Murder 24/7 episode 2 disappeared from iplayer?

[Izzabellasasperella]

I watched the first episode yesterday and half of the second today. Went to watch the rest and episode 2 has disappeared. I want to know what happened. Very odd.

I don't know. I guess there was an element of self defence. It was interesting to see the interaction with the accused's lawyer tonight.

Why wasnt he prosecuted for dealing drugs too?

I cant belive he was found not guilty.

I think the right decision was made frankly. Murder needs to be premeditated. He did not go to that alleyway intending to kill anyone. The mens rea wasn’t present for a murder charge.

Here it was clear self defence, are you blind to the fact that a group of ~40 year old men ambushed a lone 17 year old in an alleyway? They specifically intended to rob him with threats/violence, they were choking him in a headlock and smashed a bottle on his head and stabbed him with it. In that situation, self defence is justifiable because of the immediate threat to his life. Under the circumstances the force used under self defence was considered proportional to the threat faced.

Why wasnt he prosecuted for dealing drugs too?

Why wasn’t the attempted murder victim arrested for assault/robbery?

I think the right decision was made too. They just didn't have the evidence to support intent or to banish reasonable doubt on his self defence defence.

I thought it was a good case to cover actually. It really exposed the night-time economy and other parallel societies-within-societies that exist in this country - and the troubles with policing them.

There's a young kid, probably groomed into crime, acting as a runner for much nastier big time criminals, selling drugs to a closed society (the homeless) with endless issues of its own involving dependencies and abuse. There's the homeless men willing to rob to feed their habits and as hostile to the outside society interfering as the drug dealers. While government interventions and services to try to integrate them back into wider society are cut to ribbons.

All this stuff is going on right underneath our noses. Sad.

There's a young kid, probably groomed into crime, acting as a runner for much nastier big time criminals, selling drugs to a closed society (the homeless) with endless issues of its own involving dependencies and abuse. There's the homeless men willing to rob to feed their habits and as hostile to the outside society interfering as the drug dealers. While government interventions and services to try to integrate them back into wider society are cut to ribbons.

@WhatKatyDidNot I agree.

I also agree that the correct decision was made.

That said - I think it was the right decision insofar as the verdict went.

People from two sub-societies existing outside everyone else's norms and customs - drug dealing and the street homeless - got into a violent altercation and one ended up dead, one ended up seriously injured and one slightly injured.

That there was a police investigation unable to get to the objective truth sufficiently for a guilty verdict in a court is a good outcome in that we can't be sending people to prison for life for murder when we don't and will never know exactly what happened.

That everyone involved just walked away to continue on with chaotic lives in night time economies completely divorced from the rest of society is a terrible outcome.

Like I say: sad.

Was this the last one in the series?

I thought this was really well done. I would have been amazed if he had got done for murder. I was surprised the CPS agreed to prosecute after the victim acknowledged that they had decided to rob him, had got him into a head lock and then bashed him repeatedly over the head with a broken bottle.

None of the characters came off particularly well. Interesting how the homeless just didn’t want to know and “closed ranks”.

Very sad.
I hope the young man turns his life around but it seemed as though he had already been sucked into the underbelly of low life criminality...

That situation was just so fucked up, drugs and homeless and robbery - it had to be taken back to the bare bones that he was 17 and 2 older men jumped him and attacked him, he acted in self defence.

The fact he shouldn't have had a knife on him is yet another part of the wider picture.

He will go on to commit more crime, get into more life or death situations. My heart broke for him, so young and so much potential but being suffocated by the drug and gang culture.

The man who killed his mum, that baffled me. I used to work with people with dementia and their families. I've been a family member of a person with dementia. The stress is horrendous, the pain and desperation is like nothing I can describe.

But you don't go throwing a frail, ill, scared lady off a balcony.

I was left wondering if he next comes up against insurmountable pressure - how will he chose to deal with it? He's got away with murder once after all.

I realise that's me being dramatic but he clearly is unstable.

I didn't have sympathy for him I'm afraid. I felt he was not genuine in his interview and the phone call about the night class - what the actual?

The 17 year old boy drug dealer. I was surprised they were allowed to have him on screen and not pixilated if he was found not guilty. The only major difference seemed to be we didn't see him in his cell and we didn't see his police interviews in-vision.

17year old lad should have gone to prison.
Menace to society.
He's now walking our streets likely carrying on as before. Drugs, knives...
Only a matter of time...

17year old lad should have gone to prison.

If we had a youth offender system worth a light, the best result would have been to have prosecuted for dealing and carrying a knife - a couple of years in a properly resourced system might well have rehabilitated him.

As it was, he was in a position where he had to carry a knife. If he'd gone back to his "bosses" with no money and no drugs, his life would have been as much in danger as it was from the homeless guys with the broken bottle.

So the police didn't tell the boy's solicitor all the evidence they had did they? So do the pick and choose what to tell them so they've got the advantage?

I know the police were saying they have to be more careful with they boy because he's not an adult yet. What can they do with adults that they can't do with children/teenagers?

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to trial the prosecution have to give all the evidence to the defence.

Presumably they hold stuff back only during police questioning

Yes I know they would get the evidence at the trial lol

It's interesting isn't it and wish they'd explained it. Was it to try to get him to stop no commenting? Was it so the solicitor would tell him and he'd crack? Obviously something made him make his statement. But then again, I thought they might be holding stuff back because they hadn't got it iyswim. E.G hold back if they hadn't found the weapon or whatever.

The boy this week was very sad - I would think that current best practice is that a modern slavery assessment should have been done as he was likely groomed into a county line - I was surprised CPS went for it too.

It's a dilemma that we as a society don't know how to resolve and we don't know how to help children like him. As a PP said - if he'd gone back with no drugs or money he would have been risk of serious physical harm