Page 4 | This jury are on glue [Content warning added by MNHQ: child abuse]

whatsthataboutthen · 2021-08-06T22:21:05+00:00

How, just how, can this jury decide that this couple didn't murder the child, but "only" guilty of manslaughter? The mother had threatened to kill her in a text a few days previously, and the child was found with multiple broken ribs and sternum and other fractures from previous abuse, but the jury decided her death wasn't murder? What the actual fuck? Whoever the defence lawyer was really stitched up the jury, or they were on glue...how can any sane person say this wasn't premeditated? https://news.sky.com/story/amp/kaylee-jade-priest-mother-and-ex-boyfriend-jailed-for-killing-girl-three-after-her-cries-interrupted-them-having-sex-12374662

AbsolutelyPatsy · 07/08/2021 09:42

that is terrible that that should come to jury

70isaLimitNotaTarget · 07/08/2021 09:43

I really wish people wouldn't cheer at the prospect of other prisoners beating up people like this. You're just encouraging deeply unpleasant violent people who do it to enhance their power, not because they actually have any moral superiority to their victims. And frankly it makes you no better than them

Makes you no better than them

Yeah I'll live with you thinking I'm no better than them if it means some "Mother" -who saved a £1000 sum from her benefits to buy her current boyfriend a BMW (wjich he failed to insure) while her own daughter had bare floors no curtains and no light - gets some form of punishment meted out by her prison co-inmates .
I'll rest easy .

SchrodingersImmigrant · 07/08/2021 09:43

Could @mnhq keep thee to a one thread? It's just goading now.

MotherOfAllZipFiles · 07/08/2021 09:43

The boyfriends family are "supporting' him, even after saying in police interview "he didnt care, as it wasnt his child"
Both of them should have got life

KurtWilde · 07/08/2021 09:46

Same here @70isaLimitNotaTarget

SchrodingersImmigrant · 07/08/2021 09:48

Now reading this, mumsnet should be used as a study of how people don't understand (and some refuse to understand) even basics of legal system in their own country🙄

SchrodingersMat · 07/08/2021 09:52

Personally I applaud the jury for the convictions and wish them all very well. What a terribly harrowing case to have to sit through.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 09:53

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Now reading this, mumsnet should be used as a study of how people don't understand (and some refuse to understand) even basics of legal system in their own country🙄

I'm always shocked (as a solicitor) how little people understand. Criminal isn't my area as a disclaimer.

I'm even more shocked by how willing mumsnet users would be to descend into mob violence

ikeepseeingit · 07/08/2021 09:56

That jury must have had a tough time with that case. They don’t bring the charges they can’t choose ‘manslaughter’ or ‘first degree murder’ they just sit through and see if the evidence (which was probably horrific) warrants enough for them to agree.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 07/08/2021 09:56

Online mob violence, @ActonSquirrel
Let's not forget what mumsnet usually is. Certainly not a place when most would be brave enough to say anything irl.

tickingthebox73 · 07/08/2021 10:07

@ElBarstardoMonkfish

What about this absolute… fucker… who left her darling child to starve to death. Sentenced to 9 years! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/06/teenage-mother-jailed-nine-years-death-toddler-abandoned-days/

Cannot believe the sentences handed to child abusers/murders tbh

Because there will have been factors you are not aware of. The judge sees everything then gets to allocate a sentence (within guidelines).

Reading between the lines in this one there has been significant abuse of her as a child (the mother). The bigger question is why the child was with her in the first place, a social services enquiry will follow no doubt.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 11:04

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Online mob violence, *@ActonSquirrel* Let's not forget what mumsnet usually is. Certainly not a place when most would be brave enough to say anything irl.

They think it though and probably would do it and say it if they had the guts.

Miserable how many intolerant people there really are

Garfunkle · 07/08/2021 11:07

The jury don't decide what the defendants are charged with

Who decides then? I always thought that if a person was charged with murder (as these two were) it was down to the jury to either find them guilty of murder, or if they could not be 100% certain that the killer set out to kill, they would then consider the lesser charge of manslaughter?

In this case the killers received sentences of 15 and 14 years. Does that mean they will be free in 10 years? If so there has been no justice for Kaylee

ineedaholidaynow · 07/08/2021 11:12

A jury could only consider a manslaughter charge if someone had been charged with manslaughter, they can’t decide by themselves that they will consider manslaughter if they don’t think someone murdered the victim

OaxacaChihuahua · 07/08/2021 11:13

@Garfunkle

The jury don't decide what the defendants are charged with

Who decides then? I always thought that if a person was charged with murder (as these two were) it was down to the jury to either find them guilty of murder, or if they could not be 100% certain that the killer set out to kill, they would then consider the lesser charge of manslaughter?

In this case the killers received sentences of 15 and 14 years. Does that mean they will be free in 10 years? If so there has been no justice for Kaylee

The Crown Prosecution Service decides on the charge. The jury then decides if they are guilty of that charge.

I’m not sure if the defendants were charged with murder in this case, or manslaughter only.

The jury must follow the law, which is often much more nuanced than people realise. Murder requires specific tests to be met. If the prosecution can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that those tests are met, the jury can’t convict for murder. They are guided by the judge in this respect; he or she won’t tell them what conclusion to reach, but will make sure they understand exactly what tests have to be met.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 11:14

@Garfunkle

The jury don't decide what the defendants are charged with

Who decides then? I always thought that if a person was charged with murder (as these two were) it was down to the jury to either find them guilty of murder, or if they could not be 100% certain that the killer set out to kill, they would then consider the lesser charge of manslaughter?

In this case the killers received sentences of 15 and 14 years. Does that mean they will be free in 10 years? If so there has been no justice for Kaylee

Seriously?! 🤯🤦🏼‍♀️

The Crown Prosecution Service decide.

Every charging decision is based on the same two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors: ... That means asking questions including how serious the offence is, the harm caused to the victim, the impact on communities and whether prosecution is a proportionate response.

The judge can direct the jury they can convict if murder of feel beyond reasonable doubt or the alternative of manslaughter.

Judge can decide to discontinue charges during the etc.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 11:15

I can't believe that people think the general public gets to decide who is charged with what.

Garfunkle · 07/08/2021 11:25

I can't believe that people think the general public gets to decide who is charged with what

The are charged by the police after questioning though? Isn’t it for the jury to decide whether the person is found guilty/not guilty of the crime they were charged with?

MorrisZapp · 07/08/2021 11:32

I once got as far as the courtroom during jury selection for a rape trial. I wasn't selected but what I had to hear even during the selection process made me feel ill, and caused me troubled sleep for quite some time.

These people have had to listen to and view the most upsetting evidence imaginable. Without their service, nobody would be going to prison at all.

The legal system can't just go 'fuck it, they're monsters, throw away the key, ' for reasons that no sentient adult should need explaining.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 07/08/2021 11:32

@Garfunkle

I can't believe that people think the general public gets to decide who is charged with what

The are charged by the police after questioning though? Isn’t it for the jury to decide whether the person is found guilty/not guilty of the crime they were charged with?

Well yeah. Jury doesn't get to say "i think it's murder so i say guilty to that". They don't decide WHAT is the person charged with. Only if the charge stands up to scrutiny.

If anyone is interested in how it works, CPS website is actually easy to read and has lots of info on these things.

NeverTalkToStrangers · 07/08/2021 11:34

Three people on this thread have stated definitively that a murder conviction requires premeditation, which is not true in England. If someone looks at you funny in a pub, you swipe him in the face with a broken bottle and accidentally fatally sever an artery that is sufficient for an English murder conviction.

Would it really be too much to ask that before posters try to inform others about the law they ask themselves first “am I basing this knowledge on a half-remembered episode of CSI: New York?” (See also “statutory rape”)

SchrodingersImmigrant · 07/08/2021 11:38

I know this is a serious topic, but “am I basing this knowledge on a half-remembered episode of CSI: New York?” made me giggle

ineedaholidaynow · 07/08/2021 11:38

Were they charged with murder in this case?

Bloodypunkrockers · 07/08/2021 12:11

@Terhou

I really wish people wouldn't cheer at the prospect of other prisoners beating up people like this. You're just encouraging deeply unpleasant violent people who do it to enhance their power, not because they actually have any moral superiority to their victims. And frankly it makes you no better than them.

I agree with this

As if the other criminals are morally superior and providing a public service.

They're hardly going to be upstanding members of society and there is no such thing as a victimless crime

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 12:41

@NeverTalkToStrangers

Three people on this thread have stated definitively that a murder conviction requires premeditation, which is not true in England. If someone looks at you funny in a pub, you swipe him in the face with a broken bottle and accidentally fatally sever an artery that is sufficient for an English murder conviction.

Would it really be too much to ask that before posters try to inform others about the law they ask themselves first “am I basing this knowledge on a half-remembered episode of CSI: New York?” (See also “statutory rape”)

The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill.

So it does require a degree of premeditation