Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Mick and mairaid philpott.

(110 Posts)
thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 20:55:56

If you pour petrol over your house and light a match.

You know your 6 children are asleep upstairs and you make less effort to save them than your neighbours did.

If you try and smear another person with the crime.

If you habitually lie to avoid prosecution.

Why is that manslaughter?

I know posters will say they didn't mean it but seriously such reckless disregard for life is murderous.

noblegiraffe Tue 02-Apr-13 20:56:26

Because they didn't set out to kill them.

HollyBerryBush Tue 02-Apr-13 20:57:59

Because it wasn't premeditated murder

stargirl1701 Tue 02-Apr-13 20:58:07

Murder has a legal definition. This did not meet that.

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 20:58:37

I know they apparently didn't set out to kill them, but c'mon, did they really think everything would turn out with that prick as some kind of hero?

Hard to get your head round any of it.

landofsoapandglory Tue 02-Apr-13 20:59:48

I totally agree with AgentZigZag.

HaDeHaDeHa Tue 02-Apr-13 21:00:24

intent = murder, reckless = manslaughter

HaDeHaDeHa Tue 02-Apr-13 21:02:01

And I haven't gathered when sentencing might be but I beleive manslaughter can also result in a life sentence.

MrsRajeshKoothrappali Tue 02-Apr-13 21:04:17

I can't understand it either.

They started a fire while their children were asleep upstairs with their doorhandles removed.

Then they ran outside and watched the house burn.

I can't see how that's not murder.

Was a deliberate fire, not a knocked over candle.

rainyspells Tue 02-Apr-13 21:04:50

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 21:05:31

I hope they all do get life. Poor children.

SunflowersSmile Tue 02-Apr-13 21:09:15

Reckless endangerment
Absolute stupidity
So- although did not mean to kill stupidity combined with recklessness = tragic result...
Heartbreaking...

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 21:10:39

The photo of the children is bad enough, but the sight of all those little coffins at the funeral really brings it home.

Using and risking those children in his debauched games just sums up what kind of a person he is.

thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 21:24:46

Just listened to young mortitians assistant.

She said mick was 'laughing' and joking' after viewing the bodies of his children.

Just beggars belief, such evil and sick narcisissim.

SunflowersSmile Tue 02-Apr-13 21:28:48

Stupidity/ recklessness/ obsession with sex.... so depressing and awful.
Those beautiful children didn't stand a chance.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Tue 02-Apr-13 21:33:35

I think that, not just in this case but generally, if it can reasonably be - or should have been ! thought that an action may result or has the potential to result in death then it should be classed as murder.

If you know or should know when you do something that one of the possible outcomes is the death of someone, then how have you not murdered them?

If it was not reasonably foreseeable, then imo, it's manslaughter.

Not that my opinion means shit, of course, the legal system is what it is, but it really should be looked at. Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that's the best way for it to be.

HootShoot Tue 02-Apr-13 21:39:20

The doorhandles were removed? Why? Surely to do that would be intent? I agree with Hecsy that if it is reasonble to forsee that an action may result in death it should be classed as murder.

I cannot understand how they could not only do what they did but then lie bare faced about it. If I had done what they did I would be begging to be put in prison so I could spend the rest of my life atoning for what I had done.

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 21:49:50

Murder and manslaughter might be legal definitions, but they have narrower meanings in lay peoples everyday lives, and saying this was manslaughter minimises it to me because you'd think of that as nigh on an accidental death.

It's not as simple as that I know, but if you're not a trained legal beagle it is quite simplified.

Do they carry similar sentences does anyone know? I heard that they could still get life, how many years maximum does that mean?

thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 21:52:37

Yes totally hecksy,hoot and agent.

There must be a point where such naked reckless disregard which causes murder is regarded as murder. Surely.

SavoyCabbage Tue 02-Apr-13 21:56:04

The doors were all open upstairs.

At the end of the 999 call Mick is all matey matey with the operator. Cheers mate, will do mate etc.

I think the horror of the offence will be reflected in the sentence. Given that inmates who kill children are reviled in prison, I think the sentences will feel more than long enough.

Good.

HootShoot Tue 02-Apr-13 22:01:26

Ah ok - I thought you meant that the doors were closed with no handle. I guess the doors being open just accelerated the fire - poor poor children.

foslady Tue 02-Apr-13 22:03:45

It's the rest of the family I feel sorry for - the childrens Aunts and Uncles....

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 22:04:51

And the childrens surviving siblings foslady.

What a burden to have to carry with them.

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 22:05:44

They murdered their children. If they did not tech their hose teir kids would still be here. I agree MrsRajesh, those Chidren are wjpho I feel for, those por poor little children, who were unaware of te cruel wicked thing their orients did to them

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 22:06:52

Meant if they did not torch teir house teir children would still be alive

QueenOfCats Tue 02-Apr-13 22:07:26

They are scum and I hope they rot in hell for what they've done.

thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 22:08:13

Hideous vile and evil.

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 22:11:00

They are and have no sympathy for them, teir actions robbed 6 Chidren of their lives, they must have suffered the most horrific death with temperatures reaching over 500f sad my thoughts are with the family left behind, their remaing brothers and sisters

cakebaby Tue 02-Apr-13 22:13:04

Murder requires an INTENT to kill or cause GBH (but results in death). I suspect the CPS would not risk running a murder trial that could be lost if the jury could not reach a guilt beyond reasonable doubt verdict. Better charging decision is manslaughter as no intent has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Murder carries mandatory life sentence, manslaughter is discretionary.

Sentencing is tomorrow I think.

I am quite shocked they have all been found guilty, I expected it of mick philpott and Paul Mosley, but I thought mearaid might be embroiled in a controlling plan by mick.

It's all very very sad for the remaining siblings and the extended families.

I don't know what the sentences might be, but I think that the real justice will be meted out in prison.

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 22:19:34

I'm not under any illusion that prison is anything but a brutal and isolating place, but it comes to something when you (and I don't mean you personally Babylon) only have other prisoners to mete out justice to such people.

babybarrister Colombia Tue 02-Apr-13 22:21:27

They can get same sentence for manslaughter as for murder. The difficulty with charging murder is that a jury might not have accepted they intended to kill or seriously maim and then they would have got off completely ....hmm

Hassled Tue 02-Apr-13 22:21:58

I have a huge amount of respect for Lisa Willis, the "mistress" who got herself and her kids out of what sounds like a hideous, abusive set up. She was only 17 when she moved in there - a child herself.

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 22:24:46

If they're being sentenced tomorrow, is that quite unusual?

Isn't there normally a while between the two?

Yellowtip Tue 02-Apr-13 22:38:59

Only a delay if sentencing reports are required Zigzag.

The legal definition of murder has changed over the years, so what used to constitute murder no longer does so.

Tanith Tue 02-Apr-13 22:44:19

I've known of a similar case some years ago.

I absolutely believe that Mick Philpott thought he would rescue them and be hailed a hero - until the reality of the fire made him realise the terrible risk to himself. Few would-be hero arsonists understand how fast fire takes hold and spreads. The idiot in our case was overcome himself and died with the children before he could effect a rescue attempt.

So it was manslaughter. Stupid, reckless manslaughter, deserving of the highest penalty, but still manslaughter.

aquashiv Tue 02-Apr-13 22:51:33

What was there movtive? To get a bigger house, to receive the accolade of being a hero who saves thier family or to frame the ex mistress.
A fire is such an extreme thing to do.

I would wonder whether the sentences will run consecutively or concurrently when they are sentenced.

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 22:54:04

Did he nt realise what would happen? Even if he did rescue them, did he b
Not think that he would be eventually found out hmm

FiveGoMadInDorset Tue 02-Apr-13 22:55:13

They will get or will be offered rule 45 which is vulnerable prisoners, which should protect them but not always.

Tanith Tue 02-Apr-13 22:56:37

He's not the first to do it. Or the first to accidentally kill his kids doing it.

It's made the headlines because of his unusual(!) family life.

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 22:57:50

They did it to boost their own inflated egos, stupid idiots

Tortington Tue 02-Apr-13 22:58:24
pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 23:00:03

And te fact that 6 kids have died of course it's made national news, this does not happen frequently, ts te first I've heard of this kind

minouminou Tue 02-Apr-13 23:00:40

It seems the children all died of smoke inhalation, so (I hope) they wouldn't have known anything. That's some small comfort.

I guess they weren't real people to Philpott...just tools, things to control and use.

Darkesteyes Tue 02-Apr-13 23:03:17

Custardo i agee.
I dont recall seeing headlines saying "vile Product of Middle Class UK during the investigation into Harold Shipman!

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 23:03:27

It seems te Chidren were just porns fr them to make money, the tears they cred were probably for themselves. Apparently after killing his chidren mr philpott seemed very calm and relaxed

AgentZigzag Tue 02-Apr-13 23:04:39

I want to make a cutting remark about what I think about that headline Custardo, but it wouldn't do how I feel justice.

Darkesteyes Tue 02-Apr-13 23:04:53

The way the Mail have used these poor children to make a point is vile and disrespectful.

pigletmania Tue 02-Apr-13 23:06:01

The DM is very low disrespecting those poor Chidren like that

blondieminx Tue 02-Apr-13 23:08:31

Those poor kids sad

The hideousness of Mick's control over Maraid is terrifying - as is the fact he managed to have kids with so many women. How such a violent scumbag remained at liberty for so long beggars belief. A true menace to society <shudder>

Bunnyjo Tue 02-Apr-13 23:34:42

In order to be charged (and convicted of) murder, the CPS and subesequently the jury, would have to be satisfied that the actus reus and mens rea were satisfied. The actus reus was the actual act of arson and the killing of the 6 children, but the mens rea (malice aforethought - intent or knowledge that the act WOULD result in death) cannot be proven - the evidence suggests that Mick's intention was to 'rescue' the children and frame his ex. Therefore, it is impossible to present a case that they had indeed committed murder.

That said, my personal thought is that what they did constitutes murder in all but conviction...

Arachnophobic Tue 02-Apr-13 23:48:03

Technically they are not murderers.

Mick tomorrow will get life, and possibly the others.

Agent they usually have a few weeks between sentence if all sentencing options are being considered and for Probation to prepare a report. No need in this case, only one outcome for these three.

ll31 Tue 02-Apr-13 23:55:53

One thing which struck me was on sky earlier, they mentioned how Lisa had left suddenly, just reminded me of some threads in relationships and was thinking how brave and smart she was to get out, and get out suddenly. Think they'll get life, mairead too, listening to bugged conversations, hard to think she was any less responsible. .

Catchingmockingbirds Tue 02-Apr-13 23:55:58

Why did they do it?

thebody Tue 02-Apr-13 23:56:05

Can't belive the daily mail headline. So disrespectful to the innocent children.

cestlesautres Wed 03-Apr-13 00:01:29

Hassled, you make a very good point about Lisa. Makes you understand how the whole thing was an attempt to punish her for having the gall to escape her abuser's control. That was paramount.

Gossipmonster Wed 03-Apr-13 00:01:37

I watched the ITV programme, the man makes me feel physically sick and I actually feel sorry for his wife.

I think she was in an abusive relationship, was too think to realise what they were doing was so dangerous and has paid the ultimate price.

cantspel Wed 03-Apr-13 00:07:34

They are BOTH scum. And i feel not one bit of sympathy for her. She is an adult who choose to live the lifestyle she has and to go along with a scheme that ended in the death of 6 innocent children.

I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for both of them.

sashh Wed 03-Apr-13 04:28:57

What cakebaby said.

To prove murder you would have to prove that they intended to kill.

That might sound easy but with three defendants who could all say 'it wasn't my idea, I was pressured into it'.

Better to convict for manslaughter, which can be a life term than risk not getting a conviction for murder.

flipflump Wed 03-Apr-13 06:47:45

I have no sympathy for her in the slightest, vile creatures!! Hearing how she behaved in the court paints a true picture, smiling, waving to her friends, not so meek after all. I'm sure she covered her face through out the original press conference to hide her shame of the disgusting act she had carried out. A pair of actors and luckily the jury saw through it. Those poor innocent children, so cruel. Out of interest has anyone watched the Jeremy Kyle they appeared on?

Emilythornesbff Wed 03-Apr-13 07:34:18

sad

pigletmania Wed 03-Apr-13 08:22:55

I totally agree fitflump, they were bth really blase abut it, and did not care that just killed their six children. Whether their intent to kill or nt, teir actions meant that 6 Chidren did, what they did was no accident. They purposely set that house alight knowing teir were kids inside for their own gain. Vile evil individuals

pigletmania Wed 03-Apr-13 08:23:18

Meant died

Wannabestepfordwife Wed 03-Apr-13 08:39:47

I never wish ill on people but I hope they get their commupance in prison

EverythingInMjiniature Wed 03-Apr-13 08:54:53

The times (for anyone who subscribes) also has an awful take on it. 3/4 of the article benefit bashing and some really callous quotes from Ann Widecombe. All about how disgusting he is for 'letting us pay for him'.... Yup far more disgusting than causing the deaths of 6 children, Ann!

flipflump Wed 03-Apr-13 09:04:50

I do think in this case, the benefits are relevant, as he was attempting to set up Lisa Willis as a result of losing benefits. I know it seems to over shadow the deaths of the children but they died/were killed as a result of their fathers greed!

McNewPants2013 Wed 03-Apr-13 09:06:14

I hope they are all very well protected in prision Wannabestepfordwife. The thought that any of them could get compo for being attack makes my stomach churn.

If any of them is attack they would get it because the prision will have failing in their duty of care

Wannabestepfordwife Wed 03-Apr-13 10:24:42

I hadn't thought of that mcnewpantd2013

hairtearing Wed 03-Apr-13 10:36:26

I do feel a little bit for miriead (sp.) ?
he sort of pimped her and family friends too, she had been very abused in a previous relationship too, very brutalised.

NeedaWee Wed 03-Apr-13 11:37:38

Seems he had a lot of previous convictions for violence etc.

they should all swing.

The kids were just a means of getting more money. They had no chance from the second they were conceived.

auntmargaret Wed 03-Apr-13 11:51:45

Scottish law has a concept of wicked recklessness where if you don't care about the consequences of your actions, or if your actions are so reckless that a fatal consequence is probable, you can be convicted of murder, even if it wasn't the original intention. I think they would have been convicted of murder here.

mayorquimby Wed 03-Apr-13 11:58:03

does she have any previous?

stressyBessy22 Wed 03-Apr-13 12:55:42

But surely he did care about the consequences of his actions.The kids were his 'cashcows'.He definitely wouldn't have wanted them dead. He was 'as thick as two short planks' to think he could se light to a petrol-doused building and have time to rescue the kids

BuddyButters Wed 03-Apr-13 14:58:36

I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the scumbags.

It was glaringly obvious at the press conference that they were as guilty as sin. All that tearless face screwing up was the worst acting I've ever seen.

I hope they get repeatedly pulverised in jail. I don't LIKE that I hope that. But I hope they do.

Catchingmockingbirds Wed 03-Apr-13 15:03:40

I watched the section about this on This Morning today. What I really don't understand is the criminologist pointing out that he wasn't crying real tears, but instead wiping his brow and his friends saying he was laughing and joking and didn't appear to be grieving. Whether he deliberately started the fire with the intention of rescuing all the children and being a hero, or the fire was an accident (which the jury obv disagreed with), surely he'd still be devastated either way that his children were killed? Why wasn't he?

BuddyButters Wed 03-Apr-13 15:09:32

Because he's a revolting specimen.

Same with the Mairead creature; of course they should have been weeping real tears regardless of how/why the children died. Instead, the woman had her face in her hands to hide the LACK of tears.

How the hell anyone can say that they loved their children is beyond me.

stressyBessy22 Wed 03-Apr-13 18:15:35

'I hope they get repeatedly pulverised in jail. I don't LIKE that I hope that. But I hope they do.'

really? and then they will sue the prison service for nor protecting them better

VonHerrBurton Wed 03-Apr-13 18:36:56

I hope that every time they close their eyes they see those children. I hope they never know peace. I hope they live the rest of their lives tormented and spend every second looking over their shoulders, afraid.

They won't, but that's what I hope. sad

Tanith Wed 03-Apr-13 19:10:53

I remember watching a programme a few years ago about people who make public appeals for information and are subsequently found to be the guilty party.
They said the police sometimes use the appeals to watch the reactions of suspects.
One of the cases they featured was another dad who'd managed to wipe out his kids by setting fire to the family home, they thought for the insurance money. It's the same thing again - not very bright parent thinks they'll gain in some way and be hailed as a hero when they rescue their family. The reality is that they completely underestimate the speed and ferocity of the fire and it gets very quickly out of hand.

OhLori Wed 03-Apr-13 19:19:20

Agree, TheBody. I am totally amazed that so many MNetters are "defending" the couple because it was technically "manslaughter" rather than "murder". Little comfort to the children as they burnt to death. It has actually made me angry all day. I think that couple are complete scum (and I never use that word) for all the reasons you say. What kind of person sets fire to a house with their children in it to get back at a girlfriend or get a bigger house, then as you say, try to frame that other person.

MsBella Wed 03-Apr-13 19:23:38

When I start to think of what it could have been like in that house and what the kids lives were like... ugh it is so dark and sad. God he sounds disgusting, wish all women were strong enough and with enough self esteem to leave these types of men at the first warning signs and the past DOES matter eg. He stabbed his ex etc.

Poor kids!

Tanith Wed 03-Apr-13 19:25:45

I haven't seen anyone defending them on this thread, or any other on MN.

OhLori Wed 03-Apr-13 19:28:19

Well I have.

MsBella Wed 03-Apr-13 19:28:51

Right, these people ARE guilty and weren't crying but can we please all remember that some people cope with grief in different ways, some never cry until years later. Not saying this applied to them but it isn't rare that people cope with trauma without crying, doesn't mean they're not sad or horrified and it doesn't mean they're less sad than someone who did cry, just pointing this out

HildaOgden Wed 03-Apr-13 19:35:14

I have no doubt they will get at least one battering at some stage in prison.

However,they will find a life for themselves in there.You seem to think that they will be locked up with people who have a high moral compass and who will be outraged at their crimes.Wishful thinking.Quite a few of their fellow law breakers will be in there for crimes that would horrify most decent people.

I'll give you the examples of Rose West and Myra Hyndley...both convicted child killers...and both went on to 'fall in love' with new lesbian partners who were doing time alongside them.

The 3 killers of those children won't really get their just pinishment at all in this life.Makes me want to believe in Hell....because those fuckers deserve to burn for eternity sad

VitoCorleone Italy Wed 03-Apr-13 19:40:18

How could anybody do it? Those poor little children had their whole lives ahead of them sad

Tanith Wed 03-Apr-13 19:44:40

You're right, MsBella. However, these people pretended a grief they don't appear to have felt. I think it's these "crocodile tears" that strongly indicate that something isn't as it seems.

LaQueen Wed 03-Apr-13 19:49:07

This is the (tragic) result of the actions of people who are breath-takingly stupid and stupendously ignorant sad

However, I take (some little) comfort from knowing that their lives are going to be a Living Hell in prison. Inmates don't take kindly to child killers...neither do prison officers, regardless of their officially neutral stance.

bongobaby Wed 03-Apr-13 19:50:07

It has been said that Philpot and the mate rehearsed the fire some weeks before the real thing. Surely that is premedatated on their parts?
He did it to not lose Benefit money instead he lost 6 most precious beautiful kids that they both deserved not to have.
I,m amazed at how these two women were taken in by him, it was painful to watch Jeremy Kyle with him on it.
Unfortunately he will play the big the I am in prison and will show no remorse,vile bastard.

LaQueen Wed 03-Apr-13 19:51:05

Agree bella I didn't shed a tear at my Dad's funeral. Or at any of my GP's funerals. I do my crying in private.

babyfirefly1980 Wed 03-Apr-13 19:51:45

They both deserve a very long sentance....please god it haunts them everyday of there miserable lives.

I watched the Panorama programme and couldn't believe how he talked to Anne Widdecome, disgusting creature. Good for Lisa Willis for getting the hell out.

The poor kids, having to see suicide attempts and all sorts.

EyePad Wed 03-Apr-13 19:54:33

The bit I really cannot get my head round is that if they had planned the fire, and then the heroic rescue, why was he not rescuing them? Either of them. They both allowed everyone else to try. If that was any of our children, we would have to be held back physically. We would all refuse to come out until our children were out.

Plus the fake tears at the press conference. Surely, even if it was not meant to end this way, they would both be genuinely inconsolable. As for the swearing about the children in the mortuary, it beggars belief.

EyePad Wed 03-Apr-13 19:56:56

MsBella - I understand that shock and trauma will make people act in different ways i,e not crying. But then why pretend to cry?

HildaOgden Wed 03-Apr-13 20:00:36

Eyepad....they didn't try rescuing them because they thought more of themselves than they ever did of the children sad.

Shitty,shitty people.

Catchingmockingbirds Wed 03-Apr-13 20:13:33

msbella I'm the same as you and cry afterwards, although I can be completely grief stricken at the time like everyone else. But this isn't a case of them doing their crying elsewhere, he was bouncing around all hyper before the press release and kidding on with the police right before it, they pretended to cry during the press release, joked about during the mortuary visit, went on shopping sprees and partied and sung karaoke days after their children's deaths.

EyePad Wed 03-Apr-13 20:18:00

Catching, that is exactly what I mean, Ok not crying as possible trauma reaction, but to then be thinking 'oh I ought to cry to gain sympathy' was weird. And no matter how much shock you are in, would you swear about the kids in the mortuary? plus threesomes, and putting family liaison officer in a headlock messing about. Bizarre.

EyePad Wed 03-Apr-13 20:19:12

And also, no begging for people to come forward with information at the press conference. Not a mention of 'whoever did this to my kids', just thanks to everyone who tried to help, including himself.

Tanith Wed 03-Apr-13 20:36:03

Agree with Hilda. Heroic rescues are all very well when they're inside your head and you can control exactly what happens.

Being faced with an out-of-control, raging inferno, where you might actually get hurt is another thing entirely.

sneezecakesmum Netherlands Wed 03-Apr-13 22:42:04

The crown prosecution have a duty to ensure a conviction. If they went for murder and the defence successfully argued there was no intent, they would all walk free. Beyond reasonable doubt would be hard to prove as there would be reasonable doubt to the jury. The bastards didn't want to kill the children, just to frame the ex.

Frankly I hope they all die in jail, including the wife. She was just as guilty.

Horsemad Wed 03-Apr-13 22:46:16

And apart from what he did to the children which is just totally unforgivable, what irks me is the fact that the tax payers will be paying for them still, albeit in prison angry

ukatlast Wed 03-Apr-13 23:03:27

YANBU Such reckless behaviour is murder in my book too.

Nattynar Wed 03-Apr-13 23:22:49

Personally think you are giving this low life more credit than he deserves.

He is just too bloody stupid to comprehend what he was doing by setting his own house on fire with his children inside! Probably never occurred to him that they would die.

Mind you does seem like the children were treated as a commodity, and was the result of his sexual appetite and him wanting to "milk" the system!

Hope he rotes in hell!

stressyBessy22 Fri 05-Apr-13 09:24:41

Let not forget that although he may not have had any intention of killing his children he did intend to frame an innocent woman for six attempted murders!

stressyBessy22 Fri 05-Apr-13 09:28:14

I do think it is wrong that his actions have been so much entwined with his benefits lifestyle.
Let us not forget a very middle class couple whose extreme recklessness - leaving 3 tots alone in an unlocked apartment next to a swimming pool in a public place, most likely led to their 3 yr olds death.These people are widely treated with compassion and sympathy

Corygal Fri 05-Apr-13 09:35:48

The judge made the point that they were done for manslaughter not murder only because the police changed the charge late in the day - the officers didn't want to have to prove that all 3 of them intended to kill all 6 kids, the difference between the 2 charges here.

18 murder charges to prove beyond reasonable doubt is a lot for one trial. The police were worried that if there was a single hole in any of the 18 cases, all 3 killers could walk. Whereas manslaughter was beyond easy to prove.

In the event, the police had a point. Maireadd could - and did - argue it was an accident, Mick said it was a frame up, and the friend had no motive for the killings.

The more that comes out about the case, the more I suspect that Mick, at any rate, may have wanted the kids out of the way.

melika Fri 05-Apr-13 09:42:29

If only they could forceably sterilise them while in prison, and make sure they never procreate ever again.
Maread could still come out and have another family.

I cant see SS just sitting back and letting her have any more children though tbh.

SpanishLady Fri 05-Apr-13 10:29:59

I agree that him being on benefits doesnt make this a more disgusting or inevitable crime/situation but I think the issue for me is that by paying his benefits it kind of feels like we (the public) colluded and permitted his lifestyle.

Ive said on another thread that even if I wanted to I cant have 17 children and not work - I wouldnt want his lifestyle admittedly but the point is every decision I make I have to be responsible for - this guy just does what he wants. I dont know the answer but surely its wrong for people in their situation to be able to make life style decisions without accountability - but then I get frustrated by cases like Abu Hanza - why am I paying for someone elses lifestyle and having to respect their rights - no one pays for mine!

I know I am straying very dangerously close to suggesting 'poor' people shouldnt have children - that is NOT what I am saying but if you rely on benefits is it correct to THEN decide to have a family especially a large one? I dont know the answers as I said but it has crossed my mind that is seems an odd decision when you think about it but maybe I am naive or someone will shortly come along to point out how wrong I am. ):

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now