Thursday, January 26, 2006
"look at the stars... look how they shine foooooorrrrrrrr yoooouuuuu..."
welcome to lazy dreary cold gloomy (again. SIGH) wednesdays!
today, out of a measure of determination (actually, more like fucking desperation), i hauled my ass off to koerner's (the LIBRARY, not the pub) after waking up at (horror of horrors!) 11am *gasp* to attempt to S.T.U.D.Y.
after all, after over a week of not doing ANYTHING ever since submitting my last homicide discussion, i felt tt the time was now (or never) to get my ass working on my next homicide discussion before i incur the wrath of my tutor again (this homicide module has, as i was complaining to diana later, usurped most of my life. i have been missing all my psychology classes since i started taking it seriously... although yeah. it's just a fucking lame excuse coz i'm too lazy to get my ass to psych for 1 hour of lectures during the afternoon lunch-hour lulls, on slides tt are available online and do not in any way contribute much to the mandatory reading of the textbook for the tests (tt i have not started on yet, btw).) BLEAH.
bleah bleah and bleah.
aaaaaaaanyway fortunately ben was at koerner's, so i had a study buddy.
or so i thought.
it started off decently enough. i would read up my homicide module on first-degree murder in canada and post my discussion forum answer.
and then...
and then...
ok... see in singapore they're discussing the huang na case. coz after took got charged with first-degree murder in the high court, he appealed to the court of appeal. and although the ca upheld the high court's decision - there was a dissent!!! for the first time in 10 years.
reason for the dissent being tt the prosecution had been not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt tt took had been responsible for killing huang na.
see, coz huang na had died of suffocation - her airways had been blocked. but although this could have been caused by took's suffocating her, as he had admited in his earlier confession while in police custody, this could also have been coz she's died of fits, as he'd later said in his trial statement.
problem is tt the forensic evidence could not corroborate his confession. there were no marks of injury on huang na's neck and body to show tt he had used force on her, and as a result the forensic evidence could have yielded more than 1 result.
so yeah. took was convicted mainly on the strength of his first confession, which was obtained during the 2 weeks tt he'd spent in police custody without access to counsel.
i'd asked him how investigations had been carried out. how you would know tt he was guilty? he said tt during those 2 weeks whereby investigations were ongoing, they'd ask him the same questions, but in different ways and at different times, to see if he could give 1 coherrent story. the idea is tt if you're telling the truth and you've really experienced something, you'd be able to describe it no matter how many ways you were being asked about it coz it really did happen to you. but if you were lying, you wouldn't be able to.
thing with took is tt he kept changing his story, so they knew tt he was lying and they managed to press something out of him.
but the argument to tt is tt if you are 2 weeks in police custody, possibly held in isolation in very basic conditions with very little sleep and nothing else to occupy your mind, you'll be nervous, frightened, tired and therefore very confused. as such, even if you were telling the truth, there is a possibility tt you may be mistaken about certain facts. it's happened in psychology, and we do learn about tt in my psychology and litigation classes. memory is as much a child of the mind as it is a film of recorded events.
plus the evidence just doesn't corroborate the statements.
the thing about the singapore media, is tt they don't report everything tt's taken place in the courts. when you read the report online, they say tt took has sexually assaulted the girl, suffocated her and chucked her in the box, as if it were the absolute truth. they'd said it even before the trial. they don't leave spaces for the "what ifs". i guess tt's why i'd prefer to turn to other sources to get the full story as far as possible, except tt no one else reports as extensively on s'pore matters except our local paper. *sigh*
but tt being said, my gut feeling is tt even if there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt tt took murdered huang na, looking at the later actions of his wrapping her body in 9 layers of plastic bags, stuffing her into a box and chucking her in some place where she would not easily be found, i think tt the furtherance of his actions will go quite some way to prove tt he is at least strongly connected to her death, and probably did something tt lead to the cause of her death.
but yeah... just my thoughts on the case. i guess even then, it's still arguable tt if you CANNOT prove first-degree murder, then you should not be hanging someone for it. usually 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter is a more realistic charge for such cases.
and someone mentioned to me the age-old adage: "isn't it better to let 100 guilty go, than to hang 1 innocent person?"
i cannot answer tt question. i guess i would say tt i would rather have 1 innocent hang, than have 100 murderers walk the streets. but then again if tt innocent were someone i loved, my stand would be very different. it's difficult to be objective, because someone is always someone else's father or sister or wife or son.
sigh.
but yeah... we were discussing the took case. and then we started getting carried away discussing accomodation plans in puerto vallarta and checking out the cheapest hotels online.
before we knew it, it was already 4pm!
so we ended up getting some food, and then i ended up going for my 5pm intellectual property law class... late.
my god ip law is fucking BORING. someone kill me now why the fuck do i need to know about patents for rigid or flexible VAMES (what the fuck are "vames"???) on washing machine agitators, or decorative stuccos and stuff. wtf wtf wtf??? the lecturer was interesting and clear and all... but 3 hours of this was literally KILLING me. if not for my msn conversation with wendy (and really bad black coffee... like i said i've completely abandoned my no-caffeine diet) i would have fallen asleep and banged my head into my laptop.
upside: aha! now i know who david is. wahaha.
after class me and diana went to the village to get a wittle bit more food. then back to totem to nuah a bit... i should sleep soon tho...
haha debiao asks me how it is tt i have SO MUCH to blog... well... i say it's coz i talk to myself a lot and i always have a lot to say, coz i have no one else to talk to. i'm a friendless loser, see? anyway he said tt yeah, he talks to himself too, but he doesn't type everything out.
aha. but i'm narcicisstic. some people like to look at themselves in the mirror. me? i like to read what i write. "oh, you handsome blogger, you!"
erm. ok tt was just weird.
anyway on the upside... i am *so* gonna gloat.
coz i am going to watch COLDPLAY in concert tomorrow night!!!
whoopie! chris martin! mr. gwenyth paltrow! mr. yellow! mr. the scientist!!! hereeeee i come!!!
*breaks into "ÿellow" again.*
wahahahaha. :) me is hyper now.
great. beats the FUCKING rain.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
today, out of a measure of determination (actually, more like fucking desperation), i hauled my ass off to koerner's (the LIBRARY, not the pub) after waking up at (horror of horrors!) 11am *gasp* to attempt to S.T.U.D.Y.
after all, after over a week of not doing ANYTHING ever since submitting my last homicide discussion, i felt tt the time was now (or never) to get my ass working on my next homicide discussion before i incur the wrath of my tutor again (this homicide module has, as i was complaining to diana later, usurped most of my life. i have been missing all my psychology classes since i started taking it seriously... although yeah. it's just a fucking lame excuse coz i'm too lazy to get my ass to psych for 1 hour of lectures during the afternoon lunch-hour lulls, on slides tt are available online and do not in any way contribute much to the mandatory reading of the textbook for the tests (tt i have not started on yet, btw).) BLEAH.
bleah bleah and bleah.
aaaaaaaanyway fortunately ben was at koerner's, so i had a study buddy.
or so i thought.
it started off decently enough. i would read up my homicide module on first-degree murder in canada and post my discussion forum answer.
and then...
and then...
ok... see in singapore they're discussing the huang na case. coz after took got charged with first-degree murder in the high court, he appealed to the court of appeal. and although the ca upheld the high court's decision - there was a dissent!!! for the first time in 10 years.
reason for the dissent being tt the prosecution had been not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt tt took had been responsible for killing huang na.
see, coz huang na had died of suffocation - her airways had been blocked. but although this could have been caused by took's suffocating her, as he had admited in his earlier confession while in police custody, this could also have been coz she's died of fits, as he'd later said in his trial statement.
problem is tt the forensic evidence could not corroborate his confession. there were no marks of injury on huang na's neck and body to show tt he had used force on her, and as a result the forensic evidence could have yielded more than 1 result.
so yeah. took was convicted mainly on the strength of his first confession, which was obtained during the 2 weeks tt he'd spent in police custody without access to counsel.
i'd asked him how investigations had been carried out. how you would know tt he was guilty? he said tt during those 2 weeks whereby investigations were ongoing, they'd ask him the same questions, but in different ways and at different times, to see if he could give 1 coherrent story. the idea is tt if you're telling the truth and you've really experienced something, you'd be able to describe it no matter how many ways you were being asked about it coz it really did happen to you. but if you were lying, you wouldn't be able to.
thing with took is tt he kept changing his story, so they knew tt he was lying and they managed to press something out of him.
but the argument to tt is tt if you are 2 weeks in police custody, possibly held in isolation in very basic conditions with very little sleep and nothing else to occupy your mind, you'll be nervous, frightened, tired and therefore very confused. as such, even if you were telling the truth, there is a possibility tt you may be mistaken about certain facts. it's happened in psychology, and we do learn about tt in my psychology and litigation classes. memory is as much a child of the mind as it is a film of recorded events.
plus the evidence just doesn't corroborate the statements.
the thing about the singapore media, is tt they don't report everything tt's taken place in the courts. when you read the report online, they say tt took has sexually assaulted the girl, suffocated her and chucked her in the box, as if it were the absolute truth. they'd said it even before the trial. they don't leave spaces for the "what ifs". i guess tt's why i'd prefer to turn to other sources to get the full story as far as possible, except tt no one else reports as extensively on s'pore matters except our local paper. *sigh*
but tt being said, my gut feeling is tt even if there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt tt took murdered huang na, looking at the later actions of his wrapping her body in 9 layers of plastic bags, stuffing her into a box and chucking her in some place where she would not easily be found, i think tt the furtherance of his actions will go quite some way to prove tt he is at least strongly connected to her death, and probably did something tt lead to the cause of her death.
but yeah... just my thoughts on the case. i guess even then, it's still arguable tt if you CANNOT prove first-degree murder, then you should not be hanging someone for it. usually 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter is a more realistic charge for such cases.
and someone mentioned to me the age-old adage: "isn't it better to let 100 guilty go, than to hang 1 innocent person?"
i cannot answer tt question. i guess i would say tt i would rather have 1 innocent hang, than have 100 murderers walk the streets. but then again if tt innocent were someone i loved, my stand would be very different. it's difficult to be objective, because someone is always someone else's father or sister or wife or son.
sigh.
but yeah... we were discussing the took case. and then we started getting carried away discussing accomodation plans in puerto vallarta and checking out the cheapest hotels online.
before we knew it, it was already 4pm!
so we ended up getting some food, and then i ended up going for my 5pm intellectual property law class... late.
my god ip law is fucking BORING. someone kill me now why the fuck do i need to know about patents for rigid or flexible VAMES (what the fuck are "vames"???) on washing machine agitators, or decorative stuccos and stuff. wtf wtf wtf??? the lecturer was interesting and clear and all... but 3 hours of this was literally KILLING me. if not for my msn conversation with wendy (and really bad black coffee... like i said i've completely abandoned my no-caffeine diet) i would have fallen asleep and banged my head into my laptop.
upside: aha! now i know who david is. wahaha.
after class me and diana went to the village to get a wittle bit more food. then back to totem to nuah a bit... i should sleep soon tho...
haha debiao asks me how it is tt i have SO MUCH to blog... well... i say it's coz i talk to myself a lot and i always have a lot to say, coz i have no one else to talk to. i'm a friendless loser, see? anyway he said tt yeah, he talks to himself too, but he doesn't type everything out.
aha. but i'm narcicisstic. some people like to look at themselves in the mirror. me? i like to read what i write. "oh, you handsome blogger, you!"
erm. ok tt was just weird.
anyway on the upside... i am *so* gonna gloat.
coz i am going to watch COLDPLAY in concert tomorrow night!!!
whoopie! chris martin! mr. gwenyth paltrow! mr. yellow! mr. the scientist!!! hereeeee i come!!!
*breaks into "ÿellow" again.*
wahahahaha. :) me is hyper now.
great. beats the FUCKING rain.
# posted by Kitana @ 1/26/2006 05:00:00 PM 
