Lad Not Guilty of Murdering 9yo Girl.
Discussion
Reading about the circumstances here I am pretty sure the jury got this wrong
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9320y90lnno
Angry lad, just expelled decides to have a good natured playfight with a 9yo and then didn't call an ambulance after he stabbed her? Pull the other one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9320y90lnno
Angry lad, just expelled decides to have a good natured playfight with a 9yo and then didn't call an ambulance after he stabbed her? Pull the other one.
mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
You’ve clearly never been on a jury I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
The jury may not have believed him, but that doesn't mean they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
Lots of room between with a high threshold of proof.
On the other hand, may be a poor decision from the jury. One of the reasons I'd prefer to have fewer jury trials (though the proposed policy changes don't cover murder).
Lots of room between with a high threshold of proof.
On the other hand, may be a poor decision from the jury. One of the reasons I'd prefer to have fewer jury trials (though the proposed policy changes don't cover murder).
milesgiles said:
mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
You ve clearly never been on a jury I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
By his own admission he lunged with an intent to make her think she was in danger, the fact that danger was more real than either of them realised surely doesn't diminish the Manslaughter potential?
I feel for the kid, as i doubt he intended this, but the girl is dead solely because he made the choice to brandish it in her direction. He needs an intervention and education, before this becomes the norm for him and the next victim is one intentionally.
I feel for the kid, as i doubt he intended this, but the girl is dead solely because he made the choice to brandish it in her direction. He needs an intervention and education, before this becomes the norm for him and the next victim is one intentionally.
BikeBikeBIke said:
On reflection, wouldn't a manslaughter charge have been a slam dunk? He obviously was reckless, that's not in doubt.
It's the right line of thinking. Did he recklessly assault her hence it'd unlawful act manslaughter?
BBC said:
The teenager, who was 15 at the time of Aria's death, had told jurors he and the nine-year-old had been playfighting when she moved towards him and the knife he was holding went into her chest.
"I was going to try and make her flinch, so I leaned forward like I was fencing," he said.
This bit isn't entirely clear. "I was going to try and make her flinch, so I leaned forward like I was fencing," he said.
She moved towards him, but he also lent forward, but before he was 'going to try and make her flinch'.
This is where the detail is. How do you determine exactly who moved, how much etc.
What did the medical evidence conclude? Could the prosecution prove otherwise it wasn't primarily her moving on to the blade?
t, leaving the house after stabbing her doesn’t sit with an innocent accident to me.mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
That's not an offence as it was inside her home. Otherwise it would be illegal to chop tomatoes. Without knowing the facts, it's entirely possible the knife was from the kitchen.I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
It would seem to me that a strong case could be made for gross negligence manslaughter, though. The jury seems to have really extended the benefit of the doubt there IMO.
Solocle said:
mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
That's not an offence as it was inside her home. Otherwise it would be illegal to chop tomatoes. Without knowing the facts, it's entirely possible the knife was from the kitchen.I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
It would seem to me that a strong case could be made for gross negligence manslaughter, though. The jury seems to have really extended the benefit of the doubt there IMO.
MrBogSmith said:
There are certain knives which are illegal to possess even in a dwelling (the law was changed in 2021), but this doesn't sound like one. For example 'Zombie' knifes.
This was described as a kitchen knife. Being something picked up on the spur of the moment presumably supported the 'playing' argument.mac96 said:
MrBogSmith said:
There are certain knives which are illegal to possess even in a dwelling (the law was changed in 2021), but this doesn't sound like one. For example 'Zombie' knifes.
This was described as a kitchen knife. Being something picked up on the spur of the moment presumably supported the 'playing' argument.The angle, depth, position etc.
milesgiles said:
mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
You ve clearly never been on a jury I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
mac96 said:
milesgiles said:
mac96 said:
It is hard to believe initially, but the jury heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and believed it was an accident. We cannot know better than them
I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
You ve clearly never been on a jury I do wonder why he was armed with a knife in the first place but that is a different offence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff