Violent murder 2 mins away from my house!

[Hash]

Last week a lady was beaten to death in her own house. This is unbelievable as she lived literally two minutes away from me. The bus she took that day is the same bus I get on twice a day. I do not know the family personally but a couple of friends of mine knew her kids

Murdered mum's family speak of their grief
Comment
The family of a Lala Rezk have paid an emotional tribute to their murdered mum.

Police hunting the killer of Mrs Rezk have released the statement on behalf of the family in the hope will aid their appeal for information.

Leila Rezk, 51, suffered serious head injuries in the attack at her semi-detached home in Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 8.45pm on Wednesday evening.

Advertisement continued...
Her two children, believed to be in their early twenties, discovered their mother lying injured in the hallway in the family home at 9pm after arriving for a visit. Police and an ambulance arrived soon after, and the woman was taken in a critical condition to the specialist neurological unit in St George's Hospital in Tooting where she died at 5pm on Thursday.

“Simply put, she was our beautiful princess and did not deserve to die in this way."
Mrs Rezk's family

In a statement her family said: "No-one can understand what we are going through. Laila is irreplaceable - her love, kindness and success cannot be expressed in words.

"Simply put, she was our beautiful princess and did not deserve to die in this way. She is now safe with God, but the awful person who did this remains free to commit such evil again. For this reason, we cannot stress enough how important any information that anyone may have, will be for the protection of the British public.

"Her life, like all others, is priceless, so please come forward if you can contribute anything at all."

Anyone with any information should call the incident room on 020 8721 4868. If you wish to remain anonymous please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. There have been no arrests at present.

------------

Murdered mum: Police repeat appeal
Comment

Police are hoping to speak to other passengers who travelled on the same bus as Mrs Rezk
Police have released CCTV images of a mum hours before she was fatally attacked in her Kingston Vale home.

Leila Rezk, 51, suffered serious head injuries in the attack at her semi-detached home in Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 8.45pm on Wednesday evening.

Her two children, believed to be in their early twenties, discovered their mother lying injured in the hallway in the family home at 9pm after arriving for a visit. Police and an ambulance arrived soon after, and the woman was taken in a critical condition to the specialist neurological unit in St George's Hospital in Tooting where she died at 5pm on Thursday.

Mrs Rezk was an Egyptian national and worked in advertising. Police are keeping an open mind about a motive for the attack.

Investigating officer Detective Superintendent Richard Heselden explained that police are hoping to speak to passangers on a bus Mrs Rezk boarded on the day of the attack.

He said: "We know that Laila got on a number 85 bus near Putney railway station at 19.21 and that she got off the bus at 19.42 at Kingston Vale near Robin Hood roundabout.

Advertisement continued...
"Laila's son and daughter, and daughter's boyfriend, arrived at the house just before 21:00 and found the door slightly ajar.

"We are dealing with a vicious attack on a woman alone in her own home. I need to hear from anyone who may have seen or heard anything suspicious"
D Supt Richard Heselden

"They found her body positioned between the living room and the hall. Laila was unconscious at this point, therefore her daughter's boyfriend who has first aid experience attempted CPR.

"London Amublance Service arrived and took her to hospital where she died the next day.

"What we do know is that there was no obvious sign of forced entry, so it is possible that Laila opened the door to her attacker."

He added: "We are dealing with a vicious attack on a woman alone in her own home. I need to hear from anyone who may have seen or heard anything suspicious in the area of Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 9pm on Wednesday night.

An incident room has opened at Lewisham under DCI Phil Adams SCD. A neighbour who has known the family for years said: "This sort of thing never happens in this area. We are all extremely shocked."

Anyone with any information should call the incident room on 020 8721 4868. If you wish to remain anonymous please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. There have been no arrests at present.


9:36am Monday 4th December 2006

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...eat_appeal.php

[TAK]

i presume you have a credible alibi?

[Medic]

very sad. murders are a common thing nowdays

[Vegitto1]

Originally Posted by Medic very sad. murders are a common thing nowdays

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by Vegitto1

aup ko kia hopa?

[Sid100]

Originally Posted by Hash Last week a lady was beaten to death in her own house. This is unbelievable as she lived literally two minutes away from me. The bus she took that day is the same bus I get on twice a day. I do not know the family personally but a couple of friends of mine knew her kids Murdered mum's family speak of their grief Comment The family of a Lala Rezk have paid an emotional tribute to their murdered mum. Police hunting the killer of Mrs Rezk have released the statement on behalf of the family in the hope will aid their appeal for information. Leila Rezk, 51, suffered serious head injuries in the attack at her semi-detached home in Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 8.45pm on Wednesday evening. Advertisement continued... Her two children, believed to be in their early twenties, discovered their mother lying injured in the hallway in the family home at 9pm after arriving for a visit. Police and an ambulance arrived soon after, and the woman was taken in a critical condition to the specialist neurological unit in St George's Hospital in Tooting where she died at 5pm on Thursday. “Simply put, she was our beautiful princess and did not deserve to die in this way." Mrs Rezk's family In a statement her family said: "No-one can understand what we are going through. Laila is irreplaceable - her love, kindness and success cannot be expressed in words. "Simply put, she was our beautiful princess and did not deserve to die in this way. She is now safe with God, but the awful person who did this remains free to commit such evil again. For this reason, we cannot stress enough how important any information that anyone may have, will be for the protection of the British public. "Her life, like all others, is priceless, so please come forward if you can contribute anything at all." Anyone with any information should call the incident room on 020 8721 4868. If you wish to remain anonymous please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. There have been no arrests at present. ------------ Murdered mum: Police repeat appeal Comment Police are hoping to speak to other passengers who travelled on the same bus as Mrs Rezk Police have released CCTV images of a mum hours before she was fatally attacked in her Kingston Vale home. Leila Rezk, 51, suffered serious head injuries in the attack at her semi-detached home in Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 8.45pm on Wednesday evening. Her two children, believed to be in their early twenties, discovered their mother lying injured in the hallway in the family home at 9pm after arriving for a visit. Police and an ambulance arrived soon after, and the woman was taken in a critical condition to the specialist neurological unit in St George's Hospital in Tooting where she died at 5pm on Thursday. Mrs Rezk was an Egyptian national and worked in advertising. Police are keeping an open mind about a motive for the attack. Investigating officer Detective Superintendent Richard Heselden explained that police are hoping to speak to passangers on a bus Mrs Rezk boarded on the day of the attack. He said: "We know that Laila got on a number 85 bus near Putney railway station at 19.21 and that she got off the bus at 19.42 at Kingston Vale near Robin Hood roundabout. Advertisement continued... "Laila's son and daughter, and daughter's boyfriend, arrived at the house just before 21:00 and found the door slightly ajar. "We are dealing with a vicious attack on a woman alone in her own home. I need to hear from anyone who may have seen or heard anything suspicious" D Supt Richard Heselden "They found her body positioned between the living room and the hall. Laila was unconscious at this point, therefore her daughter's boyfriend who has first aid experience attempted CPR. "London Amublance Service arrived and took her to hospital where she died the next day. "What we do know is that there was no obvious sign of forced entry, so it is possible that Laila opened the door to her attacker." He added: "We are dealing with a vicious attack on a woman alone in her own home. I need to hear from anyone who may have seen or heard anything suspicious in the area of Robin Hood Lane between 7.30pm and 9pm on Wednesday night. An incident room has opened at Lewisham under DCI Phil Adams SCD. A neighbour who has known the family for years said: "This sort of thing never happens in this area. We are all extremely shocked." Anyone with any information should call the incident room on 020 8721 4868. If you wish to remain anonymous please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. There have been no arrests at present. 9:36am Monday 4th December 2006 http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...eat_appeal.php

What part of London do u live in? Putney?

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by Medic very sad. murders are a common thing nowdays

Nope, completely wrong.

Murders are one of the least occuring forms of violent crime. Most common crime now-a-days is white collar crime.

Probability is the murderer was familiar to the deceased.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by m_sohail Nope, completely wrong. Murders are one of the least occuring forms of violent crime. Most common crime now-a-days is white collar crime. Probability is the murderer was familiar to the deceased.

i think he didn't mean it in a literal way!

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan i think he didn't mean it in a literal way!

Violent crime (IE homicide, suicide) globally are at their lowest rates since 1996 (a spike after years of gradual decline), and are comparable to the rates of the 80's.

This is based on uniform crime stats, and self-report surveys.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by m_sohail Violent crime (IE homicide, suicide) globally are at their lowest rates since 1996 (a spike after years of gradual decline), and are comparable to the rates of the 80's. This is based on uniform crime stats, and self-report surveys.

that's good
May be it's a bit off topic but i would like to ask what you think about the school crimes here in the US.... i reckon there are far too many students being killed or injured at public schools in particular!

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan that's good May be it's a bit off topic but i would like to ask what you think about the school crimes here in the US.... i reckon there are far too many students being killed or injured at public schools in particular!

It isn't an easy question to answer.

First off, you have to understand children are viewed as a huge risk to commit crimes. This started back in the 50's, with crime comics depicting a more violent teenager. Thereafter, around the 70s and early 80s, sociologists manipulated stats to show that around the 90s and 2000, there would be over 6 million youth deviants in the United states alone, and the average age of a youth criminal would be about 6 years. (Yes, 6 as in SIX years) That led to a moral panic where by everyone thought the children of tomorrow would be "super predators" that would be uncontrollable and be after their children.

Now when school shootings occur, the media focuses its attention of such acts in a manner that makes it seem like school shootings are widespread and increasing. In fact, in research that one of my professors has done, in 35 headlines about "youth" collected of Toronto area newspapers, 34 of them involved violent acts (killings, violent acts, unmoral behaviour), while only 1 of the 35 didn't (that article talked about youth soccer championships in Toronto). So the media themselves have been spreading myths about youth crime, mostly because crime sells. And the concept of a youth criminal fits in with the moral panic within society.

Statistically speaking, there is no place safer than school for kids. School shootings are actually lower NOW than they were in 1992.

You have a greater chance of being hit (and killed) by lightning than being shot at school. In America, about 2000 children are killed at home by parents and relatives (FBI stats released), while around 50 children were killed in schools (including accidental deaths as well as shootings).

Don't get me wrong, the problem of school shootings is very serious, but it is not an epidemic, not anywhere close.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by m_sohail It isn't an easy question to answer. First off, you have to understand children are viewed as a huge risk to commit crimes. This started back in the 50's, with crime comics depicting a more violent teenager. Thereafter, around the 70s and early 80s, sociologists manipulated stats to show that around the 90s and 2000, there would be over 6 million youth deviants in the United states alone, and the average age of a youth criminal would be about 6 years. (Yes, 6 as in SIX years) That led to a moral panic where by everyone thought the children of tomorrow would be "super predators" that would be uncontrollable and be after their children. Now when school shootings occur, the media focuses its attention of such acts in a manner that makes it seem like school shootings are widespread and increasing. In fact, in research that one of my professors has done, in 35 headlines about "youth" collected of Toronto area newspapers, 34 of them involved violent acts (killings, violent acts, unmoral behaviour), while only 1 of the 35 didn't (that article talked about youth soccer championships in Toronto). So the media themselves have been spreading myths about youth crime, mostly because crime sells. And the concept of a youth criminal fits in with the moral panic within society. Statistically speaking, there is no place safer than school for kids. School shootings are actually lower NOW than they were in 1992. You have a greater chance of being hit (and killed) by lightning than being shot at school. In America, about 2000 children are killed at home by parents and relatives (FBI stats released), while around 50 children were killed in schools (including accidental deaths as well as shootings). Don't get me wrong, the problem of school shootings is very serious, but it is not an epidemic, not anywhere close.

well also i suppose after what happened on 4/20/1999 media now has even more reason to hype up any kind of crimes at our public schools....

the reason why i asked was because one of the kids at my high school was shot dead....i didn't actually happen in the school but the problem started while he was attending school!

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan the reason why i asked was because one of the kids at my high school was shot dead....i didn't actually happen in the school but the problem started while he was attending school!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Such situations are why so much stress is now being put on building after school programs to a greater degree. The more kids have "free time" to themselves, the more time they are going to have in experimenting, mixing in with wrong people, and the oppertunity to commit stupid acts.

[Invictus]

Originally Posted by m_sohail Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Such situations are why so much stress is now being put on building after school programs to a greater degree. The more kids have "free time" to themselves, the more time they are going to have in experimenting, mixing in with wrong people, and the oppertunity to commit stupid acts.

Statements like these makes me appreciate all the good work done by lawyers. Dude please tell me exactly what does that statement means. Guns are designed to kill people and/or animals. Yes people kill people but guns help allot. More then any other weapon produced before. Wipe away guns and people will still be killing people but in much smaller numbers.

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by Invictus Statements like these makes me appreciate all the good work done by lawyers. Dude please tell me exactly what does that statement means. Guns are designed to kill people and/or animals. Yes people kill people but guns help allot. More then any other weapon produced before. Wipe away guns and people will still be killing people but in much smaller numbers.

People kill people: Individuals who are able to go out shoot/kill other people are able to do so because they lack something which a rational person has, something which keeps the rational person from shooting someone due to disagreements, anger, rage, etc.

Guns are designed to kill, and I agree within a certain extent that gun control will decrease the killings, but the decrease will be short lived.

However, the problem is that now-a-days guns being used are often a result of non-rational thinking. If you take away guns, human beings themselves are geared toward a fashion that they will find something to replace the gun. You'll have increases in knives, tazers, brass knucles, what have you, to fill the void left by guns.

In no time, you'll have something much more powerful than guns to fill that void. In an absence of self control and the ability to not act on impulse, it doesn't matter what you take away in terms of weapons, there will be a temporary decrease followed by a resurgance.

Fact is, the situation PP described leads me to believe the person who fired the shot already had some sort of problem. Invictus, you and I are bound by something that would make us thing twice about shooting a guy because 'he went after our girl', 'dissed you', 'called you out' etc. It is the absence of that element by which you and I (or other rational people) are bound not to do the shootings that leads to the person committing a shooting in the first place. Taking away guns wont restore that element, whatever it is you wanna call it.

[Invictus]

Originally Posted by m_sohail People kill people: Individuals who are able to go out shoot/kill other people are able to do so because they lack something which a rational person has, something which keeps the rational person from shooting someone due to disagreements, anger, rage, etc. Guns are designed to kill, and I agree within a certain extent that gun control will decrease the killings, but the decrease will be short lived. However, the problem is that now-a-days guns being used are often a result of non-rational thinking. If you take away guns, human beings themselves are geared toward a fashion that they will find something to replace the gun. You'll have increases in knives, tazers, brass knucles, what have you, to fill the void left by guns. In no time, you'll have something much more powerful than guns to fill that void. In an absence of self control and the ability to not act on impulse, it doesn't matter what you take away in terms of weapons, there will be a temporary decrease followed by a resurgance. Fact is, the situation PP described leads me to believe the person who fired the shot already had some sort of problem. Invictus, you and I are bound by something that would make us thing twice about shooting a guy because 'he went after our girl', 'dissed you', 'called you out' etc. It is the absence of that element by which you and I (or other rational people) are bound not to do the shootings that leads to the person committing a shooting in the first place. Taking away guns wont restore that element, whatever it is you wanna call it.

That argument does not cater to the fact that guns essentially provides a person a medium that makes killing that much easier. I understand humans are violent by nature. If a certain individual decides to kill person X then gun or no gun he will find a way.
However when guns are brought into that equation then its that much easier to take not only a individual but a large group in a very small amount of time and that too from a distance so you don't get to see the suffering. In situations where you have mediums you cannot control (human behaviour\nature) you try to hold onto things that you can (guns).

[m_sohail]

I would say most individuals using guns fire from close proximity, as opposed to distances where they can not see the suffering. People having guns doesn't mean they know how to use them, and thus they would, theoretically, feel more comfortable using the gun at closer range.

As for guns being used to take out large groups in a very small amount of time, that is true. However, take away guns, then whats to stop people from resorting to using explosives, especially when instructions to such devices are more excessible than guns themselves?

Sort of a switch uphere, another problem is you can't limit guns. Political, social, and economic reasons cater to individuals being allowed to have guns. The current situation of the underground market is that if you want a gun bad enough, you can get one. No matter how many strict laws you place to control guns, there are always going to be means to go around those laws. Even if you manage to shut down black market gun sales, some person with mob ties is going to see an oppertunity to supply guns, and you have the same problems where guns are available through illeagal means regardless of laws to control them.

Of course, I'd be a fool to think you'd be talking about gun control only through laws, so pray tell what other measures did you have in mind Invictus?

[Farhan!]

Sad!

[Invictus]

Originally Posted by m_sohail I would say most individuals using guns fire from close proximity, as opposed to distances where they can not see the suffering. People having guns doesn't mean they know how to use them, and thus they would, theoretically, feel more comfortable using the gun at closer range.

Most shootings are not close range. 10-20 feet away is not close range a shooting is close range when its point blank. Consider shooting someone as opposed to stabbing. You are face to face with the victim you feel the knife getting inside the victim you feel the warm blood on yourself you see the person dieing. Thats a deterrent for allot of folks. Guns make killing much easier then it should be.

Originally Posted by m_sohail As for guns being used to take out large groups in a very small amount of time, that is true. However, take away guns, then whats to stop people from resorting to using explosives, especially when instructions to such devices are more excessible than guns themselves?

Yaar thats an argument just for the sake of it. You are not going to have people driving in a car with explosive so they can chuck at someone when they get cut-off.

Originally Posted by m_sohail Sort of a switch uphere, another problem is you can't limit guns. Political, social, and economic reasons cater to individuals being allowed to have guns. The current situation of the underground market is that if you want a gun bad enough, you can get one. No matter how many strict laws you place to control guns, there are always going to be means to go around those laws. Even if you manage to shut down black market gun sales, some person with mob ties is going to see an oppertunity to supply guns, and you have the same problems where guns are available through illeagal means regardless of laws to control them.

Guy compare the gun situation between States and us. There is a huge difference in violent crimes just because we have stringent gun control laws. I mean it will never be perfect there will always be means. If there is demand someone will take care of the supply. That does not mean we should make it easy. I dont understand the social and political reasons though. What social reasons? There are non and same with politics. Economic reasons I can understand however the same economic reasons could be used to make drugs legal too. So why pick and choose?

Originally Posted by m_sohail Of course, I'd be a fool to think you'd be talking about gun control only through laws, so pray tell what other measures did you have in mind Invictus?

I don't have any specific measures in mind. The only people that would have an issue with this would be hunters. Have some measures in place where you have designated areas where guns be allowed so people can hunt. Provide mechanisms where people can deposit there guns after hunting season. Stuff of that nature make it really hard for people to get their hands legal guns.

[m_sohail]

Originally Posted by Invictus Guy compare the gun situation between States and us. There is a huge difference in violent crimes just because we have stringent gun control laws. I mean it will never be perfect there will always be means. If there is demand someone will take care of the supply. That does not mean we should make it easy. I dont understand the social and political reasons though. What social reasons? There are non and same with politics. Economic reasons I can understand however the same economic reasons could be used to make drugs legal too. So why pick and choose?

I am short on time because I have 3 exams one after the other starting Sunday, so I'm only gonna reply to this part for now.

Invictus, I don't believe you can compare the gun situations between the States and Canada effectively, because States have a huge population, where Canada's is relatively smaller. If you have such a wide population, you are bound to have wider crime of all sorts, including shootings.

However I do except your point that there is one difference between Canada and USA that underlines the stringent laws; USA has it within their constitution that its citizens have a right to own a gun. Canada has no such consitutional clause, so that does amoun to a difference.

In terms of Canada having less violent crimes, it is because (also in connection with lower population) the prisions in Canada offer more counselling and rehabilitative measures. Offenders come out of jails with a somewhat better understanding, and willingness to conform to laws.

As for cosial reasons, I was thinking something along the line of a father to say "I want to keep my gun to protect my family". Although statistically speaking roberry is often non-violent, a man feels obligated to keep his family protected at all costs and limiting his ability to do so by imposing harsher restrictions on guns, he will backlash (to some extent at least) against stricter forms of control.

Political was more in terms with the concept of rights, and how individuals feel they have a right to express themselves. Some would suggest their guns are an extension of their representation, and to limit that is infringing on their rights.

Er, after pounding material into my head, and being up this late into the night studying and no longer knowing what I'm trying to state, and your inherently hobo-esque need to be lazy, shall we agree to disagree (if only for the next week or so, when I finish my opressive exams?)

[Invictus]

Sure man.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan i think he didn't mean it in a literal way!

At least someones seems to understand.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan i think he didn't mean it in a literal way!

by the way how do you know its a "he"???

[Wiji]

Originally Posted by Vegitto1

Weirdo!

[Hash]

Well i don't live there anymore but a 19 year old has now been convicted and sentenced to life in prison. It seems he was a burglar and she caught him and he panicked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7117089.stm