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.

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

Lol, you've spent an entire post saying we can't know what happened WRT to the killing and then come to a definitive conclusion about the rationale of the Jury's decision which we also don't know.

There's a far more likely rationale IMHO.

You’ve only got to read Facebook comments where Conor McGregor has been found guilty of rape in a civil court and his appeal has been thrown out
And yet there are members of the Public adamant that he is an innocent man
And disparaging the victim
I’m actually all for disposing of juries, judges and solicitors can be as thick as mince so God knows what the calibre of your average lay man is and woman for that matter

What other decision is there? The jury found he didn't intend to kill (murder) and also found that he didn't kill her unintentionally (manslaughter). What else could it be but an accidental death if he's not found guilty of either of those charges?

I'm talking about the cold hard facts/evidence, not supposition.

Of course there can be misogyny at place for any jury - in some cases.

But the poster you're responding to has very limited understanding of the law. Admitting you stabbed someone isn't the same as saying you intended to stab them or intended to murder them.

It's basically this: a little girl was stabbed, the defendant admits it was him that inflicted the wound. BUT says that he hadn't intended to, he was just messing about, he was just holding the knife like he was fencing and she moved towards him and it went into her so he didn't intend to stab her nor kill her.

The jury accepted this.

So he isn't guilty of murder or manslaughter.

That's the law. Jurors own biases or possible misogyny don't play a part.

Were they the only two people in the house?

Stepping back, it feels like we are in a world where prison is not a consequence of raping and killing girls. There is a serious discussion to be had about this at a wider level.

Does anyone know what the process is for a case like Aria’s to be reviewed, where the jury’s decision appears way off the mark?

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). It is now known that PA’s barrister made statements to the jury that were not permissible and that decision has been reversed.

We must question and challenge cases like these because juries, judges and the system can get things wrong, especially when it comes to violence against women and girls.

Exactly this. Juries might have personal biases – they might be misogynistic or misandrist/racist/homophobic etc – but they can only reach their decision based on points of law.

are there any research paper on jury biases?

Unbelievable. My son is 16. He has the capacity to ring an ambulance even if something got out of hand.

This is an absurd case. He should have been sentenced. Zero justice for that poor 9 year old girl.

How can you possibly say the verdict is "way off the mark" though?! Because you've decided it is?

You weren't in court, you don't know the full facts. Even the police statement released on behalf of the family afterwards doesn't condemn the verdict.

I find it very very odd that she moved towards him but we’ll never know the truth. A normal reaction would be to move away from someone with a weapon and ask them to stop. She was nine and must have been so frightened.

There definitely needs to be a review imo of how these teenagers are treated. All this ‘they’re a child’
is clouding judgement. At 14 a boy will have gone through puberty and is very strong. I wonder what will happen now, I wouldn’t want him in my child’s school. Would his offence come up if someone does a Claire’s law inquiry in the future?

That says a lot about the police in my opinion

I think there's data on miscarriages of justice where the jury has been split – i.e. a majority verdict. It doesn't apply here - the teen was unanimously acquitted on both charges.

Luckily it's just your opinion then!

No it wouldn't because he hasn't been convicted of any crime.

Apparently due to double jeopardy the defendant cannot be retried (without new evidence).

But the Palestine Action mob were retried. As a pp said, the defending barrister had pulled the “conscience” line, but surely a review can be conducted of any verdict if it seems especially out of whack?

The father of Aria was presumably in the courtroom hearing the evidence and he is not happy. Which is at odds with the po-faced posters here nodding sagely that the jurors were privy to special information.

So all those lads that kill other young men on the street with knives can use this argument and get away with it? Only they don't. The jury doesn't decide it's a tragic accident in those cases.

You can patronise people like me all you like but the law is supposed to protect the vulnerable. If what happened here was lawful well I am entitled to be shocked by that, to query what happened, to be curious about juries who make decisions like this. I mentioned before that my daughter's ex was found not guilty of stalking her. I lived through all that stalking (she lived with us). I know how much evidence there was. The police thought it was an open and shut case. And yet.....so I have good reasons to distrust the decision making when it comes to male on female violence, despite not being a lawyer.

@DannyDeever

Clearly that’s what has happened. They’ve shown mercy to his mother. And not the next woman he stabs. Dear god it’s the Bristol bekind brigade.

That's not true. A man doesn't need to have been convicted to be flagged under Claire's Law. The police can disclose details of previous convictions, arrests, allegations, and incidents of violence, abuse, or coercive control.

I don't know if incidents as a child would be included, but he doesn't need to have been found guilty in court.

Double jepody doesn't apply in the UK for myrder anymore. Not since 2003.

I'm not going to link to it because reporting restrictions still apply to this case, but those condemning the jury's decision should maybe go search online for the money-raising appeal Aria's aunt set up, where it's made very clear the family thought it was a tragic accident too.

They won't have had a say in the prosecution – the police and CPS will have decided to press charges regardless.

You can't.

You as a member of the public can ask for a sentence to be reviewed as unduly lenient.

You can't ask for a jury decision to aquit to be reviewed because that's the law.

The defendant has been tried and aquitted.

The law was folllowed. You assuming the law was not followed because the victim is a girl isn't backed up by anything other than you being understandably angry and upset and thinking it has something to do with gender when it doesn't.

Absolutely!

Even if it was an accident, running off and leaving her there to die alone without even ringing for help is disgusting.

If it truly was an accident, and the injury was a result of her actions (as he claimed) then his first thought should have been to get help.

Could she have been saved? I doubt it.
But he wouldn’t have known that.
The fact he fled the scene and left her there says a lot in my eyes.

I can’t even imagine how I would feel as a parent knowing my 9 year old child was left to die alone, in pain and absolutely terrified.

It’s unforgivable.

That's what I meant – he's a minor with no conviction, so he has no record to carry into adulthood.

A more likely rationale is that they 100% thought he was guilty and went "not guilty" beciase they thought it was best for everyone involved.

It's called jury nullification and it's can be regarded as a strength of jury trials.

Not in this case IMHO.