Indeed! Was shocking the thread gone from fuckwarezone! This case indeed not simple, even murderer can get away and government helps to erase tracks!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Adulterous Sinkie slut gets 1 year jail for killing husband
- Thread starter Cottonmouth
- Start date
Gordon Yeo, though you are a beta, you did not deserve to be murdered so mercilessly.
Hope you stop being a beta as a ghost and seek justice for yourself!
Hope you stop being a beta as a ghost and seek justice for yourself!
Judge also want to eat her prawn noodles...
Dig out on her parents? Connection strong enough to stab beta husband multiple times to know nothing much will happen?
Beta husband’s 33 years of life was only worth one year of that slut’s time in remand centre! Not prison okay!
Beta husband’s 33 years of life was only worth one year of that slut’s time in remand centre! Not prison okay!
From a poster at other forum:
——————————————-
Repost - my analysis and summary*
Let me attempt to summarise why some of us are concerned and felt that justice has not been served. To those of you who feels that Vivien is already sentenced and has paid her price, this is my rebuttal.
Vivien was originally charged with MURDER. That means that the DPP after looking at her statements, investigation from the police etc thinks that the prima facie evidence indicates that VIVIEN had both INTENT and KNOWLEDGE that her actions would kill Gordon and Gordan did die as a result of the injuries.
What does a MURDER charge mean? It meant that the DPP thinks at that time that Vivien didn't kill Gordon out of self defence, did not appear to have mentally diminished capacity and wasn't provoked when she committed the act. Let me explain further. Gordon may have struggled with Vivien and injure her in a struggle during an argument with her. IF Gordon was peacefully reading the text messages from her handphone, Vivien could take the opportunity to leave the flat and thus avoiding the confrontation. If instead Vivien chose to stab Gordon while he was peacefully reading the text messages, she had no rights to private defence.*
The rights to private defence exists ONLY when there is no way to escape and ends when attacker is incapacitated. For example, a mad man who is physically stronger than you attack you and you cannot run away ( not chose not to ) and took a wooden branch to attack him, once the mad man is down, you HAVE to run away and get help. If you chose to continue to attack him with the branch on his head, that's is causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he dies that's is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, no if no buts. MURDER,on the other hand, means that a mad man attacked you and injure you. You escaped but not happy so you go and find a branch then struck him on the head until he dies when he is merely walking away from you.*
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...illing-husband
https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/w...ed-murder/amp/
Supposing that Vivien's lawyers managed to get a psychological report to show that she is suffering from mental disorder at the time of incident, then DPP will likely reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder UNLESS DPP can provide a psychological report to give a contrary opinion. Likewise, if the DPP is of the opinion that the chances of conviction for MURDER is not high because he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Vivien didn't suffer from provocation or had a right to private defence at the time of the incident ( lack of defensive knife wounds is not conclusive evidence by itself as there wasn't any video footage or any other witnesses), he may accept a plea bargain of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead. Reducing the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder would then be reasonable as it is the duty of prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt not the defence and the bar is set too high for a MURDER charge to stick.
Let us next examine why the DPP may even reasonably entertain a plea bargain for causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation. For a lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder ( compared to murder), diminished mental state, right of private defence and provocation or all of those are not disputed. The only points of contentions which the DPP has to prove beyond reasonable doubt are 1) Whether Vivien did kill Gordon 2) Vivien or any reasonable person could not have reasonably known that the 11 stabs will likely cause death and 3) whether the right to private defence had been exceeded.*
From the media reports, I have no doubts that any competent lawyer can convince the judge that 1) Vivien did kill Gordon 2) Vivien ought to reasonably know that her 11 stabs will lead to the death of Gordon and 3) her 11 stabs are so excessive that it way exceeded the right to private defence. ( refer to explanation on right of private defence again). Therefore,I find it a mystery why the DPP will even consider to charge under just causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation unless there are very strong reasons that is unknown to us.*
Let us then examine the role of DPP. DPP acts for the state on behalf of the victim. That means that DPP has to act in the best interest of the victims and demand justice for them since the power to privately sue for criminal justice by the victims or their family is taken out of their hands. The role of the DPP is not to judge. Unless the likehood of a conviction is so unlikely only should the DPP reduce the charge. As long as a reasonable possibility for a conviction on a higher charge exists, the DPP should always charge under higher charge especially for serious crimes.*
Why should the DPP always charge under a higher charge if there are reasonable doubts, you may ask? That is because if the DPP charges under the higher reasonable charge, the accused may plead guilty or contest. Should the accused contest, the case will be argued under a more structured setting with cross examination of the accused and testimonies from expert witnesses etc. If the DPP cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, the judge can reduce the charges and convict accordingly after taking into account of all the factors. That is why we have a JUDGE. The court system is adversarial and DPP must press for the heaviest sentence while defence will request for the lightest sentence while the judge who has much more experience judging will sentence as he or she sees fit after all the FACTS and witnesses and accused are cross examined for a clearer picture. Should the judge choose to reduce the charges, it will be transparent as he will have to justify why in his grounds for decision.In a guilty plea, no such process takes place as the charges are NOT contested and any testimony or pleas for leniency for the accused is not verified. The below example is how the process should be. ( Accused killed victim by choking and DPP charged under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Judge reduced charges and DPP appeal to get a second legal opinion.)*
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...r-1-year-fined
I will next address what I think Gordon's parents should do. They should get the statement of facts, formally ask DPP reason to reduce charges from MURDER to merely causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation and their failure to appeal. Seek Legal advice to see if DPP's actions are reasonable and justifiable in fact and in law. If there are grounds to think otherwise, get a lawyer to write to AG and law minister and hold a press conference and update via social media so that hopefully a BOI CAN be carried out. If DPP is judged by his peers to be negligent in his duties, a retrial would then be possible. Gordon's parents should also contest Gordon's estate and CPF and even the condo if possible under the forfeiture rule. They should also sue Vivien for damages in a civil court as Gordon's parents would have suffered financial loss if Gordon had been giving them allowance every month. For the civil suit of damages, they may consider settling for less in exchange of visitation rights of their grandchild. If they fail to do these and doesn't wish to persue further due to whatever reasons or excuses, they deserved to be screwed. What you do not fight for isn't yours.
For EDMWers here who strongly feels that NCSS should not hire Vivien due to her conviction, carry on please. Adultery is morally wrong but not legally wrong. ( my opinion of marriage is that it must be treated like a contract at the minimum, whoever breaches it first PAYS) There is a difference though. There are however instances where civil servants are sacked from criminal convictions such as drunk driving, causing death by rash act ( driving), causing disrepute to their organisations etc.
For those friends of Vivien who try to justify her actions and said that she had paid her dues, I can only say good luck if your offspring are killed and you are in the shoes of Gordon's parents. Let me emphasize again that NOTHING in her case was ever proven. Her testimony and accusations against Gordon are just pleadings for leniency since the charge of causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation wasn't contested and she wasn't cross examined.
Thanks for Reading my lengthy post.
——————————————-
Repost - my analysis and summary*
Let me attempt to summarise why some of us are concerned and felt that justice has not been served. To those of you who feels that Vivien is already sentenced and has paid her price, this is my rebuttal.
Vivien was originally charged with MURDER. That means that the DPP after looking at her statements, investigation from the police etc thinks that the prima facie evidence indicates that VIVIEN had both INTENT and KNOWLEDGE that her actions would kill Gordon and Gordan did die as a result of the injuries.
What does a MURDER charge mean? It meant that the DPP thinks at that time that Vivien didn't kill Gordon out of self defence, did not appear to have mentally diminished capacity and wasn't provoked when she committed the act. Let me explain further. Gordon may have struggled with Vivien and injure her in a struggle during an argument with her. IF Gordon was peacefully reading the text messages from her handphone, Vivien could take the opportunity to leave the flat and thus avoiding the confrontation. If instead Vivien chose to stab Gordon while he was peacefully reading the text messages, she had no rights to private defence.*
The rights to private defence exists ONLY when there is no way to escape and ends when attacker is incapacitated. For example, a mad man who is physically stronger than you attack you and you cannot run away ( not chose not to ) and took a wooden branch to attack him, once the mad man is down, you HAVE to run away and get help. If you chose to continue to attack him with the branch on his head, that's is causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he dies that's is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, no if no buts. MURDER,on the other hand, means that a mad man attacked you and injure you. You escaped but not happy so you go and find a branch then struck him on the head until he dies when he is merely walking away from you.*
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...illing-husband
https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/w...ed-murder/amp/
Supposing that Vivien's lawyers managed to get a psychological report to show that she is suffering from mental disorder at the time of incident, then DPP will likely reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder UNLESS DPP can provide a psychological report to give a contrary opinion. Likewise, if the DPP is of the opinion that the chances of conviction for MURDER is not high because he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Vivien didn't suffer from provocation or had a right to private defence at the time of the incident ( lack of defensive knife wounds is not conclusive evidence by itself as there wasn't any video footage or any other witnesses), he may accept a plea bargain of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead. Reducing the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder would then be reasonable as it is the duty of prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt not the defence and the bar is set too high for a MURDER charge to stick.
Let us next examine why the DPP may even reasonably entertain a plea bargain for causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation. For a lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder ( compared to murder), diminished mental state, right of private defence and provocation or all of those are not disputed. The only points of contentions which the DPP has to prove beyond reasonable doubt are 1) Whether Vivien did kill Gordon 2) Vivien or any reasonable person could not have reasonably known that the 11 stabs will likely cause death and 3) whether the right to private defence had been exceeded.*
From the media reports, I have no doubts that any competent lawyer can convince the judge that 1) Vivien did kill Gordon 2) Vivien ought to reasonably know that her 11 stabs will lead to the death of Gordon and 3) her 11 stabs are so excessive that it way exceeded the right to private defence. ( refer to explanation on right of private defence again). Therefore,I find it a mystery why the DPP will even consider to charge under just causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation unless there are very strong reasons that is unknown to us.*
Let us then examine the role of DPP. DPP acts for the state on behalf of the victim. That means that DPP has to act in the best interest of the victims and demand justice for them since the power to privately sue for criminal justice by the victims or their family is taken out of their hands. The role of the DPP is not to judge. Unless the likehood of a conviction is so unlikely only should the DPP reduce the charge. As long as a reasonable possibility for a conviction on a higher charge exists, the DPP should always charge under higher charge especially for serious crimes.*
Why should the DPP always charge under a higher charge if there are reasonable doubts, you may ask? That is because if the DPP charges under the higher reasonable charge, the accused may plead guilty or contest. Should the accused contest, the case will be argued under a more structured setting with cross examination of the accused and testimonies from expert witnesses etc. If the DPP cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, the judge can reduce the charges and convict accordingly after taking into account of all the factors. That is why we have a JUDGE. The court system is adversarial and DPP must press for the heaviest sentence while defence will request for the lightest sentence while the judge who has much more experience judging will sentence as he or she sees fit after all the FACTS and witnesses and accused are cross examined for a clearer picture. Should the judge choose to reduce the charges, it will be transparent as he will have to justify why in his grounds for decision.In a guilty plea, no such process takes place as the charges are NOT contested and any testimony or pleas for leniency for the accused is not verified. The below example is how the process should be. ( Accused killed victim by choking and DPP charged under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Judge reduced charges and DPP appeal to get a second legal opinion.)*
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...r-1-year-fined
I will next address what I think Gordon's parents should do. They should get the statement of facts, formally ask DPP reason to reduce charges from MURDER to merely causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation and their failure to appeal. Seek Legal advice to see if DPP's actions are reasonable and justifiable in fact and in law. If there are grounds to think otherwise, get a lawyer to write to AG and law minister and hold a press conference and update via social media so that hopefully a BOI CAN be carried out. If DPP is judged by his peers to be negligent in his duties, a retrial would then be possible. Gordon's parents should also contest Gordon's estate and CPF and even the condo if possible under the forfeiture rule. They should also sue Vivien for damages in a civil court as Gordon's parents would have suffered financial loss if Gordon had been giving them allowance every month. For the civil suit of damages, they may consider settling for less in exchange of visitation rights of their grandchild. If they fail to do these and doesn't wish to persue further due to whatever reasons or excuses, they deserved to be screwed. What you do not fight for isn't yours.
For EDMWers here who strongly feels that NCSS should not hire Vivien due to her conviction, carry on please. Adultery is morally wrong but not legally wrong. ( my opinion of marriage is that it must be treated like a contract at the minimum, whoever breaches it first PAYS) There is a difference though. There are however instances where civil servants are sacked from criminal convictions such as drunk driving, causing death by rash act ( driving), causing disrepute to their organisations etc.
For those friends of Vivien who try to justify her actions and said that she had paid her dues, I can only say good luck if your offspring are killed and you are in the shoes of Gordon's parents. Let me emphasize again that NOTHING in her case was ever proven. Her testimony and accusations against Gordon are just pleadings for leniency since the charge of causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation wasn't contested and she wasn't cross examined.
Thanks for Reading my lengthy post.
Specially dedicated to NCSS
Maybe with a samurai sword, not knife, to kill with such ease.
Ish assassin tiagong got slit throat plus stab stab liver
Got gimfreely pic?
Originally Posted by sian0.5:
A quick observation
If GY was serious about killing her and the daughter, why would he allow her to get ice for the daughter’s head?
I’m not exactly convinced by her account and if we were to be colleagues, I would not dare to work with her in the same office.
Question:
Who cuts fruits and leave the knife on the living room table????? Newpaper says gordon took the knife in living room
How many of u guys and meimei cut fruit use knife never keep back in the kitchen drawer one
The fking story full of loopholes the judge nv consider meh
A quick observation
If GY was serious about killing her and the daughter, why would he allow her to get ice for the daughter’s head?
I’m not exactly convinced by her account and if we were to be colleagues, I would not dare to work with her in the same office.
Question:
Who cuts fruits and leave the knife on the living room table????? Newpaper says gordon took the knife in living room
How many of u guys and meimei cut fruit use knife never keep back in the kitchen drawer one
The fking story full of loopholes the judge nv consider meh
Similar threads
