David Mcgreavy Child Killer

[Eleena]

I read about this man the other day, he's just been released. I couldn't believe what he's done and that he's been released years later. Can someone do this kind of thing and gain normality??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/11/triple-child-killer-david-mcgreavy-released-from-prison

[Eleena]

I have to go out ... interested what others think.

[agchristie]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1662387.html

[andy-hughes]

This is another example of the Parole Board taking a decision based on evidence which none of us are party to - we can only pray that they have got it right.

[Rockrose]

Whilst we may not like the decision - he has served a considerable amount of time also we are not privvy to the parole boards reasoning.
I also believe he is on licence for the rest of his life - so if he sneezes the wrong way he will be banged up again

[Sqad]

RR

"I also believe he is on licence for the rest of his life - so if he sneezes the wrong way he will be banged up again"

Let's hope he sneezes BEFORE he kills again.

" we can only pray that they have got it right."
I agree with the comment of A-H

[ludwig]

//Can someone do this kind of thing and gain normality?? //

I don't believe so. The parole might officially consider him to no longer be a risk, but it'll only be other people's kids that he's no longer a risk to - I'll wager not one of them would be prepared to let him anywhere near theirs.

[Rockrose]

You have no evidence that he will kill again Sqad.

[sanmac]

There was no evidence to suggest or suspect that he would kill the first time either.

[agchristie]

//There was no evidence to suggest or suspect that he would kill the first time either.//

I think nearly 50 years later the authorities have a much better idea of his character having had him in prison since the 70's.

If there was sufficient risk that he would reoffend there would be no question of the Board releasing him.

They obviously feel that he does not represent sufficient threat.

As Andy said, let's pray they are right.

[naomi24]

//it'll only be other people's kids that he's no longer a risk to - I'll wager not one of them would be prepared to let him anywhere near theirs. //

Would you leave your children with him, Rockrose?

[Rockrose]

Pointless question Naomi

[spathiphyllum]

Fact of the matter is, some would be fine with him around their kids.

[spathiphyllum]

"he’s got a tag and he’s got to obey by certain rules that they’ve given him"

Yeah, fine. What's the issue?

[spathiphyllum]

I think tags are amazing. What's the point in locking people up, when you can lock them in certian areas, if they're not too much of a danger to society.

You hope if rehabilitation exists, over 40 years is enough time.

[spathiphyllum]

If people like this don't have any hope in ever getting out, then why not just kill them? It's more humanitarian than torture.

[agchristie]

The issue Spath is that he could simply break those rules.

The Board must consider, however, that the risk is negligible.

[Eleena]

Ah, hadn't seen that post at aghristie, thanks. Back when I have time.

[naomi24]

Rockrose, //Pointless question //

It's a fair question. Would you trust him?

[Sqad]

RR
"You have no evidence that he will kill again Sqad."

Indeed i don't, equally I don't have any guarantee that he won't and we must rely on the advice and experience of the Parole boards, which doesn't in any way, from what we know, invalidate my opinion, based on rudimentary Psychiatric knowledge and certain experiences.

[spathiphyllum]

"The issue Spath is that he could simply break those rules. "
Anyone could simply do anything. We have processes. If he is
eligible for release on tag, then so be it.