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.

His behaviour afterwards is disgusting, leavjng her to bleed out. And it indicates to everyone that he will be lying and did it on purpose. Unfortunately what we believe and what we can prove are two different things.

I just worry for the woman he marries, and any girlfriends before that. I don’t think this will be the last the police hear from this kid

By the logic of some posters here, the public should not have expressed their outrage when boys avoided prison after raping underage girls, or there should not have been outrage when Worboys was going to let out of jail, and everyone should have stopped complaining about grooming gangs because the police had more information than the public. Judges, juries, administrators, public servants, they all get things wrong sometimes and it is right to draw attention to it and, at the very least, question the decisions made.

Right so I just have to make sure there’s no one else around so I can just say “we was only messing around. They ran into the knife! I was helpless…”?

The world has gone mad. 🥲🥲🥲

And how reassuring it is to see how many mnetters are supportive of the poor lad 🙄

That’s not what I said. It’s about the context in which the item was used and why.

It isn’t a question of whether he did it or not, it’s whether they can prove it. Unfortunately they can’t, even though it is obvious to everyone that it would have been manslaughter at best, murder at worst.

From the article, though, he admitted he assaulted her. So it leaves me wondering what happened in the trial. What the jury actually heard and what the jusry instructions were.

Not supportive of the boy, supportive of the jury.

@Boreded Judges have no power to overturn a verdict, but I’m not at all surprised you don’t know that. They can direct acquittal before or during trial but not after the verdict.

If you are referring to me, don’t. I’m not supportive of him at all. I think he has committed manslaughter at best, murder at worst.

I am just trying to get people to realise why he got off for it. Because it cannot be proven that it was an act of manslaughter.

I have no sympathy for him, and believe he is scum for just leaving her to bleed out. It’s just the uproar over the verdict as though it wasn’t the most likely outcome is bizarre…it was only ever going to go this way unfortunately

😂

The inaccuracies of the armchair legals here are quite scary, not in the least because they’re saying utterly erroneous things so confidently!

Yes, you could say that and the police and ultimately the prosecution would have to prove otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt.

Unless you prefer a system where a person can be found guilty because someone who wasn't there and hasn't seen any evidemce thinks they know what happened?

Since when did play fighting involve a knife? And a teenager is old enough to know that playing with a knife could lead to disastrous consequences

A 15-year-old boy play fighting with a 9-year-old girl? 😡

His first interview:

'“I asked her how her day was going, she said good,” the boy told police. “I grabbed a knife from the sink and stabbed her in the chest. I didn’t use a lot of force, but it was a big knife. I don’t know why I did it, it just happened.
“She finished eating, put her tray to one side, stood up. I walked over and stabbed her. She fell to the floor. I put the knife in the sink, I left the house and went to the train station to get a train and to get away.”
Tully told the jury there was “no mention whatsoever of play fighting or Aria walking or running on to the blade” in the statement. In a police interview the boy said “no comment” when asked why he had picked up the knife and what had been going through his mind.'

Essentially, it seems it yet another case of 'he's male and going to prison might inconvenience him, and it's not worth inconveniencing him just for harming a female.'

There are so many caveats to this - but yes if you would like to now argue the nuance I can.

I see you have hopped to a totally different line of disagreement with me though as you are wrong in the first instance.

the most ridiculous bit of all, is I actually believe he is guilty of manslaughter at best and murder at worst. I just know that there isn’t enough evidence to convict, as do the jury.

Yes I understand based on the explanations in this thread re the trial outcome (even if I think it's ludicrus), but there must be something? Perhaps no 'lesser' charges were sought because they were going for murder/manslaughter?

You make it sound like no one gets convicted unless there is video evidence. But that's not true. And presumably his dna was on the weapon. How is that not manslaughter?

‘No evidence’ according to posters on this thread…

Exactly this.

@wishfulthinking25

I suggest you delete your post. The identity of the boy is not known and mumsnet will remove the thread if there is speculation about his identity.

Gemini’s take on why he was found not guilty…

The 16-year-old defendant was acquitted of manslaughter because the jury at Bristol Crown Court accepted that 9-year-old Aria Thorpe’s death was a tragic, unforeseeable accident.

Under English law, for a jury to find a defendant guilty of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's actions met specific legal thresholds. The jury found that the evidence did not meet these requirements due to several critical factors in the case:

1. The Legally Guided Definition of Accident

The trial judge, Mrs Justice O'Farrell, explicitly instructed the jury that any alleged general recklessness by the boy with the knife should not automatically inform their manslaughter deliberations. The defense argued that the interaction was "playfighting" or a "hunting game" that went horribly wrong.

1. The Defendant's Testimony

The teenager testified that his intention was never to hurt Aria, but merely to "scare" her or make her flinch. He demonstrated to the jury that he was waving the kitchen knife around in a "ninja-style" way and lunged forward to imitate fencing. He maintained that Aria unexpectedly moved toward him, and the knife accidentally pierced her chest before he could stop it.

1. Lack of Criminal Intent (Mens Rea)

To convict someone of Unlawful Act Manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the person intentionally committed an act that was both unlawful and objectively dangerous. While the boy's actions were incredibly dangerous, the jury ultimately concluded that the physical contact and subsequent fatal injury lacked the required criminal element, viewing it instead as an unfortunate mishap during play.

Because the prosecution could not conclusively disprove the defense's account of a freak playfighting accident, the jury delivered a unanimous verdict of not guilty for both murder and manslaughter.

He came home after being expelled. Then he had his phone taken off him. He was obviously wound up, then he stabbed a girl. Then he did a runner. Then he borrowed a phone and instead of calling an ambulance he googled his crime.

Thats enough for me, this lad was guilty of murder

This was jury nullification, IMHO.

I find this definition of manslaughter needing to involve an illegal act confusing.

the example of dropping rocks off a motorway bridge is a good one. Is dropping rocks off a bridge illegal?! I wouldn’t have thought so. yet I would say if I dropped a rock off a bridge and someone died as a result (either as they were hit or if it hit their car and caused an accident) that would be manslaughter.

What if I push someone and as a result they fall in to a fast flowing river and drown, or in to the path of a car? Is pushing someone illegal? Would it not still be manslaughter if they died as a direct result of the pushing?

the whole thing reminds me of the line in Chicago. ‘And then he ran in to my knife. He ran in to my knife ten times.’