JR's point about confessions - you don't need to make them in court in order to have them used against you.
There is a huge difference between confessing outside of court and pleading guilty, of course. As you note, there would have to be supporting evidence that the confession actually occurred and was genuine, but those cellmate confessions have been pretty powerful testimony, from all that I have heard.
I have no opinion on whether this guy can be successfully prosecuted based on what he has said so far. But I am willing to bet sterlings to donuts that he didn't need to name the victim of place for the authorities to be able to identify both.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Incidentally, the guy has not - and said he will not - name his lover or the place or date of his death. Are you still positive this is sufficient to get a conviction out of this "confession"?
It depends how many AIDS-ridden lovers he had who recently died in hospital.
If hospital visitor logs show him as being there shortly before death and autopsy records are consistent with his story, then his confession could get him into a bit of bother.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
The confession is evidence in itself. The circumstances of the confession can be offered to prove up its validity. You are correct that there still could be a defense in theory, but if the physical evidence is not inconsistent with the confession, good luck.
How many times have we seen people convicted based on testimony that they confessed to cellmates? Bunches. I'd say that the policy of STFU is a good one even for people other than Marti.
But in these cases this was not the sole evidence. Here you have nothing - to even the victim's identity (I assume it can be traced back to some guy who died of AIDS, but can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt? I doubt it).
It's akin to Malthus's story about the guy killing another guy on some navy ship back during WW2 - I thought the conclusion back then was that it would be nigh impossible to convict someone based on that confession, so not sure what changed since then (other than the fact that this is Languish so everybody is contrarian).
I can see a couple of key differences between those fact situations.
For one, it is going to be a lot easier to determine the identity of the victim and the circumstances of his death, given the nexus between a man and his lover who allegedly died relatively recently in hospital is a lot closer than that between a guy and some unnamed sailor who allegedly died many years ago in WW2, and a death in a hospital bed is going to have a lot more documentation than that of someone allegedly falling overboard on a dark and storm night.
For another, a story told to a young boy has a lot less evidentiary weight than one told on national TV in front of millions of viewers and presumably recorded for posterity.
Hospital visitor log? Is this East Germany? Oh, right.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Incidentally, the guy has not - and said he will not - name his lover or the place or date of his death. Are you still positive this is sufficient to get a conviction out of this "confession"?
Marty, I'm not positive that any case will get a conviction - never mind this one. :lol:
All I can tell you is that any statement against interest is admissible in court against the maker of the statement, and thus the statement on national tv could be used against him.
You can have "john doe" victims as well, and you need not state with precision the date that the offence happened.
What could be more of an issue is where it happened - a UK court can only prosecute an event that happened in the UK, and if you can't prove (through the admission or otherwise) what coutry it happened in you could have a fatal problem.
But all of those are 'may' could be' and 'possible'. I have no idea if they'd get a conviction - but on the face of it it isn't impossible for the Crown Prosecution Service to try.
A collegue recently defended a murder where the principal piece of evidence directly tying the defendant to the crime (commited nearly 20 years ago) was an alleged contemporaneous confession. And where another person had also confessed to the same crime.
He won the case but it was by no means a sure thing. More to the point, the DA's office brought it.
Confessions carry a lot weight with juries and prosecutors know it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 01:22:51 PM
Confessions carry a lot weight with juries and prosecutors know it.
That may be more of an American phenonenon. Over the last 20 years with some of the wrongful conviction cases our courts are very careful about confessions, triply so for jailhouse informant confessions. Even with a jury trial there are lengthy warnings given to a jury about using confessions.
Canadian lawyers, when we put on our snooty 'we're better than Americans' hat, start their criticism of US justice by your over-reliance on some (to us) rather dubious confessions.
So apparently Ray Gosling is a silly goose?
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2010, 01:35:53 PM
That may be more of an American phenonenon. Over the last 20 years with some of the wrongful conviction cases our courts are very careful about confessions, triply so for jailhouse informant confessions. Even with a jury trial there are lengthy warnings given to a jury about using confessions.
Canadian lawyers, when we put on our snooty 'we're better than Americans' hat, start their criticism of US justice by your over-reliance on some (to us) rather dubious confessions.
That's probably not the worst abuse in the US legal system, but it certainly is one of them - especially where the person witnessing the confession is getting time off his/her own sentence for testifying.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 01:22:51 PM
A collegue recently defended a murder where the principal piece of evidence directly tying the defendant to the crime (commited nearly 20 years ago) was an alleged contemporaneous confession. And where another person had also confessed to the same crime.
He won the case but it was by no means a sure thing. More to the point, the DA's office brought it.
Confessions carry a lot weight with juries and prosecutors know it.
What happened to the other guy who confessed?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2010, 05:54:17 PM
What happened to the other guy who confessed?
Its complicated, but it was eventually determined that he was immune from prosecution.
However, he was stuck in jail on a variety of other bad stuff.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2010, 06:00:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2010, 05:54:17 PM
What happened to the other guy who confessed?
Its complicated, but it was eventually determined that he was immune from prosecution.
However, he was stuck in jail on a variety of other bad stuff.
If one of his confessions was bogus, what about the other bad stuff, how do we know he really did that? Did he confess to them as well, or was their other evidence?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 06:22:41 PM
I don't know why he has decided to admit it; there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude building up over here about such cases.
Give it another ten years and the law will get amended to allow the right-to-die anyway.
Isn't there a budding public debate about right-to-die and assisted suicide in the UK nowadays?
Quote from: The Larch on February 19, 2010, 04:25:27 AM
Isn't there a budding public debate about right-to-die and assisted suicide in the UK nowadays?
Reading can be fun and informative. :P