Braintree: Oakes will never be released

Braintree: Oakes will never be released

Braintree: Oakes will never be released

First published in News

Double murderer David Oakes will remain in prison for the rest of his life.

He was sentenced this afternoon after being found guilty of the murders of his former partner and their two-year-old daughter.

Judge Mr Justice Adrian Fulford gave Oakes two whole life sentences.

Oakes was not in court to hear the verdict or the sentencing today

Earlier in the day, the jury decided unanimously that Oakes had murdered ex-partner Christine Chambers and their two-year-old daughter Shania in Bartram Avenue, Braintree, on June 6 last year.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:01pm Fri 11 May 12

BtreeDoorMen says...

Why was he not on court??
"Refused to attend", should this even be an option for this or any other type of criminal. Hearing your sentence and why it's been given should be a legal requirement.
Why was he not on court?? "Refused to attend", should this even be an option for this or any other type of criminal. Hearing your sentence and why it's been given should be a legal requirement. BtreeDoorMen
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Fri 11 May 12

Sdapeze says...

This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.
This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Fri 11 May 12

Cuthbert says...

An utterly foul, disgusting specimen!
An utterly foul, disgusting specimen! Cuthbert
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Fri 11 May 12

Unsworthae says...

even those in prison hate people like him who do such awful things to women and little children, lets hope they make his life hell for however long he has left just like he did to those 2 poor girls.
even those in prison hate people like him who do such awful things to women and little children, lets hope they make his life hell for however long he has left just like he did to those 2 poor girls. Unsworthae
  • Score: 0

9:23am Sat 12 May 12

6079 Smith W says...

Sdapeze wrote:
This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.
He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that.
Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology?
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.[/p][/quote]He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that. Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology? 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sat 12 May 12

ShallowRemarks says...

I think people's knee jerk reaction is often to say " he should be hung," but to understand the law it really is not that simple. For example if a person like Oakes were standing trial and they faced the death penalty, what if the majority of a jury opposed the death penalty they could find him innocent. By the way this has happened in America the man walked free even though there was overwhelming evidence against him.
I think people's knee jerk reaction is often to say " he should be hung," but to understand the law it really is not that simple. For example if a person like Oakes were standing trial and they faced the death penalty, what if the majority of a jury opposed the death penalty they could find him innocent. By the way this has happened in America the man walked free even though there was overwhelming evidence against him. ShallowRemarks
  • Score: 0

9:05am Sun 13 May 12

TheTaxpayer says...

He should hang.
The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever.
Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts?
Oakes should hang.
As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum.
He should hang. The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever. Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts? Oakes should hang. As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum. TheTaxpayer
  • Score: 0

11:51am Sun 13 May 12

6079 Smith W says...

TheTaxpayer wrote:
He should hang.
The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever.
Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts?
Oakes should hang.
As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum.
I'm glad you mentioned Harold Shipman. The UK's worst individual serial killer (though obviously events like the Armritsar Massacre saw many more killed), whose power derived from the fact he was in authority. Charged by the state with a duty of care over his patients. That merely backs up what I've said about why it is always madness to give states the judicial power to take life.
And how do you seriously think your suggestion could work in practice? As you say, the law states a conviction must be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So how can you have an extra level of proof beyond this? It's just absurd and impractical to suggest this. You can either have the death penalty (with the likes of the Guildford 6 hung, and back in the 70s 99.9% of people were in 'no doubt' about them being 'beasts'), or you do not.
Personally, I have no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. But whenever he comes up, it's pretty clear a lot of regulars on here don't go along with my view. Life is rarely black and white, it is far more usually shades of grey.
[quote][p][bold]TheTaxpayer[/bold] wrote: He should hang. The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever. Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts? Oakes should hang. As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you mentioned Harold Shipman. The UK's worst individual serial killer (though obviously events like the Armritsar Massacre saw many more killed), whose power derived from the fact he was in authority. Charged by the state with a duty of care over his patients. That merely backs up what I've said about why it is always madness to give states the judicial power to take life. And how do you seriously think your suggestion could work in practice? As you say, the law states a conviction must be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So how can you have an extra level of proof beyond this? It's just absurd and impractical to suggest this. You can either have the death penalty (with the likes of the Guildford 6 hung, and back in the 70s 99.9% of people were in 'no doubt' about them being 'beasts'), or you do not. Personally, I have no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. But whenever he comes up, it's pretty clear a lot of regulars on here don't go along with my view. Life is rarely black and white, it is far more usually shades of grey. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sun 13 May 12

6079 Smith W says...

jollyfishfrier wrote:
6079 Smith W wrote:
Sdapeze wrote: This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.
He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that. Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology?
I agree with you in most part smithy, but the english of Sdapeze was part correct also.
re:-
"this is a clear case for hanging"
If we forget politics for a moment,
politics that you seem to bring into every line of comments smithy,
but read into the fact that this sad person David Oakes "did" infact commit those two crimes against British Law,
then at the moment hanging is Illegal if carried out by those charged to care for his health and welfare,
but, and a very BIG but,
if like those convicted of killing others, who face the rest of there lives being "cared for" should be left a length of stout rope overnight in there safe and secure cells, the english words "should be hung" can be changed to,
"should be left to be hung"
of his own doing, then if David Oakes has any remorse, his own hand would seal his own fate!

But in reality, under current laws,
those charged with protecting him, caring for him both medically and mentaly,
caring for his nutritional daily needs, and clothing for his health, cannot do no more!

This has been like this for many - many years smithy.
Does anybody actually understand the point of this long ramble, complete with its double negative? The only bit I really got was a bizarre suggestion I was the one who brought politics into it. That was clearly the responsibility of those who cried for the death penalty, and with 'agree all' (JF's first post here), JF was one of three others who got here before me on that one!
[quote][p][bold]jollyfishfrier[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]6079 Smith W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.[/p][/quote]He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that. Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology?[/p][/quote]I agree with you in most part smithy, but the english of Sdapeze was part correct also. re:- "this is a clear case for hanging" If we forget politics for a moment, politics that you seem to bring into every line of comments smithy, but read into the fact that this sad person David Oakes "did" infact commit those two crimes against British Law, then at the moment hanging is Illegal if carried out by those charged to care for his health and welfare, but, and a very BIG but, if like those convicted of killing others, who face the rest of there lives being "cared for" should be left a length of stout rope overnight in there safe and secure cells, the english words "should be hung" can be changed to, "should be left to be hung" of his own doing, then if David Oakes has any remorse, his own hand would seal his own fate! But in reality, under current laws, those charged with protecting him, caring for him both medically and mentaly, caring for his nutritional daily needs, and clothing for his health, cannot do no more! This has been like this for many - many years smithy.[/p][/quote]Does anybody actually understand the point of this long ramble, complete with its double negative? The only bit I really got was a bizarre suggestion I was the one who brought politics into it. That was clearly the responsibility of those who cried for the death penalty, and with 'agree all' (JF's first post here), JF was one of three others who got here before me on that one! 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Sun 13 May 12

6079 Smith W says...

6079 Smith W wrote:
TheTaxpayer wrote:
He should hang.
The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever.
Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts?
Oakes should hang.
As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum.
I'm glad you mentioned Harold Shipman. The UK's worst individual serial killer (though obviously events like the Armritsar Massacre saw many more killed), whose power derived from the fact he was in authority. Charged by the state with a duty of care over his patients. That merely backs up what I've said about why it is always madness to give states the judicial power to take life.
And how do you seriously think your suggestion could work in practice? As you say, the law states a conviction must be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So how can you have an extra level of proof beyond this? It's just absurd and impractical to suggest this. You can either have the death penalty (with the likes of the Guildford 6 hung, and back in the 70s 99.9% of people were in 'no doubt' about them being 'beasts'), or you do not.
Personally, I have no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. But whenever he comes up, it's pretty clear a lot of regulars on here don't go along with my view. Life is rarely black and white, it is far more usually shades of grey.
Guildford 4, it was of course the Birmingham 6.
[quote][p][bold]6079 Smith W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTaxpayer[/bold] wrote: He should hang. The law asks "beyond reasonable doubt". For Oakes, Shipman, Huntley and the Wests there is no doubt whatsoever. Can any sane person honestly stand up and claim doubt for any of these beasts? Oakes should hang. As for politics in capital punishment...let's have a referendum.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you mentioned Harold Shipman. The UK's worst individual serial killer (though obviously events like the Armritsar Massacre saw many more killed), whose power derived from the fact he was in authority. Charged by the state with a duty of care over his patients. That merely backs up what I've said about why it is always madness to give states the judicial power to take life. And how do you seriously think your suggestion could work in practice? As you say, the law states a conviction must be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So how can you have an extra level of proof beyond this? It's just absurd and impractical to suggest this. You can either have the death penalty (with the likes of the Guildford 6 hung, and back in the 70s 99.9% of people were in 'no doubt' about them being 'beasts'), or you do not. Personally, I have no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. But whenever he comes up, it's pretty clear a lot of regulars on here don't go along with my view. Life is rarely black and white, it is far more usually shades of grey.[/p][/quote]Guildford 4, it was of course the Birmingham 6. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

5:00am Mon 14 May 12

6079 Smith W says...

jollyfishfrier wrote:
6079 Smith W wrote:
jollyfishfrier wrote:
6079 Smith W wrote:
Sdapeze wrote: This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.
He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that. Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology?
I agree with you in most part smithy, but the english of Sdapeze was part correct also. re:- "this is a clear case for hanging" If we forget politics for a moment, politics that you seem to bring into every line of comments smithy, but read into the fact that this sad person David Oakes "did" infact commit those two crimes against British Law, then at the moment hanging is Illegal if carried out by those charged to care for his health and welfare, but, and a very BIG but, if like those convicted of killing others, who face the rest of there lives being "cared for" should be left a length of stout rope overnight in there safe and secure cells, the english words "should be hung" can be changed to, "should be left to be hung" of his own doing, then if David Oakes has any remorse, his own hand would seal his own fate! But in reality, under current laws, those charged with protecting him, caring for him both medically and mentaly, caring for his nutritional daily needs, and clothing for his health, cannot do no more! This has been like this for many - many years smithy.
Does anybody actually understand the point of this long ramble, complete with its double negative? The only bit I really got was a bizarre suggestion I was the one who brought politics into it. That was clearly the responsibility of those who cried for the death penalty, and with 'agree all' (JF's first post here), JF was one of three others who got here before me on that one!
OK smithy,
something more simpler for you:-

" Agree all,
but the worst thing is he will be medically looked after better than you or I would be, by jumping the queues for medical procedures.....”
*
So, who is waiting for medical procedures, knowing a murderer is getting better treatment,
but is of course Illegal to kill the murderer.

I for one are on a waiting list,
on 3 lists actually..
2 years for gastric banding,
a year for a new knee,
lost count of the years i`ve waited for a tumor on my kidney to be removed,
as its not yet killed me,


yet!

SO, in simplistic terms:-

Agree all,
but the worst thing is he will be medically looked after better than you or I would be, by jumping the queues for medical procedures.....”

NHS,
or,
no help sunshine!
not unless I was a killer!
It's certainly simplistic nonsense, with no basis in fact whatsoever. Not so long ago, I remember a woman prisoner giving birth while shackled. Sorry mate, but you're clearly crazier than yesterday's Premier League ending.
[quote][p][bold]jollyfishfrier[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]6079 Smith W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jollyfishfrier[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]6079 Smith W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: This is a clear case for hanging. But the do-gooders would rather reform him and send him home.[/p][/quote]He will never be released. It really is a good idea to read at the very least the headline (and probably the story as well), before embarrassing yourself with a comment like that. Of course, the Birmingham 6, and the Guildford 4 (to name just two of many miscarriages of justice since the death penalty's removal), would have ended up the same way as the poor lad from the infamous 'let him have it' case, or Ruth Ellis. And the biggest crimes from history are always committed by governments, so how can it be a good idea to give history's biggest criminals this power? How can this be squared with Thatcherite, small government, supposed libertarian, ideology?[/p][/quote]I agree with you in most part smithy, but the english of Sdapeze was part correct also. re:- "this is a clear case for hanging" If we forget politics for a moment, politics that you seem to bring into every line of comments smithy, but read into the fact that this sad person David Oakes "did" infact commit those two crimes against British Law, then at the moment hanging is Illegal if carried out by those charged to care for his health and welfare, but, and a very BIG but, if like those convicted of killing others, who face the rest of there lives being "cared for" should be left a length of stout rope overnight in there safe and secure cells, the english words "should be hung" can be changed to, "should be left to be hung" of his own doing, then if David Oakes has any remorse, his own hand would seal his own fate! But in reality, under current laws, those charged with protecting him, caring for him both medically and mentaly, caring for his nutritional daily needs, and clothing for his health, cannot do no more! This has been like this for many - many years smithy.[/p][/quote]Does anybody actually understand the point of this long ramble, complete with its double negative? The only bit I really got was a bizarre suggestion I was the one who brought politics into it. That was clearly the responsibility of those who cried for the death penalty, and with 'agree all' (JF's first post here), JF was one of three others who got here before me on that one![/p][/quote]OK smithy, something more simpler for you:- " Agree all, but the worst thing is he will be medically looked after better than you or I would be, by jumping the queues for medical procedures.....” * So, who is waiting for medical procedures, knowing a murderer is getting better treatment, but is of course Illegal to kill the murderer. I for one are on a waiting list, on 3 lists actually.. 2 years for gastric banding, a year for a new knee, lost count of the years i`ve waited for a tumor on my kidney to be removed, as its not yet killed me, yet! SO, in simplistic terms:- Agree all, but the worst thing is he will be medically looked after better than you or I would be, by jumping the queues for medical procedures.....” NHS, or, no help sunshine! not unless I was a killer![/p][/quote]It's certainly simplistic nonsense, with no basis in fact whatsoever. Not so long ago, I remember a woman prisoner giving birth while shackled. Sorry mate, but you're clearly crazier than yesterday's Premier League ending. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree