Ian Huntley

Jim Bon Jovi · #21 12-14-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesta

Taking into account the fact that it is unlikely that Huntley will be convicted of murder, a lot of people seem to be advocating the death penalty for people who commit manslaughter. Now what exactly is manslaughter? The taking of life without intention, predetermined or otherwise of causing death. Now this is a very wide belt of crimes, anything from the Soham Case to somebody causing death by reckless driving, or even killing in self defence can be included in this. Are you people really saying that somebody who takes a life completely by accident should be killed by the state for their crime/mistake?

Huntley has admitted killing one of the girls, but as far as I know, there is no evidence to support the fact that he killed these girls intentionly, or that even had a motive for killing these girls intentionly. Remeber that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed them intentionly for him to be convicted of murder. It is obviously tragic that these two girls were killed, but the circumstances surrounding their deaths still remain unclear. The British public want somebody to be held responsible for their deaths, and the man who is to be held responsible is Ian Huntley, but by dealing out the death penalty to him, we are entering the realms of revenge, which is not what the British Justice system is here to do.

well as the prosecution stated in their opening remarks little girls don't just drop dead and the idea that 2 of them did totally accidentally in the same house at the same time is pretty far fetched.

say even one of them died accidentallyt, he still killed the other one intentionally. either way the fact that he hid their bodies, spoke to the nation about it and even comforted their parents makes me think the intentions were sinister and not accidental.

Davesta · #22 12-14-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesta

Taking into account the fact that it is unlikely that Huntley will be convicted of murder, a lot of people seem to be advocating the death penalty for people who commit manslaughter. Now what exactly is manslaughter? The taking of life without intention, predetermined or otherwise of causing death. Now this is a very wide belt of crimes, anything from the Soham Case to somebody causing death by reckless driving, or even killing in self defence can be included in this. Are you people really saying that somebody who takes a life completely by accident should be killed by the state for their crime/mistake?

Huntley has admitted killing one of the girls, but as far as I know, there is no evidence to support the fact that he killed these girls intentionly, or that even had a motive for killing these girls intentionly. Remeber that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed them intentionly for him to be convicted of murder. It is obviously tragic that these two girls were killed, but the circumstances surrounding their deaths still remain unclear. The British public want somebody to be held responsible for their deaths, and the man who is to be held responsible is Ian Huntley, but by dealing out the death penalty to him, we are entering the realms of revenge, which is not what the British Justice system is here to do.

well as the prosecution stated in their opening remarks little girls don't just drop dead and the idea that 2 of them did totally accidentally in the same house at the same time is pretty far fetched.

say even one of them died accidentallyt, he still killed the other one intentionally. either way the fact that he hid their bodies, spoke to the nation about it and even comforted their parents makes me think the intentions were sinister and not accidental.

He did admit that he killed Jessica I think, by suffocating her when he was trying to stop her screaming after Holly had drowned in the bath when they weren't even in the room. It may be a far fetched story, but it COULD be true. If it is true, then he has only comitted manslaughter. It isn't that easy to prove murder, especially in a case like this with no witnesses. Either a confession, or a huge amount of forensic evidence, and at the very least a motive of some kind. Now I'm not in any way dumbing down what has happened, but IMO convicting Ian Huntley of murder is pretty much impossible from the evidence that I have seen.

Jim Bon Jovi · #23 12-14-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesta

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesta

Taking into account the fact that it is unlikely that Huntley will be convicted of murder, a lot of people seem to be advocating the death penalty for people who commit manslaughter. Now what exactly is manslaughter? The taking of life without intention, predetermined or otherwise of causing death. Now this is a very wide belt of crimes, anything from the Soham Case to somebody causing death by reckless driving, or even killing in self defence can be included in this. Are you people really saying that somebody who takes a life completely by accident should be killed by the state for their crime/mistake?

Huntley has admitted killing one of the girls, but as far as I know, there is no evidence to support the fact that he killed these girls intentionly, or that even had a motive for killing these girls intentionly. Remeber that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed them intentionly for him to be convicted of murder. It is obviously tragic that these two girls were killed, but the circumstances surrounding their deaths still remain unclear. The British public want somebody to be held responsible for their deaths, and the man who is to be held responsible is Ian Huntley, but by dealing out the death penalty to him, we are entering the realms of revenge, which is not what the British Justice system is here to do.

well as the prosecution stated in their opening remarks little girls don't just drop dead and the idea that 2 of them did totally accidentally in the same house at the same time is pretty far fetched.

say even one of them died accidentallyt, he still killed the other one intentionally. either way the fact that he hid their bodies, spoke to the nation about it and even comforted their parents makes me think the intentions were sinister and not accidental.

He did admit that he killed Jessica I think, by suffocating her when he was trying to stop her screaming after Holly had drowned in the bath when they weren't even in the room. It may be a far fetched story, but it COULD be true. If it is true, then he has only comitted manslaughter. It isn't that easy to prove murder, especially in a case like this with no witnesses. Either a confession, or a huge amount of forensic evidence, and at the very least a motive of some kind. Now I'm not in any way dumbing down what has happened, but IMO convicting Ian Huntley of murder is pretty much impossible from the evidence that I have seen.

what r the chances of a healthy 10 year old drowning in a half full bath falling across it? and even if that is what happened, little girl or not, u have to hold their breath for a long time to kill someone and u'd need to be doing it pretty strongly and forcefully.

imagine u were in his situation that hes described. do u grab the little girl and hold her mouth shuit long enough for her to die or do u put ur hand over her mouth for an instant and tell her to quite down???

and i wonder why she started screaming u pushed her at him....?

Davesta · #24 12-14-2003, 05:55 PM

His story does sound very suspect, but remember that its got to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he killed these girls intentionally, and I honestly don't believe that it can be done here, not without a confession.

Jim Bon Jovi · #25 12-14-2003, 05:59 PM

thats the shit thing about having to prove criminal law beyong all reasonable doubt.

he couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't kill the intentionally either so it's really down to the prosecution.

one point to look at tho. i get the impression uve at least studied law in some capacity or other ie knowing what it takes to get a conviction etc... but most if not all of the jury won't know this, if u didnt have the knowledge i can pout fair money on most people doing him for murder than manslaughter.

Davesta · #26 12-14-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

thats the **** thing about having to prove criminal law beyong all reasonable doubt.

he couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't kill the intentionally either so it's really down to the prosecution.

One thing - Innocent until proven guilty!

Quote:

one point to look at tho. i get the impression uve at least studied law in some capacity or other ie knowing what it takes to get a conviction etc... but most if not all of the jury won't know this, if u didnt have the knowledge i can pout fair money on most people doing him for murder than manslaughter.

I've never actually studied it myself, but my mother is a lawyer specialising in criminal law, especially murder and rape, so I've acquired quite a lot of knowledge from her, and from friends who are studying or who have studied law.
Anyway, Jurys have advisers working with them to fill them in on facts such as this, so they will be completely devoid of ignorance on the subject. I guess only time will tell what he is to be convicted of.[/quote]

Ian Huntley

NBJ - Everything Else