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.

Hi all,

A reminder that the courts have granted the defendant anonymity in this case. Please do not speculate about their identity or post anything that could contribute to identifying them.

Any posts attempting to name or identify the individual, or encouraging speculation about who they are, will be removed. If the thread continues in that direction, we'll have no option but to take it down.

This.

Even in its best most favorable angle i cannot imagine context that makes it "not manslaughter".
Additionally, He didn't even bother to call 999 then pottered off to find his mates before giving 4 different versions all of which ultimately were " i stabbed her"

It's mind blowing there was zero consequences for willfully killing this poor girl

Separately, her poor poor mother....

I’m not surprised that this didn’t result in a guilty verdict.

ultimately he admitted he caused her death, but his version of events doesn’t constitute manslaughter, and there is no witness to the incident that can say definitively that it wasn’t as the boy stated.

He may well have stabbed her in cold blood, we will never know. But there needs to be a burden of proof, and with no witness to how the stabbing occurred, a jury cannot rule that it wasn’t an accident as he claimed.

Even though we can feel 💯 confident that it was manslaughter, without the proof they have to take him at face value. Otherwise what’s the point in having a jury if we are just going to pick a side without looking at the evidence (or lack thereof)

They don't want to know details.
They want to speculate wildly, as @StarlightRobot is doing, without any thought for the family.

Why isn’t it manslaughter?

Manslaughter is when you commit an illegal act that leads to the death of another person. Waving a knife around to scare somebody and threaten them is illegal. He admitted doing this. And it lead to her death.

The jury are entitled to come to whatever conclusion they want but this absolutely was manslaughter in my book.

This does seem mind blowing. I can’t imagine what additional information could have been available to make this a ‘not guilty’ for manslaughter given everything that is already publicly available.

Is it just a technicality in a way? As in he was tried for murder therefore the jury actually couldn’t legally convict him of manslaughter?

I don't understand why there were no charges of leaving scene of crime, allowing person to die, failing to notify emergency services (or anyone nearby who could have phoned) etc. I'm not sure what the official charges would be called but I'm sure these exist in some form. What a shitshow. Poor girl and her family. 😔

Agree. Manslaughter is very clearly made out here, I can’t actually think of any angle from which it isn’t even just based on the facts we have from the news and no other context.

Is play fighting illegal? Because according to his evidence that's what it sounds like to me.

It's a horrible tragedy all round.

He claimed they were playing. It becomes a grey area.

FWIW I expect he has committed the act of manslaughter, but I think because of the way it has been detailed it makes it more difficult for the jury to convict.

It is the unfortunate nature of the judicial system that people will get off with crimes they committed, but otherwise we would have people in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. It’s a balance

I imagine play fighting with a lethal weapon is very much illegal.

Why did he attempt to do a runner?Why didn't he call an ambulance?

‘His version of events doesn’t constitute manslaughter’

I’m really struggling to understand how that is the case though.
Manslaughter is a specific legal category of homicide where a person unlawfully causes the death of another human being but does not have the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
So he might not have intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death but he did cause injury by stabbing which caused her death, so how could this not apply?
It seems so bizzare.

@concertinacornflake

I haven’t speculated, all of my posts are based on the reporting.

I do think it is in the public interest to highlight cases like this where a young girl has been killed particularly in the context of violence against women and girls not being treated seriously in England.

Similar outrage when there was no jail sentence for the rapes of young girls was appropriate in that case too, and public outcry is important when justice is not done or seen to be done.

Is it? Play fighting holding a household object?

@AWeeCupOfTeaAndAnIndividualFruitTrifle

How is it not manslaughter, just because he supposedly didn't intend to kill her? That's exactly what manslaughter is.

The difference between murder and manslaughter pretty much are the intent, but they are both elements of unlawful killing.
There is still the need to establish the criteria for a guilty result on manslaughter

It can be established that the killing occurred and that it was by the accused, but the unlawful liability may not be established and the jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt

So guess this paves the way for any man to stab his wife in the heart and claim they were play fighting? Or vice versa. Haven’t some men tried this as a defence but still found guilty? Sure that rings a bell.

I think they’ve been considered as kids messing around, with no illegal activity taking place with the knife, meaning the act itself cannot be manslaughter.

it’s a grey area because he is the only surviving witness so nobody can say it was anything other than an accident as he claims. So unfortunately without other mitigating circs he is not found guilty.

I understand why people are upset by this, but it isn’t difficult to see why it has happened is it

The only possible reason that using a knife to scare somebody could be legal is self defence. That was not argued here.

Yes probably, unless you prefer we just lock people up without proving their guilt.

Your whole thread is speculative.

If you were genuinely interested in understanding you'd read the court reports.

Because it depends on whether an illegal act has been committed with the knife. If it was that he had taken a knife to a bar and then accidentally stabbed someone, manslaughter…if he has a knife which is a normal household object, in the household, then accidentally stabs someone, grey area.

The fact that he admits stabbing her does not meet the definition of manslaughter on its own.

Do you have any actual reason for believing the jury would have come to a different conclusion if the deceased had been male?

Especially when it goes 8cm deep. Which I’d imagine takes some doing???

For the last time, waving a knife around to scare somebody is illegal. The events leading up to it are irrelevant unless it constituted self defence.

You can absolutely prove murder or manslaughter with no witnesses. Most of them are not witnessed, yet the convictions happen.

Sorry but everything you’ve written is total nonsense and legally confused.