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.

Isn’t it GBH with intent which is the same as murder but the difference being the status of the victim? Iirc there’s a big difference between GBH and GBH with intent .

My brothers had nunchucks and those throwing stars but would never have dreamed of getting them out to “play” when we were play fighting, Chinese burns, dead legs, all within the realms of sibling play fighting. DBs were big into wrestling but would body slam each other and never dream of doing it to me even though I was fairly close in age, they got I was a smaller girl and there were limits, the same with weapons, well unless it was a tea towel…. And I’m talking about the 70s/80s when we were left to our own devices, it was just common sense to us.

I don’t understand how a 15yo boy could ever think it’s appropriate to mess with knives around a 9yo child he was looking after. I also don’t believe it could be an isolated incident, you don’t just suddenly “play” with a knife and it happens you kill a child the first time you do it.

Involuntary manslaughter then would have been feasible
“There are primarily two types of involuntary manslaughter, that caused by an unlawful or dangerous act and that caused by gross negligence.”

or “causing or allowing the serious injury or death of a child”

As pp has said though there are clearly different reasons at play for not guilty verdict which we can’t say here but are all over other social media sites and I think at least one national news rag.

Yes, s18 (with intent) s20 (without intent).

I don’t know how to phrase this without breaching but what if the parent doesn’t want him back home, where does he go then?

That was one of my first thoughts too.

But then, the jury heard the evidence, in particular that of the accused himself. Do you think that perhaps they had a better foundation for forming an opinion than you do?

Exactly. He knew he had mortally wounded her, but instead of calling an ambulance he ran and hid. That is manslaughter. Juries can get it wrong.

There is nothing that says he went off to see his mates, or that he knew the children at the station.

Not necessarily. Some juries aren't fit for purpose.

I was on a jury in a stabbing case and the key to it was how the person acted afterwards, to signify whether they were aware of the severity of the incident and the wound. That he googled 'what happens if you kill someone', that he fled the scene and hid on a train, that he didn't call an ambulance and stay with her all indicate manslaughter.

The offence is plainly made out, in my opinion - I can’t think of any further context that could actually change that. He did something illegal and dangerous (threatening her with a knife) that caused her death. Manslaughter all day long. I have no idea why the jury acquitted but he admitted all of the above and never wavered from it.

I think people forget juries are made up of random people with a wide range of intellectual and moral and emotional ability. We never know what happens when they deliberate, but in the USA where jurors can be interviewed, I’ve seen them say a few times they agreed a guilty verdict just to get it over with and go home, or that there were 2 or 3 jurors very vehement who dominated discussions and would only accept the verdict they agreed with.

What could the stabber have possibly said that made his actions legal and how would it have been corroborated?

Seems pretty clear to me the jury did make their decision based on the thing they knew but we don't (shouldn't) know and that decision was in no way based on guilt WRT the offence and everything to do with "doing the best for everyone involved". So no, I don't think you can argue "he's innocent because the jury thought he was".

Absolutely.

And a violent male who thinks nothing of murdering a child is allowed free to roam the streets.

I very much doubt this is the last act of violence this boy will commit and I hope the Jury will carry the weight of that on their shoulders.

Neither unlawful act manslaughter nor gross negligence manslaughter would be appropriate in this case and those are the two types of 'involuntary manslaughter' in the UK . So neither would be feasible.

The first requires someone unintentionally causing death while committing a criminal act. So that would apply if the defendant intended to assault the victim but didn't think it would result in death.

The second is where a death results from gross negligence or omission by the defendant with a duty of care to the victim. That's usually used in workplace deaths, care homes etc.

Causing or allowing the death of a child is a specific and separate offence in UK law which applies to individuals living in a household who are connected to the child and failed to prevent the death where another is responsible for actually causing the death. Which we see in cases where partners who didn't kill the child knew of prior/current abuse and did nothing to stop the abuse which then resulted in death.

Yes, and in one US case I saw the juror said "We thought X was true but felt the magnitude of what happened demanded a guilty verdict." Where X made the defendant objectively not guilty!

But normally I'd be happy to say that Juries hear all the evidence amd typically get it right, but this case is an exception, IMHO.

What kind of teenager who is much taller and bigger than a nine year old girl play fights? With a knife. I don’t believe this. He should be punished.

Where was her ‘poor mother’ (and indeed father?)
9 yo eating pizza on the sofa??

Great family.

I very much doubt this is the last act of violence

Yeah. Reading between the lines it wasn't the first either. I doubt he was expelled for parking on double yellows.

I believe the mother and step father were at work and she was in the care of the individual who stabbed her.

I have read that it was a family friend who found Aria when he had gone round to check on her, so maybe this was the usual set-up when both parents were working.

@KittyCorncrake

The mother had been food shopping with Aria for ingredients to make a pizza together. They then made the pizza together (sounds like a nice activity) and the mother let her have her dinner on the sofa while she (the mum) went to her second job as a waitress. We know there was a lodger staying with the family and there was a teenage boy who in normal circumstances would have been old enough to babysit. They sound like a good family where the girl was fed and cared for. I strongly disagree with blaming the mother here.

Interesting, could you say anything more about this? Has it been found that juries are biased and there can be misogyny at play when reaching a verdict in cased of gender based violence? Any pointers would be hugely welcome as this is something that I would like to learn more about.

Agree, blaming the grieving mother is awful.

I don’t know if it applies here specifically but I do know there are a LOT of parents struggling (really struggling) with disturbed, aggressive, controlling teenage boys lost to the world of gaming, distasteful internet use, weed and the Manosphere. There are regular threads about it on here.

I’ve worked in crime for years but I’m really worried about what I predict will be a tidal wave of aggressive, disturbed men in 5-15 years. I think it’s going to get a lot worse as they all grow into adults and are allowed to roam the streets and do what they want without any supervision at all.

You can never categorically say what happened in a case based on reporting in newspapers. The Times wouldn't have even had a reporter in court – these days they rely on stringers from news agencies who file the copy to them and then it's re-written in the office into The Times house style for publication. Those stringers will have selected the juiciest version from all the information that's presented in court to ensure The Times buys their copy and not another agency's. Same for the BBC and all the other national outlets reporting it.

The only way you can categorically say what happened in that front room is by reading the court transcript in full and reading all the pathology reports, the actual police witness accounts, behaviour reports from psychologists etc. You're just spamming the juicy bits from the papers in the same way the stringers do from the court proceedings.

The fact the jury acquitted in two hours means they saw it for what it was – a horrible, tragic accident.