A Record? Trial For Murder 58 Years Ago

[irc]

Here is someone who will die in prison if convicted. Shame he has got away with it (if guilty) for prettty much all his life.

"A convicted rapist accused of murdering an elderly woman was arrested nearly 60 years later after a “billion to one” DNA breakthrough on her clothing, a court has been told.

Ryland Headley, 92, is accused of breaking into the home of Louisa Dunne, 75, on the night of June 27, 1967, and raping and attacking her. "

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/convicte...

[jdw100]

irc said:

Here is someone who will die in prison if convicted. Shame he has got away with it (if guilty) for prettty much all his life.

"A convicted rapist accused of murdering an elderly woman was arrested nearly 60 years later after a billion to one DNA breakthrough on her clothing, a court has been told.

Ryland Headley, 92, is accused of breaking into the home of Louisa Dunne, 75, on the night of June 27, 1967, and raping and attacking her. "

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/convicte...

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but…..

[paul.deitch]

Wow! How many people does he have to rape and kill before you think that it's worth prosecuting?

[Narcisus]

jdw100 said:

irc said:

Here is someone who will die in prison if convicted. Shame he has got away with it (if guilty) for prettty much all his life.

"A convicted rapist accused of murdering an elderly woman was arrested nearly 60 years later after a billion to one DNA breakthrough on her clothing, a court has been told.

Ryland Headley, 92, is accused of breaking into the home of Louisa Dunne, 75, on the night of June 27, 1967, and raping and attacking her. "

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/convicte...

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

If it had been your mum would you have said just let him of ?

[ChevronB19]

jdw100 said:

irc said:

Here is someone who will die in prison if convicted. Shame he has got away with it (if guilty) for prettty much all his life.

"A convicted rapist accused of murdering an elderly woman was arrested nearly 60 years later after a billion to one DNA breakthrough on her clothing, a court has been told.

Ryland Headley, 92, is accused of breaking into the home of Louisa Dunne, 75, on the night of June 27, 1967, and raping and attacking her. "

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/convicte...

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

Please tell me you are joking?

[BikeBikeBIke]

jdw100 said:

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

I agree. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations but there should be some common sense.

All we're doing with this guy is taking over paying his elderly care bill for him. (If convicted.)

[Southerner]

paul.deitch said:

Wow! How many people does he have to rape and kill before you think that it's worth prosecuting?

Of course; but at the same time I think it’s reasonable to suggest that there is huge doubt over the fairness of a trial in these circumstances - you’re putting a 92 year old in the dock with an allegation of something 60 years ago, I don’t think anybody could honestly suggest that he will be in a position to mount a full and fair defence, or that any evidence beyond the DNA match is likely to be reliable. He may well have done it of course, but equally there could be any number of reasons for his DNA to have been there, how on earth can anybody ever really know at this stage?

[ChevronB19]

BikeBikeBIke said:

jdw100 said:

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

I agree. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations but there should be some common sense.

All we're doing with this guy is taking over paying his elderly care bill for him. (If convicted.)

If you can bear to, read the details given in this article. He raped and killed an elderly woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/16/ma...

[ChevronB19]

Southerner said:

Of course; but at the same time I think it s reasonable to suggest that there is huge doubt over the fairness of a trial in these circumstances - you re putting a 92 year old in the dock with an allegation of something 60 years ago, I don t think anybody could honestly suggest that he will be in a position to mount a full and fair defence, or that any evidence beyond the DNA match is likely to be reliable. He may well have done it of course, but equally there could be any number of reasons for his DNA to have been there, how on earth can anybody ever really know at this stage?

The dna was from semen.

[BikeBikeBIke]

ChevronB19 said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

jdw100 said:

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

I agree. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations but there should be some common sense.

All we're doing with this guy is taking over paying his elderly care bill for him. (If convicted.)

If you can bear to, read the details given in this article. He raped and killed an elderly woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/16/ma...

So what? Why should I pay for his care beciase he did something horrific. He can't be punished, he'll far get better care in the prison system than he will out of it. The only reason for the tax payer to fund this guy's care in his dotage would be if he was a a risk risk to others. (Maybe he is, that would totally change my mind.)

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 17th June 09:20

[iphonedyou]

BikeBikeBIke said:

So what? Why should I pay for his care beciase he did something horrific.

Well, it's a view, I guess.

[Mr Penguin]

This does seem rather pointless and a bit of a waste of money when the justice system is apparently struggling with capacity.
Given he is 92 and the alleged offences happened nearly 60 years ago, can he even remember enough to be able to get evidence for a fair defence?

[oyster]

BikeBikeBIke said:

ChevronB19 said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

jdw100 said:

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

I agree. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations but there should be some common sense.

All we're doing with this guy is taking over paying his elderly care bill for him. (If convicted.)

If you can bear to, read the details given in this article. He raped and killed an elderly woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/16/ma...

So what? Why should I pay for his care beciase he did something horrific. He can't be punished, he'll far get better care in the prison system than he will out of it. The only reason for the tax payer to fund this guy's care in his dotage would be if he was a a risk risk to others. (Maybe he is, that would totally change my mind.)

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 17th June 09:20

What’s your cut off?

[ChevronB19]

BikeBikeBIke said:

So what? Why should I pay for his care beciase he did something horrific. He can't be punished, he'll far get better care in the prison system than he will out of it. The only reason for the tax payer to fund this guy's care in his dotage would be if he was a a risk risk to others. (Maybe he is, that would totally change my mind.)

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 17th June 09:20

As someone else has pointed out, what if she had been your mum?

[ChevronB19]

BikeBikeBIke said:

So what?

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 17th June 09:20

Jesus.

[BoRED S2upid]

jdw100 said:

irc said:

Here is someone who will die in prison if convicted. Shame he has got away with it (if guilty) for prettty much all his life.

"A convicted rapist accused of murdering an elderly woman was arrested nearly 60 years later after a billion to one DNA breakthrough on her clothing, a court has been told.

Ryland Headley, 92, is accused of breaking into the home of Louisa Dunne, 75, on the night of June 27, 1967, and raping and attacking her. "

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/convicte...

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

You can’t be serious.

I’m sure there are not a team of detectives on this more likely a new method of DNA analysis is invented and they need something really old to see if it works. “Oh st it really does work!” Computer finds a match send a junior Bobby to get him out of his nursing home.

[Tango13]

Some posters on here complain when the police prosecute for 'hurty words on the internet' and that the police should investigate 'real crimes'

Well the police have investigated a real crime and a suspect is being prosecuted and by doing so they are sending out a clear warning that they are relentless in their pursuit of criminals.

[Slow.Patrol]

I don't have a problem with this.

Firstly it gives closure to the family of the victim.

Secondly his family will know what a piece of scum he was.

[BikeBikeBIke]

oyster said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

ChevronB19 said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

jdw100 said:

Investigate a crime older than I am (57) and imprison a 92 year old - not sure there is a real point to it. Justice of course but ..

I agree. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations but there should be some common sense.

All we're doing with this guy is taking over paying his elderly care bill for him. (If convicted.)

If you can bear to, read the details given in this article. He raped and killed an elderly woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/16/ma...

So what? Why should I pay for his care beciase he did something horrific. He can't be punished, he'll far get better care in the prison system than he will out of it. The only reason for the tax payer to fund this guy's care in his dotage would be if he was a a risk risk to others. (Maybe he is, that would totally change my mind.)

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 17th June 09:20

What s your cut off?

My cut off is the point where conviction improves their lives rather than making it worse.

Clearly, where the person is still a risk they can't go in a normal old people's home. Maybe that's the case here, clearly that would change my mind.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Tango13 said:

Some posters on here complain when the police prosecute for 'hurty words on the internet' and that the police should investigate 'real crimes'

Well the police have investigated a real crime and a suspect is being prosecuted and by doing so they are sending out a clear warning that they are relentless in their pursuit of criminals.

I'm all for sending a clear warning. I'm less keen on announcing that if you commit crime you'll get a high level of care in advanced old age that won't be taken out of your estate and will likely be way better than you'd have otherwise.