On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:12:21 UTC, "Richard"
wrote:

: Bad comparison:
:
: 1) This ain't a mere fatal crash. There is a suspicion that the victim
:
: Fatal crashes are often killings caused by someone's crime. Why should they
: be dealt with less seriously than murders?

They can be dealt with more quickly, because the cause of death is
easy to spot and the culprit is normally on the scene. If a murder
victim was found dumped on a road at 1am I'd be very, very suprised if
the police actions was any different. Close the road, wait till
morning, have a good look round.

Ian

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:14 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: You fail to spot the fundamental difference. If one was to build a
: bridge over the surface of the M8 that motor vehicles could use then
: one would have a comparable situation. The height of this bridge
: above the road surface being the same as the difference in level
: between the ballast and rail head.

Oh, we're back to the wonderful Crime-Prufe (tm) cling film, are we?

Ian

"David H Wild" wrote in message
...
Not a particularly good example. There are numerous examples of fatal
crashes in which the evidence is dragged off the road within hours -
basically as soon as the ambulances are gone.

A fatal crash is not necessarily the same as suspicious circumstances.

Seems pretty suspicious to me - someone dead where if the law is followed
the chance of being killed should be very low.

Why do you want to treat these killings as unworthy of investigation?

Richard

On 12 Feb 2004 22:52:59 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
wrote this:-

Oh, we're back to the wonderful Crime-Prufe (tm) cling film, are we?

Nice try. However, nowhere did I mention cling film.

It is reassuring that you have to distort what I wrote in order to
make your "point". That probably indicates a lack of good arguments.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In message
"Richard" wrote:


"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-15gYwGsdV2Bd@localhost...
If a body was found in suspicious circumstances at 1am on the M8, do
you think the police would cover stuff up with plastic and wait until
after the morning rush hour to look for evidence?

Not a particularly good example. There are numerous examples of fatal
crashes in which the evidence is dragged off the road within hours -
basically as soon as the ambulances are gone.


But we are not talking about the victims of accidents but a potential murder
victim.


'Getting the traffic flowing' is seen as a priority on the roads - even
where some effort at investigation is made, often one or two lanes will be
open. There doesn't seem much concern for disturbing potential evidence
there.


But we are not talking about the victims of accidents but a potential murder
victim.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:10:15 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On 12 Feb 2004 22:52:59 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
: wrote this:-
:
: Oh, we're back to the wonderful Crime-Prufe (tm) cling film, are we?
:
: Nice try. However, nowhere did I mention cling film.
:
: It is reassuring that you have to distort what I wrote in order to
: make your "point". That probably indicates a lack of good arguments.

Well, do tell about this wonderful plastic which can easy be spread
over thousands of square yards of railway without disturbing anything
underneath, but letting the rail heads through.

I really think you're onto a loser with this one.

Ian

On 13 Feb 2004 11:04:39 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
wrote this:-

Well, do tell about this wonderful plastic which can easy be spread
over thousands of square yards of railway

Who said anything about thousands of square yards?

I really think you're onto a loser with this one.

I may be, but that has yet to be demonstrated by those that disagree
with me. Since they seem to need to distort what I say to make their
"points" I think the idea is looking increasingly sound.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:24:11 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On 13 Feb 2004 11:04:39 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
: wrote this:-
:
: Well, do tell about this wonderful plastic which can easy be spread
: over thousands of square yards of railway
:
: Who said anything about thousands of square yards?

Wel, explain in more detail, then. You're the one who came up with
this theory that it would be perfectly possible - and desirable - to
swathe the scene of a crime in plastic (allowing rails to poke
through, of course) without in any way detracting from the process of
investigation once it started. I'd have thought that a hundred yards
on each side of the body, across the full width of the railway line,
would be a basic minimum. But perhaps you know better - can you give
some examples of places where this is or has been done?

: I really think you're onto a loser with this one.
:
: I may be, but that has yet to be demonstrated by those that disagree
: with me. Since they seem to need to distort what I say to make their
: "points" I think the idea is looking increasingly sound.

Problem is that you haven't really said much more than "use some
plastic", so there isn't much to argue with. Have you suggested your
plan to the HSE or the BTP?

Ian

In article ,
Richard wrote:
A fatal crash is not necessarily the same as suspicious circumstances.

Seems pretty suspicious to me - someone dead where if the law is followed
the chance of being killed should be very low.

Why do you want to treat these killings as unworthy of investigation?

Nobody, other than you, is suggesting that fatal accidents should not be
investigated. They are, though, much easier to investigate in that the
people concerned are usually still at the scene.

Finding a body by the side of the road, when there has not been a road
accident, is a rather different matter.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/

In article cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-l4U5vcb61hzI@localhost,
Ian Johnston wrote:
: It is reassuring that you have to distort what I wrote in order to
: make your "point". That probably indicates a lack of good arguments.

Well, do tell about this wonderful plastic which can easy be spread
over thousands of square yards of railway without disturbing anything
underneath, but letting the rail heads through.

I really think you're onto a loser with this one.

Rule 1: David Hansen is always right.

Rule 2: Rule 1 applies.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/