Never felt so angry at an article...

[MajorProblem]

Well if ones so totally innocent then I'm sure you wouldn't stay in a relationship with a baby murdererer. Should say it all if they're still together.

[robinessex]

Forget all the legal arguements. One killed the kid, they know who it was, yet they stay together! Sick.

[DragsterRR]

Boydie88 said:

DragsterRR said:

My friend recently got hit and killed on a pedestrian crossing by two lads street racing.
First car hit him, he went over the roof, second drove over him and dragged him under the car for 50 yards.
The police are struggling at the moment to prove who "killed" him. The first impact or the second.

fking hell. So sorry for your loss. I thought when it came to street racing everyone involved is guilty by association? I hope that gets resolved as it should with both serving lengthy jail sentences.

Aye that's what I thought but there's very little info coming out about it yet.

[stuart313]

One of then knows who did it with 100% certainty. If I was that sure someone had murdered a small child they would have a long and agonising death.

[Hoofy]

Ayahuasca said:

Sooner or later one of them will let the truth slip out on Facebook with a selfie.

EFA.

[KFC]

stuart313 said:

One of then knows who did it with 100% certainty. If I was that sure someone had murdered a small child they would have a long and agonising death.

Watch out guys we've got an Internet bad ass on our hands here.

[TheGroover]

DragsterRR said:

Boydie88 said:

DragsterRR said:

My friend recently got hit and killed on a pedestrian crossing by two lads street racing.
First car hit him, he went over the roof, second drove over him and dragged him under the car for 50 yards.
The police are struggling at the moment to prove who "killed" him. The first impact or the second.

fking hell. So sorry for your loss. I thought when it came to street racing everyone involved is guilty by association? I hope that gets resolved as it should with both serving lengthy jail sentences.

Aye that's what I thought but there's very little info coming out about it yet.

Wayne? It was tragic, and I had assumed it would be an open and shut case. I wondered why it had gone quiet...

[stuart313]

KFC said:

stuart313 said:

One of then knows who did it with 100% certainty. If I was that sure someone had murdered a small child they would have a long and agonising death.

Watch out guys we've got an Internet bad ass on our hands here.

I've literally never heard that one before, give yourself a huge pat on the back, you are now officially the king of the internet.

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

Even though one of them didn't do it?

If a murder happens in your street is it OK if the state comes round and kills your family just on the off-chance that one of them did it?

Edited by AJL308 on Saturday 27th June 01:46

The second sentence widens the scope somewhat, but I can only comment for my own sake. If I was in the father's position, I'd seek my own justice.

[DragsterRR]

TheGroover said:

Wayne? It was tragic, and I had assumed it would be an open and shut case. I wondered why it had gone quiet...

Aye yeah Wayne. (only on ph)

That's the last I heard on it. Second hand from his family.

[audidoody]

Why does the law of "joint enterprise" not apply in this case?

[KFC]

audidoody said:

Why does the law of "joint enterprise" not apply in this case?

Too many people posting about this have no idea what it actually is. There isn't any proof of any sort of conspiracy here. One of the two could be completely innocent. You can't just say "one of them clearly done it" = "joint enterprise"

[audidoody]

So - I'm out with my chavvy mate. We're on our way to the movies. Suddenly he sees someone completely unknown to me and the two start arguing. To my horror he pulls out a knife (which I had no idea he carried) and stabs the bloke.

Am I in deep do-doo or not?

[KFC]

No of course not, you had no idea he was going to do it. You had no idea he was equipped to do it. You had no part in planning it.

If you both went out to rob someone, and you knew he was carrying a knife, and he stabbed the guy dead, now you're in a whole heap of trouble.

[Pesty]

KFC said:

audidoody said:

Why does the law of "joint enterprise" not apply in this case?

Too many people posting about this have no idea what it actually is. There isn't any proof of any sort of conspiracy here. One of the two could be completely innocent. You can't just say "one of them clearly done it" = "joint enterprise"

The bit I don't get about this case is that if one of them was innocent why didn't they take the kid to hospital?

[jimreed]

AJL308 said:

Seriously? Jeremy Kyle? Is this now some perverse evolution of Godwins Law we need to inform Snopes.com of?

Lie detectors are made up nonsense. The only thing they can detect is gullibility.

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

JensenA said:

Are you one of those scummy Defence Lawyers by any chance? The type that knows perfectly well that one, or both of them, is responsible for murder, but who has no concept of morality, or justice, and simply argues the case for the defence on technicalities.

It is obvious that both of them were in charge of the child, and that both of them have colluded in the cover up. A genuine loving mother would have called an ambulance immediately, regardless of wether she, or her partner had thrown her child against the wall. Prosecute them both and let a Jury decide.

Really - people on here are saying that both of them should be locked up, water-boarded, killed or some combination of the above when one of them is likely wholly innocent yet I'M the one who has no moral compass!!!

This is nothing to do with legal 'technicalities'. There is no evidence to conclude which one of them did it. You cannot avoid that ans it is not some obscure legal loophole.

Face it, people, you included, just can't deal with the fact that the evidence simply isn't there and can't emotionally cope with that fact so need to start making rididulous statements safe in the knowledge hat you will never have to act on them your self and that no one else will either.

A good summary.

KFC said:

audidoody said:

Why does the law of "joint enterprise" not apply in this case?

Too many people posting about this have no idea what it actually is. There isn't any proof of any sort of conspiracy here. One of the two could be completely innocent. You can't just say "one of them clearly done it" = "joint enterprise"

Indeed, as if it somehow escaped the CPS to consider it.


In joint enterprise, one can either be a principle (P) offender, or an accessory / accomplice (D). There are three types on joint enterprise:

(1) Where two or more people join in committing a single crime, in circumstances where they are, in effect, all joint principals.

(2) Where D assists or encourages P to commit a single crime.

(3) Where P and D participate together in one crime (crime A) and in the course of it P commits a second crime (crime B) which D had foreseen he might commit

None of them fit the circumstances, or at least don't fit the evidence.

[anonymous-user]

The ignorance of posters as to how the law works is the main reason that I'm completely against jury trials. Give me a panel of judges any day, at least they'll understand what they're talking about,

[HarryW]

Symbolica said:

The ignorance of posters as to how the law works is the main reason that I'm completely against jury trials. Give me a panel of judges any day, at least they'll understand what they're talking about,

I suppose you just as easily transpose frustration for ignorance in most of the posters responses here, if you wNted to be polite about it.
Law evolves, it is not necessarily fixed, perhaps the best thing that can come from this is to learn from it and if there is an improvement to the law as it currently stands then for the memory of this poor child implement it.

[KFC]

HarryW said:

I suppose you just as easily transpose frustration for ignorance in most of the posters responses here, if you wNted to be polite about it.
Law evolves, it is not necessarily fixed, perhaps the best thing that can come from this is to learn from it and if there is an improvement to the law as it currently stands then for the memory of this poor child implement it.

What sort of law change could you make? Or would you even want to?

If they're blaming each other, forensics and DNA and so on are going to be absolutely useless (since it was in their own home, and there are no independent witnesses or cctv or anything then its just one of those unfortunate things. Someone really is going to get away with murder here. I'm more comfortable with that than jailing the both of them to make sure they get the person though.