Teenage boy acquitted of murder and manslaughter after killing girl

[StarlightRobot]

Is anyone else baffled by the acquittal of a teenage boy who stabbed and killed nine year old Aria Thorpe. I can vaguely understand the acquittal for murder but how on earth has he been acquitted for manslaughter? He got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the cheat while she was eating her dinner for goodness’ sake! Then he left her bleeding to death and hid on a train. It’s another example of the lives of girls just not mattering.

Jesus Christ, you don't understand the law!' You have to provide evidence to prove murder or manslaughter If you can't they're acquitted. It doesn't mean it was lawful - where the hell did you get that idea?

Here's just one case where the jury exactly decided the same as in this case. Except in these circumstances it seemed far more likely murder was the intention. But that does not matter because it's not what we suspect or think is more likely, it's what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-52825792

You probably wouldn't have heard of this case because black boys stabbing black boys so it doesn't make national news but this happens all the time.

It is law. Nothing to do with gender.

White primary schooled aged girls being murdered is the top demographic of what the public and society does care about. You really think a jury thought or fuck that little girl, we need to protect the boy? no they didn't. They went by the law.

You'll have to come up with a) evidence where you think the jury was wrong in this case based on actually understanding the law and not just 'i'm upset'

You don't think the prosecution already did all everything to prove it was murder? they did. They just didn't prove enough.

I can also provide you with numerous cases where murder of white girls and women is proven in court and the person found guilty, you just don't pay attention to them so think they're not happening.

You seem to think juries make decisions based strictly on legal guidance. They don’t. They can come to whatever decision they want, they can base it on the most ridiculous of reasons and they’re still entitled to do that. The Judge advises them but has no say in their rationale at all.

You seem to not understand the system.

Just a reminder not to say anything about the relationship between the killer and the victim otherwise mumsnet will take down the thread.

I think this is a very important issue which requires scrutiny and review, and I don’t want to see the thread taken down.

Once again, because I’m quite disturbed by the number of people who think scaring somebody with a knife is legal if at home: it isn’t.

@Passingthrough123

Where is your source for saying the pathology evidence was that even though he was holding the knife in her direction, he didn't cause her to be impaled?

Fantastic drama “I Fought The Law” on ITV telling the story of Ann Ming, the woman who fought for the law to be changed after the man who killed her daughter Julie was openly boasting about killing her after he was acquitted.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/what-double-jeopardy-law-how-32388586

Somehow the jury was persuaded that there was not sufficient proof for a guilty verdict.

It worries me that he will not be locked away. He is a very dangerous person with no control and no morals and he is at large.

That's my entire point – I'm not saying that's what was said, I'm saying that unless you have the transcript of the pathology evidence presented to court, no one can say for sure what expert evidence was given to the jury about the moment it happened that helped acquit him.

Reminds me of Simon Vickers who also stabbed a girl in a "play fight". I agree with a previous poster, play fighting, like rough sex, is the new excuse for murderous males.

Personally, I think we need to keep the double jeopardy rules. (Even though they astonishingly no longer apply to murder.)

@Passingthrough123

I read one of your posts up thread as suggesting there was evidence from the pathologist that it was an accident. From what I have read in the reports about the pathological evidence, we know she was killed with a single horizontal stab of the knife into her heart and I haven’t seen anything connecting pathological evidence with the defence that Aria moved towards the knife. I would have expected that to be reported, ie that the pathologist gave evidence that the wound was inconsistent with the boy stabbing the girl and instead indicates the girl moved her body into the knife. That hasn’t been reported.

I agree, OP. Play-fighting with a knife? Seriously? Who does that?

'The knife went into her. Then I pulled it out. I didn't know what to do. She put her hand to her chest.'

What to do? Call 999, obviously. But he didn't, he ran away.

Because they didn't charge him with that so he wasn't tried for that.

They charged him with murder.

When a murder charge gets to court the evidence argued by the defence could be that it's not murder but manslaughter. This happens often in cases of diminished responsibility for instance.

In this case, the defence didn't argue that. They argued not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter. The jury agreed. Which means the jury also agreed to not manslaughter.

What you can't do at court is introduce lesser charges that the person hasn't already been charged with like unlawful wounding.

Scratch that I reread your post and yes agree, also re unlawful wounding.

I absolutely understand the system because I work in it.

Again, tell me where juries are misogynistically predisposed to acquit in killings of little white girls.

Give me examples of this apparent widespread problem.

That's what you took from that...

He did not check on Aria after she was injured, did not raise the alarm with neighbours or ring for an ambulance.

Nobody has said it’s a widespread problem. But there have been recent cases where teenage boys seem to have received unduly lenient, if any, consequences for their convicted crimes or in cases like this. I can understand the public outcry.

I find it very hard that a 16 year old who scared his 9 year old sister with a knife, resulting in her death, and then leaving her to bleed out on the floor, walks away scot free. I understand the system but that doesn’t mean I disagree with the public that on the bare facts it’s an outrage.

Again, it goes back to my original point about court reporting, and why I felt compelled to comment on your thread. Just because the papers haven't reported it, doesn't mean it wasn't said in court. "Girl suffers knife wound by accident" isn't as compelling a headline as "Teen stabs nine-year-old" – and that's what the stringers will have been thinking when they filed their copy. So if the pathologist had agreed in court that she could have impaled herself, would the stringers and newspapers want to say that, when "Teen stabs nine-year-old" is a much more click-baity headline? Papers will always leave out details that weaken their headlines and their page clicks.

If the jury believed that he wasn't playing acting, that he wasn't doing a jump-scare but was genuinely taking his anger out on her after his exclusion and that he meant to stab her, he'd have surely been convicted of murder. Instead, they acquitted him in under two hours, which is why I'm questioning what was presented in court that hasn't been reported by the papers and why you need the full trial transcript to say for sure that the jury's got it wrong.

@Passingthrough123

I fully understand your instinct to have all the detail examined before commentary is made. The court transcripts are not available online but only via the court and for a fee. I don’t have those transcripts but consider that there is more than enough in the public domain which warrants reactions of deep concern and which requires more attention to this issue. That is as far as we can go with this. My hope is that there will be a review and scrutiny, particularly in the wider context of cases involving harm to women and girls not being treated seriously.

What the hell are you talking about?

My post was about the people saying he should have been convicted of manslaughter because they didn't know what it means.

He was charged with murder and tried for it. He was aquitted.

Literally not one person said it was legal to threaten someone with a knife.

BUT HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH THAT. HE WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND AQUITTED.

The CPS don't get to go back and say 'well he wasn't guilty of murder so we'll get him on this now'. That's not how the law works.

This is why these threads are pointless because you are all Googling and don't actually understand the bloody law.

You really think you in your Googling expertise have found some flaw in the prosecution, some piece of evidence that the prosecution didn't already use if it was relevant?

FFS

We'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. What's in the public domain is solely decided by the media – and they publish stories based on how many newspaper copies it will sell, how many viewers will watch their broadcast and how many clicks/page views their website will get. It is not impartial reporting.

I doubt there will be a review of the case – he's been acquitted. It's not the same as a miscarriage of justice.

Also edited to add: not taking it seriously would've meant no trial at all. The police and CPS would have decided it as an accident and there was no case to answer. It went to court, that's taking it seriously.

He was charged with both manslaughter and murder and the argument that this wasn't manslaughter hinges on the legality of using a knife to illicit a jump scare. You're replying to someone saying it was manslaughter because using a knife in that way is illegal.

I was replying to the part of your post where you said manslaughter isn’t valid here as he didn’t commit a crime resulting in her death. He did - he threatened her with the knife. Come on, you must know threatening somebody with a knife is illegal?!

Also, to those defending juries, we know the jury got it wrong when it decided to aquit the man who hit the policewoman in the back with a sledgehammer (Palestine Action case).

The first jury in the PA case did not acquit, they failed to reach a verdict. I suspect this is because they could not reach agreement on which of the three alternative charges he was guilty of - ABH, GBH or GBH with intent. There was a retrial because the jury failed to reach a verdict. There was no decision to be reversed.

@CoolGreenBee you are being rather aggressive. This seemed a peculiar verdict, so naturally people are questioning the whys and wherefores.

The legal system is not infallible. Mistakes happen. Miscarriages of justice happen. Some people have wily lawyers, others have useless ones. We have seen that juries can have biases or be intimidated. The public have a right to be interested. You can attend court proceedings!

You seem to be leaning towards a secretive system because “the public don’t understand”. That is rather supercilious, not to mention plain wrong, imo.