Category : Articles

Sub Category : N/A

Bomber attacks those on English train. Threatens the security of all aboard train. Brings into question precisely WHAT intent- if criminal- fueled this heinous crime: was it criminal intent? Or was it purely personal intent? If it be a personal intent, in fact, was there private motive? Were the motives and intents- those essential elements separating basic facts from outright fiction- even established? If not, if the motive and intent was NEVER established, how, then, could ANY proof be gathered to argue evidence benefitting truth that would determine those guilty as well as  punish those whose false accounts violated  most basic laws upheld in society AS WELL AS in courtrooms INTERNATIONALLY.  AGAINST those believed to have been involved or otherwise associated These are questions which WEREN'T asked in the Manchester bombing at the concert months ago, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t forgotten WHY the police did NOT expand on investigations regarding those who died and those who were injured from the bomb that went off after the responsible party went to that Ariana Grande concert KNOWINGLY having an IED inserted into one of his orifices: with a personal intent and PRIVATE motive which STILL remains undetermined . The lack of invesrigation supports the nearly invalid amount of evidence gathered by the British police after the IED-inserted “fan" did the unthinkable so that he could go out with a bang (no pun intended) and be made “infamous" for his suicide mission. Brings to mind a quote I heard long ago: “Murder can make you famous; mass murder will make you infamous.” 
    It seems that the detectives inability to find any explanatory proof would be enough for Mayor Khan to fire nearly the entire police force there in London. At the very least, the lack of reasonable doubt would have inspired the British authority figures to find SOME little bit of proof implicating the fact that this young man inserted the IED knowingly into one of his cavities as a way of forcing all attentive sources to look directly at him, thus giving the assailant the little bit of recognition which he always wanted and ever-thirsted for. 
    Who knows? If the case HAD been investigated closer, those bits (outlining the next bomb in England known as the ‘tube bomb’) may have never been lost and never found, as were the pieces of the bomber himself whose criminal act was, in truth, considered by himself to be “a heroic act of civil service in the dark mind of Manchester’s own”. Perhaps in the criminal's former residency there are many future plans, blue prints of sorts, directing groups like ISIS to planned violent attacks of a criminal nature, outlining bombings scheduled for specified locations. Perhaps this is Manchester's Own’s perverted way of asking the British police (whom he once distrusted) to continue searching until ALL of those associates involved WHO are undeniably guilty are located. Then, those criminals at large can be taken into custody, forced to undergo interrogation, made to answer questions: however honest or dishonest these answers may be. Why not use polygraphs and lie detectors in interrogation, as it IS  the sole purpose of these detectives to get facts BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. 
    These facts can then be used to gather evidence, evidence which will be of particular use in affiliating those supposed-guilty criminal associates with others whose squeaky-clean records reveal anything but an affinity for violating the law or disobeying the rules—down to those of common courtesy. This evidence can very well affiliate those involved whom, previously, were believed to be responsible, so as to arrest ALL associates in question through the use of mounting material evidence which can be presented in court: exhibit by exhibit. In a like manner, these associates in question can thus be made to testify in court, made to develop instant answers to those questions they currently believe themselves free of ever even being judicially or legally related to. What's more, those alleged associates in question would then be forced to  commit the crime of libel (telling what is, in fact, a lie) directly in front of a judge, forced to provide ANY amount of otherwise concealed information to those prosecutors who avidly seek to locate even MORE British citizens  "guilty": so as to prosecute accordingly. 
    Establishing each one's individual criminal intent provides a foundation upon which to build each criminal case, providing reason and cause to establish a more solid case. But first, detectives need to identify individual motive at the center of each choice made in order to develop a solid criminal intent that basically remained at the core of every related crime committed. 
    Those responsible parties may be charged as "guilty" associates AFTER determining criminal intent to proceed individual motive in having a collective motive instead. In having collective motives, the charges alter in format, such as the charges altered in format when one's supposed individual conspiracy leads to a known co-conspiracy because multiple guilty parties are involved, not only one responsible party is assumed. The violations each is guilty of partaking in- IF supported by sufficient amounts of evidence- further support  the crimes that each is responsible for  in  the Gathering of evidence  for each. Intent to commit homicide, for instance, is not the same as manslaughter in the 3rd degree. These are two verydifferent crimes, though it not sound as if either is anything more than one person killing another in each case. Still, to the law pupil, she or he can deconstruct each crime into subcategories of which can, in turn, be used to estimate the outcome of the case in the instance of a particular entity being charged with either-- based on crimes previously charged for, as well as the measurment of legal defense in either instance of "guilty" or "nonguilty". Although, as is seen directly above, there is so very much more (in greater detail to varying degrees) to BOTH crimes named than just "killing someone else", many more factors come into play, not the least of which are, in fact as well as in presentation, "guilty" and "nonguilty". Still, it might appear to the typical person that both charges, having two different names, involve being accused of "killing" another person, both charges vary in other areas as well, such as in categories of severity enforced through either punishments or fines. 
    Other aspects of these charges make both [charges] even more seperate, defining each in terms of differentiation: by truth and order, through law. Seperating both from one another (by law, through order), these charges (yet unplaced) are arranged into detailed categories: based on factual evidence and protection, as provided by the oral defense presented and the technicalities produced (verbally, by way of reciting specific laws meant to nullify those accusations made, as well as to overturn those assumed stances taken (for or against one's client). Thus, validity-- initially based on facts and truths--
 ultimately determines using  the weight, in magnitude, of charges, using the defense as presented by one's attorney in a court of law. Validity is THE key to determining (or otherwise estimating) whether or not charges will ultimately be pressed. 
    Validity itself is basically determined through those facts provided as evidence which defines those accused as one of two things: "guilty" or "nonguilty".  unto each based upon the amount of sufficient evidence that proves "guilt" and seperates crimes committed different premeditated murder. Other violations could include the following: possession of an unlicensed firearm or robbery related to home invasion. All charges pressed in one criminal's case could very well have links to some charges pressed in another criminal's case. If there be charges associated (from one criminal to another) there could be mounting evidence (between said cases) needed in order to heighten charges, increasing both severity AND increasing in count as well as degree. In the case of such increase in count and degree, the court may determine felonious (felony) commisions have taken place: either individually OR collectively through criminal association. 
    For instance, such is done in the the "exchange or provision of material evidence given to support known terrorist groups", or otherwise "provide materials with the intent of supplying dangerous substances or weapons to aid in terrorist organizations in concealed crimimal acts". How can such felonies (as those loosely entitled above) be able to be pressed in the courtroom and upheld through law? Simple: (1) through the appropriation of evidence;
 (2) in the gathering of said evidence used (3) in order to build a solid case (4) against guilty parties, who will then be (5) charged accordingly in a court of law. At least, that is, in the American system of law and through the Justice served therein. 
    Whether dealing with either the United States of America  or  England , the police and detectives should start by searching for bombing materials present: both in the creation and detination of the tube bomb that went off in the train recently in London. Also, receipts  (and other  forms  of  recorded or printed data) can be used in determining what proofs (and forms of currency) were exchanged: for the making  of the bomb  as well as  in other violations somehow relateable (in terms of proof) linking guilty parties involved through association. Use of personal information belonging to/regarding suspects may link pecific places and specific times: neither of which provide a solid alibi [for those in custody. he bomb and/or whereabouts directly before AND directly after the London tube bombing ) can exact location be identified.
   In such a solid gathering of evidence, definite answers will be provided to detectives, and authority figures won't be made to aimlessly search for answers regarding this (and other) bombing incidents in Manchester, London, and other areas of Britian. Out of all the weighing in's and out's of possibilities regarding those responsible parties involved in THIS London tube bomb, no one has again mentioned the travesties that took place months ago when ANOTHER bomb went off in Manchester during an Ariana Grande concert, leaving a few injured and taking the lives of multiple youths present at the time of the bomb. Ariana Grande's Manchester concert was cut short quickly-- just as Justin Beiber's tour was only a couple weeks prior.
      So? So.... these two concerts mark the beginning of the end to the first of MANY cancellations taken by musician's, done for their tours AS WELL AS FOR safety precautions taken to ensure no blame be placed where it is undeserved.
   As for police and London's authoritive body serving Her Majesty's peole, these bombs have (and are)  causing those in charge (like Mayor Khan) to question protective measures available for London's citizens, such as those [protective measures] provided throuhh the British police force.