am IBU to be ablsolutely disgusted that baby Ps mother

[issey6cats]

will be released after serving just 4 years in prison for the murder of baby P shes still young enough to go on to have other children, and its a disgrace that what baby P suffered is thought to only carry 4 years punishment

Sally - I agree. It seems like a huge loophole. I think in those circumstances they hold all do time for murder, since they know who is guilty and are protecting them.

Shit. My work logs me in with an old user name. Oh well.

her sentance was appalingly short, and now she is out. the law has decided

Its horrible to contemplate but I am pretty sure that (a) her life will be fucking shit and (b) she wont procreate again

now as for sally clark, that was a fucking tragic tale. I am of the firm opinipon she was blithed by 2 tragic cot deaths, then court case, then had the shit kicked out of her in prison, awful and not even comparable

but THANKS FUCK that Daniels "parents" got the sentance they deserved

has Baby P died now I suspect her sentance would have been longer

My blood runs cold whenever I see the names Sally Clarke, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings.

And Oliver, they were all charged with murder. The murder charges didn't stick because they wouldn't testify against each other because they knew they would get more lenient sentences

Well, in court, what they "knew" or didn't know is not that relevant - it's what can be proved. For various reasons (including lack of forensics) they were not found guilty of murder.

I get what you're all saying - but in order to sentence a person for something, you have to charge and then try them. Would you charge them with collusion? Conspiracy to commit perjury? Perverting the course of justice?

A trial judge can't just say: "Well, one of you did it....the rest must know who so I'm adding ten years to your sentences for not telling the truth". You must see that.

They were sentenced for what they were convicted of & I don't know what else you can reasonably expect.

And, I have to raise my eyebrows about people claiming that XYZ was done just to shut the public up.....that's smacks of conspiracy theory to me.

Do you think the entire justice system (including the prosecuting CPS) all secretly wanted this awful woman free as soon as possible? If her sentence was so woefully inadequate, then the CPS would have appealed it immediately. Why didn't they?

I don't care whether she's stuffing her face behind four walls or in some grotty bedsit somewhere, as long as she's not "free" for a very long time to come & can't take any part of her life for granted, then I'm satisfied that justice was done for Peter. Personally.

don't get me started on this topic .It's just wrong that she is released so early after such a heinous crime

Oliver, I understand the principle of evidence, but (for example) there are very punitive sentences for perjury, and rightly so. It would be perfectly feasible to have punitive sentences for collusion or concealment or failure to co-operate or something like that, with a sliding scale for the seriousness of the crime you are concealing.

It would be perfectly feasible to have punitive sentences for collusion or concealment or failure to co-operate or something like that

Joint Enterprise. Conspiracy. Aiding and Abetting. There's a lot of options.

But what you appear to want is sentences for "concealing" involvement in something you can't prove anyway. It's hard to see how people can be guilty of concealing a murder, if you don't actually have sufficient evidence that a murder took place. If you can prove there was a murder (which requires mens rea, so merely having a corpse with a knife sticking out of it isn't enough) then you need to know who murdered them (because it's their intent which makes it murder). And if you know who killed them with sufficient mens rea to prove murder, you can charge them with murder anyway. That might be multiple people (joint enterprise), but there need to be people whose intentions can be questioned.

Law's messy. If the 1970s taught us anything, "they look like a wrong 'un and we should bang 'em up anyway" is not a good principle for justice. Sometimes, that means that people who are "manifestly" guilty get away with a lighter charge. But even now, people are being wrongfully prosecuted and wrongly convicted, and anything which weakens protections of the accused in order to avoid outrage at "manifestly" wrong judgements risks more wrongful convictions.

And we've pushed the removal of the right to silence to breaking point already; juries can be directed to make adverse inferences from refusal to answer questions, although it's not actually an offence to refuse to answer other than in some particular financial crimes. The basic legal principle that it's for the prosecution to prove their case is one which we would give up at our peril.

Do you think the entire justice system (including the prosecuting CPS) all secretly wanted this awful woman free as soon as possible?

Hush. Conspiracy theories tend to respond badly to the question "why would they want that?"

Oliver, I understand the principle of evidence, but (for example) there are very punitive sentences for perjury, and rightly so. It would be perfectly feasible to have punitive sentences for collusion or concealment or failure to co-operate or something like that, with a sliding scale for the seriousness of the crime you are concealing

But as Friday says, we all have the right to remain silent. You can't punish anyone for exercising a right.

Another very, very good point from Friday.....murder is a matter of intent, so you do need to know who the murderer is in order to demonstrate that they intended murder (and it's not manslaughter etc). Since this is clearly not something the prosecution could demonstrate, then how could they charge anyone with covering for the murderer?

It's nowhere near as simple as we'd like it to be.

An important thing to bear in mind - discussions like this are not apologist sessions for the likes of Connelly, Barker & Owens. The rules & laws for them are the precise same ones for me, you and everyone else. If I am ever up on a murder charge (or anything else) I want to be as certain as I can that every one of my rights is upheld, no matter what I'm accused of and that the prosecution have damn good evidence against me. That's the point. These particular three can rot as far as I'm concerned - but if they are not given fair and equable treatment, then we're all screwed.

The rules & laws for them are the precise same ones for me, you and everyone else.

Because otherwise we get, again, back into the 1970s, in some sort of Life on Mars alternative reality. Where the police know the wrong 'uns, and the legal system shouldn't concern itself overmuch with testing the evidence because if they weren't guilty they'd never have been charged. Scandals like the Birmingham Six aren't just scandals because innocent men were imprisoned for decades. They're also scandals, and in some senses bigger scandals, because the people that committed mass murder got away scot free. We had the disgusting idea abroad that it was somehow disrespectful to the relatives of the victims to question the guilt of the "guilty", as though victims' needs were served by imprisoning innocent men while the guilty went free.

What people seem to want is a special class of crime where the crime is so heinous, and the victims so obviously guilty, that you don't actually need to try them with evidence and properly framed charges and shit, but can just progress to locking them up for long periods. Where "murder" is bandied around as a euphemism (or, perhaps, dysphemism) for any death that seems to merit retribution. And then letting the standards of justice slip is a victimless problem, because the only people who are affected by it are wrong 'uns anyway.

To bang the same drum, Sally Clark was convicted of murder (ie, not only that she killed her children, but did so with intent) on a majority verdict. Majority verdicts were only introduced quite recently (S.13 of the 1967 Criminal Justice Act, ie after the abolition of the death penalty) in order to get more convictions. It's just a steady process of chipping away at the legal system on the assumption that the police can do no wrong, and that some criminals are too guilty for us to need to bother too much about proving it.

and the suspects so obviously guilty, of course.

Joint enterprise doesn't work. There has to be a conspiracy to kill, where all intend to kill. It can't be applied to people who simply cover up a crime by refusing to confess who did it or what occurred around the time of the murder. Conspiracy to murder is similar - that the people charged actually made an arrangement to kill before the killing occurred. Aiding and abetting a murder - similar too. Knowing a murder is to occur and assisting it.

None of these offences cover not knowing for certain a murder will occur, not actively assisting what you don't know will result in a murder but covering up what occurred afterwards for your own benefit.

Peter was murdered. Nobody can dispute that the evidence proves it. What the evidence can't prove is who did it because the people who know have adopted a code of omerta for their own benefit.

Saying that you can't prove that a child who died from a non-accidental broken back and punches in the face 'can't be proven' as a murder is laughable Friday.

Your 'this is not the 70s' whinge is bullshit. This is not the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six. This is not an innocent person who has been framed.

This is not fabricated evidence. This is a dead child who was beaten to death by one of three people but they cannot prove who because the people involved refuse to tell the truth.

Oliver you can punish people for remaining silent. You have no right to silence in the UK. You have the right to silence but anything that you do not say can be used against you in court'.

You are also very wrong about intent. People who stab someone may not intend to kill them but they are still murderers.

Friday You're talking shite. Saying that Tracey Connelley's conviction or a demand for tougher sentencing equates to the miscarriages of justice that the Birmingham Six, Sally Clark or the Guildford Four went through just shows your absolute ignorance of the concept of guilt or innocence, the difference between a verdict and sentencing and the basic historic facts of the cases you've obviously just skimmed on wikipedia.

You really are an ignorant arse, comparing the Birmingham Six to Tracey Connelley.

Let me explain to you VERY SLOWLY. There is a huge difference between innocent people who are sentenced unjustly and guilty people who get a sentence you think is too harsh.

I have an awful feeling that what you're getting at is that you think that Tracey Connelley is entirely innocent.

You have no right to silence in the UK. You have the right to silence but anything that you do not say can be used against you in court

Er...

I think you mean that inferences can be drawn by your silence (which, sorry, you do have a right to). It's ridiculous to say that "things you don't say can be used against you". That makes no logical sense.

Murder is INTENT to either kill or cause very serious harm. Each case is individual and would be judged by it's merits. Some stabbings would be murder, some manslaughter - some (rarely) justifiable as in things like self-defence.

Let me explain to you VERY SLOWLY. There is a huge difference between innocent people who are sentenced unjustly and guilty people who get a sentence you think is too harsh

Wow. Where do you get off being so damn rude? What a childish way to conduct a conversation!

For various reasons it was impossible to demonstrate who killed Peter. Therefore it follows that it is equally impossible to prove that XYZ persons knew who that person was. In order to demonstrate that, we/the judge/the jury would have to KNOW themselves who did it. They have just shown that LEGALLY they don't and can't, otherwise that person would have been convicted. You're struggling to understand that?

I have an awful feeling that what you're getting at is that you think that Tracey Connelley is entirely innocent

Pathetic.

she was supposed to be in for a minimum of five years how can they realise her after four? i dont really care how much of a rough time she had in prison to be fair if you cant be arsed to look after your own kids dont let someone batter them to death ring up SS and give them up have them taken into care tell them they are not going to be looked after but dont kill them/let them be killed

by the way they can stop you having more kids my friend has social services involved they made her get the coil fitted and her doctor has to tell them if she asks for it to be removed bit of a violation in my opinion but they say she cant cope with what she has got so she is not having any more.............

she was supposed to be in for a minimum of five years how can they release her after four?

Because she was on remand for a considerable period before being convicted.

It is absolutely awful to resort in a discussion to 'you obviously think this person is innocent' You need to have more faith in yourself Sal, there was no need for that.

There is a huge difference between thinking a person is innocent and having faith in the justice system.

I have read the serious case reviews on this case and plenty more aside since Tracy Connelly came into the news again and it has totally pervaded my thoughts, I cannot understand how ANYONE could rip a fingernail off a little baby, my son is around the same age and it is HARD to look at him after knowing what they did to that baby.

But to suggest that because I have faith in the justice system I am some how sympathetic to her (which you haven't done directly but you have by casting Friday in the same light) is utterly abhorrent.

If a person INTENDS to stab someone and it causes death then it is murder. Those people didn't intend to kill Peter, they intended to cause him pain, to torture him and to 'toughen him up' as one of them put it, they put him in immeasurable pain every single day and his short life knew nothing else.

There is something wrong with people who can do that, who WANT to put a child in pain or force him to sit in uncomfortable positions for hours. What we don't need is pathetic people like that put in a prison when there is no need for them to be there. We don't put people in prison for vengeance, each one of those people will be monitored for the foreseeable future, they will not get the chance to harm a person again or probably even have a relationship with a person again, they will have to tell them what they have done and who they are.

Why would you want to protect them from that (which is what prison would be) I think they deserve to live a life where they know if they so much as start up a friendship, they will have to confess to such a heinous crime.

Justice, in this case, is best served OUT of prison.