TL:DR Don't write an autobiography and say you murdered someone.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr. Burning**

Finally, he is brought to justice! Kind of....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37437498

Ex-Eggheads star CJ de Mooi in court over alleged killing.

CJ de Mooi, a former panellist on BBC quiz show Eggheads, has appeared in court after his arrest on a European arrest warrant for an alleged killing.
Scotland Yard said the 46-year-old from Monmouthshire had been arrested at Heathrow Airport on Wednesday.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard the warrant related to allegations of manslaughter, murder, assault and battery in Amsterdam in 1988.
Mr de Mooi appeared under his real name, Joseph Connagh.
The warrant was issued in May by Dutch authorities who are requesting the opportunity for "further questioning".
'Missing information'
Prosecutor Brian Gibbins said: "It appears the defendant, a TV personality, wrote an autobiography.
"And in that autobiography it said that the defendant claimed that whilst living in Amsterdam in 1988 he may have killed a drug addict who was attempting to mug him by punching him and throwing him into a canal in Amsterdam.
"It is understood that person had a knife with him. It was said that the defendant punched his assailant square in the face, disarmed him and threw him in the canal.
"On the face of the warrant he is wanted for further questions."
Chris Stevens, representing Mr de Mooi, said there was a "lot of missing information" in the warrant, such as a named victim, date of birth or a location of the incident.
He said the inquiry by the Dutch authorities was based on "something that might have happened" and "could arguably be self-defence".
Mr Stevens added: "There isn't anything to suggest the Dutch authorities are in a position to charge him with this."
In court, Mr de Mooi, dressed in a green T-shirt and hooded top, confirmed his name, age and address.
Magistrates granted Mr de Mooi bail on the condition he does not travel overseas, sleeps at his home address every night and keeps a charged mobile phone with him at all times.
He was ordered to attend a further hearing in November.
'Wrong day'
His autobiography, published last year, describes an incident in which Mr de Mooi says he may have killed a man while he lived on the streets.
Mr de Mooi said he punched a man who approached him with a knife and then threw him into a canal in the Dutch city of Amsterdam in 1988.
In his book, he wrote: "He caught me on the wrong day and I just snapped.
"I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him," he added.
Mr de Mooi, originally from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, adopted the name de Mooi when modelling.
He became a panellist on Eggheads in 2003 after winning a series of game shows.
The BBC Two show pits a team of five quiz champions against different challengers.

He has been saying this for over a year. Looks like hes finally been pulled on it. But a question remains.

An auto fething biography, by a non entity.....why?

Edit - Amusingly I think his Wikipedia entry was altered early this morning.. I swear I saw a google search with the words 'Cj De Mooi is a hitman...'

**notprop**

So, not sooo clever then eh?

**tneva82**

Well odds are he won't be punished for this. With what evidence? His statement(which might or might not be true in the first place) that he MIGHT have killed somebody that attacked him?

With that there's not even evidence there was somebody killed nevermind nevermind did he kill him or not. Western court system is based on innocent until proven otherwise precisely to minimize risk of anybody being punished for something they didn't do to the point it's preferable to let criminals let go than innocent be punished. Punishing somebody for killing somebody if there was no kill to begin with would be total opposition to that policy...

Also at least in Finland murder is premeditated killing. Killing somebody who attacked you isn't murder. Could even be just an excessive self defence which is also illegal but punishment isn't nearly as big as regular killing nevermind murder.

**jreilly89**

OJ pulled the same thing, the only difference was he was found not guilty and THEN wrote the autobiography saying he more or less did it

**Mr. Burning**

tneva82 wrote:
Well odds are he won't be punished for this. With what evidence? His statement(which might or might not be true in the first place) that he MIGHT have killed somebody that attacked him?

With that there's not even evidence there was somebody killed nevermind nevermind did he kill him or not. Western court system is based on innocent until proven otherwise precisely to minimize risk of anybody being punished for something they didn't do to the point it's preferable to let criminals let go than innocent be punished. Punishing somebody for killing somebody if there was no kill to begin with would be total opposition to that policy...

Also at least in Finland murder is premeditated killing. Killing somebody who attacked you isn't murder. Could even be just an excessive self defence which is also illegal but punishment isn't nearly as big as regular killing nevermind murder.

If he says he may have killed someone, could you ignore it? Remember he is being 'factual'.

And the use of murder, anywhere in this whole affair is sensationalist by design

**Monkey Tamer**

Not too familiar with law on that side of the pond but without a complaining witness/body there may be a problem getting a guilty verdict. I'm interested to see how this all pans out.

**tneva82**

Mr. Burning wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Well odds are he won't be punished for this. With what evidence? His statement(which might or might not be true in the first place) that he MIGHT have killed somebody that attacked him?

With that there's not even evidence there was somebody killed nevermind nevermind did he kill him or not. Western court system is based on innocent until proven otherwise precisely to minimize risk of anybody being punished for something they didn't do to the point it's preferable to let criminals let go than innocent be punished. Punishing somebody for killing somebody if there was no kill to begin with would be total opposition to that policy...

Also at least in Finland murder is premeditated killing. Killing somebody who attacked you isn't murder. Could even be just an excessive self defence which is also illegal but punishment isn't nearly as big as regular killing nevermind murder.

If he says he may have killed someone, could you ignore it? Remember he is being 'factual'.

And the use of murder, anywhere in this whole affair is sensationalist by design

He said he MIGHT have killed. He does not know. There's no evidence whatsoever he DID kill somebody. It's "maybe". "Possible". He himself does not know whether he killed somebody or not!

Now maybe law works differently in whatever country he's being charged with but in Finland at least I very much doubt he would be charged. When justice system is geared so that we rather let guilty people get away with it than risk innocent being sentenced with crime they didn't commit would be stupid to punish somebody for crime that MIGHT have happened but to which we a) don't have any proof he did it b) we have no proof there was even a crime in the first place!

Imagine him being putting on jail while the drug addict is meanwhile walking around live and kicking? One thing sentencing somebody for crime over this shaky evidence but another thing to sentence somebody when there's not even evidence there HAS been crime in the first place!

**Avatar 720**

Honestly, I wouldn't mind him being behind bars for a bit. He seems so far up his own arse that he could probably bite his own teeth.

**WrentheFaceless**

See he should have taken a page from OJ, titled it "IF i had done it"

**jreilly89**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
See he should have taken a page from OJ, titled it "IF i had done it"

Difference is you gotta be acquitted for the crime before you release the biography XD

**LordofHats**

Maybe I just don't get how it works, but isn't issuing a warrant for someone because he might have done something that might be self-defense a bit excessive?

**Iron_Captain**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Not too familiar with law on that side of the pond but without a complaining witness/body there may be a problem getting a guilty verdict. I'm interested to see how this all pans out.

Probably, yes. There might not even be a trial. As of now he is just wanted for questioning.

**Mr. Burning**

tneva82 wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Well odds are he won't be punished for this. With what evidence? His statement(which might or might not be true in the first place) that he MIGHT have killed somebody that attacked him?

With that there's not even evidence there was somebody killed nevermind nevermind did he kill him or not. Western court system is based on innocent until proven otherwise precisely to minimize risk of anybody being punished for something they didn't do to the point it's preferable to let criminals let go than innocent be punished. Punishing somebody for killing somebody if there was no kill to begin with would be total opposition to that policy...

Also at least in Finland murder is premeditated killing. Killing somebody who attacked you isn't murder. Could even be just an excessive self defence which is also illegal but punishment isn't nearly as big as regular killing nevermind murder.

If he says he may have killed someone, could you ignore it? Remember he is being 'factual'.

And the use of murder, anywhere in this whole affair is sensationalist by design

He said he MIGHT have killed. He does not know. There's no evidence whatsoever he DID kill somebody. It's "maybe". "Possible". He himself does not know whether he killed somebody or not!

Now maybe law works differently in whatever country he's being charged with but in Finland at least I very much doubt he would be charged. When justice system is geared so that we rather let guilty people get away with it than risk innocent being sentenced with crime they didn't commit would be stupid to punish somebody for crime that MIGHT have happened but to which we a) don't have any proof he did it b) we have no proof there was even a crime in the first place!

Imagine him being putting on jail while the drug addict is meanwhile walking around live and kicking? One thing sentencing somebody for crime over this shaky evidence but another thing to sentence somebody when there's not even evidence there HAS been crime in the first place!

Buzzkill.

The European arrest warrant was issued allowing the Dutch authorities chance to interview CJ. I may be wrong but there is no charge yet.

You are jumping the shark a bit here.

**Iron_Captain**

LordofHats wrote:
Maybe I just don't get how it works, but isn't issuing a warrant for someone because he might have done something that might be self-defense a bit excessive?

Not at all. If someone claims to kill someone you have to investigate that claim. I think that should be pretty self-evident. And if someone doesn't turn himself in for questioning willingly, you have to issue a warrant.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

If all they have is his autobiography it may well be a question of interview and release,

(we don't know if they have asked him to attend an interview previously and got turned down which could well be the reason for the warrant)

but it could be that what the autobiography says fits very well with suspicious cirumstances dead body they've had on the books since then perhaps with associated physical evidence in which case it could run through into formal charges and a trial

**redleger**

If he is telling the truth, seems pretty clearly a situation of self defense. If there is no body, then its just words in a book. Even then, he says he thinks he killed someone, not that he did kill someone. Maybe the dude lived and is running around mugging people as we speak.

Either way, if he is telling the truth, I would just get this interview over with. Looks bad when he isn't being compliant.

**sebster**

I don’t really understand the criticism of the police here. A dude publically says he might have killed someone, then you have to investigate and interview that person.

Remember the endgame isn’t necessarily to secure a conviction. Even if it was clearly self-defence, or even if there’s little chance of building enough evidence to build a criminal case, any information at all might help close a missing person’s case, or help identify a body they found years ago. That might bring closure to a family wondering what happened to a family member.

**Jehan-reznor**

Well they clean the canals every now and then so if they found a body between the beer cans, bicycles and blow up dolls then he is screwed

**Dreadclaw69**

redleger wrote:
If he is telling the truth, seems pretty clearly a situation of self defense. If there is no body, then its just words in a book. Even then, he says he thinks he killed someone, not that he did kill someone. Maybe the dude lived and is running around mugging people as we speak.

Either way, if he is telling the truth, I would just get this interview over with. Looks bad when he isn't being compliant.

I would not be so sure of that until more facts are presented. It is my understanding that he disarmed his assailant, then threw him into the canal. The interview with Ditch police may focus on whether the assailant continued to pose a threat of harm to him, whether the assailant then attempted to disengage from the confrontation, and whether or not under Dutch law throwing someone into a body of water is reasonable force in the circumstances.

**tneva82**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
redleger wrote:
If he is telling the truth, seems pretty clearly a situation of self defense. If there is no body, then its just words in a book. Even then, he says he thinks he killed someone, not that he did kill someone. Maybe the dude lived and is running around mugging people as we speak.

Either way, if he is telling the truth, I would just get this interview over with. Looks bad when he isn't being compliant.

I would not be so sure of that until more facts are presented. It is my understanding that he disarmed his assailant, then threw him into the canal. The interview with Ditch police may focus on whether the assailant continued to pose a threat of harm to him, whether the assailant then attempted to disengage from the confrontation, and whether or not under Dutch law throwing someone into a body of water is reasonable force in the circumstances.

Of course all that is useless unless there's dead body that can be linked to this presumed attack which might or might not have been reasonable force in circumstance.