/ How can you 'probably' be responsible for a murder

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
ClimberEd - on 14 Jan 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/april-jones-mark-bridger-court

His barrister concedes he was probably responsible for the death of the girl.

Am I missing something here?
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:

The thing that sprang to mind for me was some sort of mental illness that means he can't remember what happened. Otherwise, no idea.
idiotproof (Buxton MC) - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:

I would guess they are saying his actions caused her death but it wasn't murder or manslaughter as those terms are defined in law
In reply to ClimberEd: if he's locked her in his basement, and she's not been found yet, I guess he could probably be responsible for her death...but not definitely (kinda like schroedingers cat)
ClimberEd - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

Ohhh, hadn't thought about that, perhaps they will try for diminished responsibility due to mental health.

Or he left her still breathing in a bush or something.

(technically no body = no murder in law?!)
deepsoup - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:
Probably responsible for her death and probably responsible for her murder aren't quite the same thing - perhaps they're going to argue that he's only guilty of manslaughter. Or maybe they'll be claiming that her death was accidental (and that he then panicked and concealed the body).

I'm sure we'll be hearing all about it soon enough. It sounds like the trial is going to be quite an ordeal for her family. Horrible.
deepsoup - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:
> (technically no body = no murder in law?!)

No, there's no need for a body to convict him of murder. Though I suppose it will be that much harder to prove without.
mkean - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd:
(technically no body = no murder in law?!)

I'm pretty sure you can be convicted of murder without a body ever having been found.

redsonja - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd: what he says and what actually happened might not be the same thing. poor little lass
In reply to deepsoup: we won't hear about it though, the judge has decreed that details are not to be published in the press!
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
> (In reply to deepsoup) we won't hear about it though, the judge has decreed that details are not to be published in the press!

If you are going off that report then all the judge has ordered is that evidence of that hearing -plea and case management - is not reported.
Possibly the defence is diminished responsibility or manslaughter.
DancingOnRock - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd: Something very horrible must have happened. They knew she was dead but never found a body? They're not releasing any details?

You have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted of murder don't you? ie you had to have intended to kill your victim.
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is dead ( in this case) and the defendant has caused that death having intended to kill or seriously would the victim.
mgco3 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to ClimberEd: Sod the human rights brigade.. They wouldn't be able to hold the bastard without some tangible evidence. Under the circumstances they should be able to use ANY (YES I REALLY MEAN ANY) method to extract from him what he did and where he has put the poor little beggar.
Ciro - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to mgco3:
> (In reply to ClimberEd) Sod the human rights brigade.. They wouldn't be able to hold the bastard without some tangible evidence. Under the circumstances they should be able to use ANY (YES I REALLY MEAN ANY) method to extract from him what he did and where he has put the poor little beggar.

I assume by that you mean torture the guy?

If so it's a good way of getting someone to tell you what they think you want to hear, which is quite handy if you just want a conviction for show, but isn't much good if what you're looking for is the truth.
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to mgco3)
> [...]
>
> I assume by that you mean torture the guy?
>
> If so it's a good way of getting someone to tell you what they think you want to hear, which is quite handy if you just want a conviction for show, but isn't much good if what you're looking for is the truth.

Which obviously doesn't apply in this case where the location of the body is a testable result.

Ciro - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> Which obviously doesn't apply in this case where the location of the body is a testable result.

That's only an obvious conclusion if all you care about is finding the body. I'd have thought finding out what happened to her would be important too.
DancingOnRock - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro: I don't think mgoc3 is really interested in getting any information. I think he's clearly watched too many spy films. I thought it best to ignore him.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ridge - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):
> (In reply to ClimberEd)
>
> I would guess they are saying his actions caused her death but it wasn't murder or manslaughter as those terms are defined in law

Yep, they're trying the Ian Huntley defence.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.