Prosecution of child abductors
Crime
TelstraClear
Father relieved abduction case is over
Wednesday, 29, Oct, 2008 4:04PM
The father of an eight-year-old boy at the centre of a high profile abduction case is relieved the ordeal has come to an end.
The boy was missing for five months after he was taken from Hamilton City Library two years ago.
Today his mother Kay Skelton and grandfather Dick Headley pleaded guilty to abduction at the High Court in Hamilton.
Court orders prevent the child’s father Chris Jones or his Lawyer Thomas Sutcliff speaking about the boy. However Mr Sutcliff says his client and his family are relieved, as they believe the matter could have been cleared up over a year ago.
Mr Sutcliff says the ordeal has drained his client financially and emotionally with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Skelton and Headley will be sentenced in December.
Perspective:
After 5 or 600 women abductors in the last 20 years, 1 prosecuted when it could no longer be hidden from the public
Several men have been prosecuted, when number of men abductors is less than 100!
Generally the men kept the child for a few days, with little or no intention of totally destroying the child’s relationship to the other parent.
Most of the women abductors intended to put the child out of reach of the father forever!
Please draw your own conclusion about the integrity and skills of these familycaught “judges”!!!
As Ralph Nader said about a FORD car, the familycaught is unsafe at any speed.
Deterrence does require competent, timely, effective prosecutions.
Our children are worth protecting, from all abductors of any sex and (in my opinion) from these misleading, manipulative, devious, greedy, deviant “judges”. They lack knowledge about how to protect children and just play legal games for personal profit.
Note how they try protect their performance from informed public comment, by issuing gagging orders onto the father, whom they ripped off financially through the last 5 or so years. By doing this, they intend to protect their personal financial interests, which they have placed far far before the child’s “paramount” interests!!!!
They don’t want practices in the familycaught to improve or become competent, even by accident!
People of this ilk cannot be taken seriously, as protectors of children.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
