Parents of six dead children charged with murder!!

[Redhead84]

I hate to sound crass but those funerals will be a media circus whether the parents are there or not, I really don't think it'll make that much of a difference - it'll just be one more mawkish show of "grief" by a huge number of people who didn't know or have any connection to the deceased - it started with Diana and has continued with processions for fallen servicemen and women - I think it's distasteful.

Also, for a murder charge to stick the Crown will have to prove that there was "intent to kill". I think they'll have a hard time proving the requisite mens rea, with the obvious fall back to manslaughter becoming available. It is my guess, as a lawyer, that the CPS will have charged them both with murder with the hope that one will squeal on the other - they will have the lesser charge ready to go at the same time.

Another good post redhead!

Wouldn't the use of petrol go some way to proving 'intent to kill', do you think?

Yes it could well be used as part of the evidence, however it may not be enough on it's own, I would have thought that it would certainly be enough evidence to run a charge of arson with the intent to endanger life (which is not quite the same as intent to kill) - that said, the CPS must think that there is sufficient evidence to run with the charge of murder.

It will certainly be interesting, the main problem I foresee currently is ensuring that the Defendants are afforded a fair trial, which is their right. The 24 hour saturation of instant news that now exists does not help matters, with the ever present desire for information and sensationalised reporting hindering defence counsel fighting against an already prejudiced public (which will of course make up the jury) - remember juries are bound to secrecy on their deliberations and verdicts.

It is worth noting that a new proposal has been put forward which would centralise information giving to vicitims of crime to enable them to be kept abreast of any investigations which are ongoing. Whilst this isn't in itself relevant to this situation, part of the proposal includes provision for the publishing of court transcripts of trials - this measure would allow for a much more balanced and transparent view of the justice system, and go a long way to curbing the more sensationalist parts of the press that simply pick and choose which words to print, which can be much more damaging than they need to be, even when a person is guilty.

 

[hayz_baby]

I hate to sound crass but those funerals will be a media circus whether the parents are there or not, I really don't think it'll make that much of a difference - it'll just be one more mawkish show of "grief" by a huge number of people who didn't know or have any connection to the deceased - it started with Diana and has continued with processions for fallen servicemen and women - I think it's distasteful.

Also, for a murder charge to stick the Crown will have to prove that there was "intent to kill". I think they'll have a hard time proving the requisite mens rea, with the obvious fall back to manslaughter becoming available. It is my guess, as a lawyer, that the CPS will have charged them both with murder with the hope that one will squeal on the other - they will have the lesser charge ready to go at the same time.

Another good post redhead!

Wouldn't the use of petrol go some way to proving 'intent to kill', do you think?

Yes it could well be used as part of the evidence, however it may not be enough on it's own, I would have thought that it would certainly be enough evidence to run a charge of arson with the intent to endanger life (which is not quite the same as intent to kill) - that said, the CPS must think that there is sufficient evidence to run with the charge of murder.

It will certainly be interesting, the main problem I foresee currently is ensuring that the Defendants are afforded a fair trial, which is their right. The 24 hour saturation of instant news that now exists does not help matters, with the ever present desire for information and sensationalised reporting hindering defence counsel fighting against an already prejudiced public (which will of course make up the jury) - remember juries are bound to secrecy on their deliberations and verdicts.

It is worth noting that a new proposal has been put forward which would centralise information giving to vicitims of crime to enable them to be kept abreast of any investigations which are ongoing. Whilst this isn't in itself relevant to this situation, part of the proposal includes provision for the publishing of court transcripts of trials - this measure would allow for a much more balanced and transparent view of the justice system, and go a long way to curbing the more sensationalist parts of the press that simply pick and choose which words to print, which can be much more damaging than they need to be, even when a person is guilty.

U have made some v valid points.. I too wondered if possibly the murder charge wud stick and thought may manslaughter charge was more sufficient. But this is from what i can perceive. I think the most important part wud be ensuring a fair trial.

 

[My_First]

I would have thought that the use of petrol would just show intent to 'burn down the house', I can see them getting away with Manslaughter. I havent read the whole thread so forgive me, is there a motive?

 

[Redhead84]

I would have thought that the use of petrol would just show intent to 'burn down the house', I can see them getting away with Manslaughter. I havent read the whole thread so forgive me, is there a motive?

Motvie etc will be somethingthat the CPS will be keeping close to their chests - a trial has to be had so any speculation as to why is exactly that at the moment.

As for the petrol question, as I said earlier, there is the obvious offence of arson (with the intent to endanger life) ... Part in brackets may or may may not be charged, 2 separate offences if that makes sense.

Manslaughter does not require the same level of mens rea as murder, what must be present is an element of foreseeability in ones actions. Manslaughter is a pretty wide offence that can either border on the accidental to bordering on murder.

If the fire was started deliberately with the intent that the children would be seriously injured or killed, murder.

If the fire was started when it was foreseeable that the children may be harmed but without the explicit intent that this would happen - manslaughter.

It may be a while before trial, court dates can take time to come through, it is not unusual that trials take place more than a year after the alleged offence took place.

Should a guilty verdict be the outcome, any time spent on remand would count towards the custodial sentence handed down.

 

[Ceejay123]

I'm sure everyone will have seen on the news the fire that killed 6 young children in Derby.

Well the parents were arrested yesterday on suspicion of murder and charged with murder!!!

If they did do this they are disgusting and they should bring back the death penalty just for them instead of using tax payers money to get security to make sure they're not murdered in prison!

Do we know what happened with this in the end Hun?

 

[Abz1982]

I still think that the mistress did it and framed the parents!

 

[Ceejay123]

I'm really intrigued... I'm from Nottingham, I know people that have come into contact with these people. I don't understand how you could do that... How anyone could do it. Even if it weren't the parents.. Whoever did it deserves life!

 

[amjon]

I don't honestly think you can tell much by their reaction. When my daughter died I cried when I found out, but then I seemed perfectly fine for days as I sat in the hospital. I talked about her, laughed about things going on or that I saw, and basically looked like any other woman sitting in the hospital being induced. I didn't really cry again until we were in the car driving home (4 days after I found out she had died). I've had times I can talk about it and be perfectly fine or just have a few brief moments I stop myself from crying and others where saying even just her name makes me start crying uncontrollable. There's really no rhyme nor reason to when it happens. DH does the same thing, so I think it's a normal reaction.

 

[Ceejay123]

Im so sorry to hear that Hun. I understand where you're coming from, the shock of it all must make it hard to believe and deal with. My friend, he was like a brother to me.. Died of cancer aged 8. I didn't cry until 2 weeks later at the funeral, I was just numb..

Oops The person I replied to and asked hasn't been on in a few weeks. Im glad you guys replied else I'd have been talking to myself