This is the scenario. A 29 year old man is preparing to give his dog a bath. He fills the bath to 9 inches and goes outside to get the dog. When outside he meets 2 10 year old girls who know him vaguely. One of them has a nosebleed so he invites them into his house to stem the blood. In fact he sits the girl on the end of the bed but can't stop it. He takes them to the bathroom and sits the girl on the end of the bath. He reaches for a towel and the girl falls backwards into the water, hits her head and drowns. The other girl starts screaming "you pushed her, you pushed her" so he panics and puts his hand over her nose & mouth to stop her. She suffocates.

Well how unlucky can one man be, not one but two fatal accidents in the space of two minutes. He does what any intelligent man does and takes the bodies into the countryside and leaves them in a secluded ditch. A few days later, worried that DNA evidence might cause a terrible injustice he reurns to the bodies and cuts the girls clothes off to be burned. Worrying that the evidence might convict him of someting he didn't do he arranges for an alibi with his girlfrien and thouroughly cleans his house and car.

So - the case is over, the jury is delibetating. if you were on that jury would it be manslaughter or murder?

[ 12-16-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Assuming your recounting is what actually happened, I'd vote for one count manslaughter, one murder, and a lot of others.

He stood by and watched the unconscious girl drown.
He suffocated the second girl.

then he tried to cover the whole thing up.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">As far as I know the jury only has to decide guilt or innocence. Not the degree of the crime or time done. So you will have to say what the charge is. If manslaughter he would definitely be guilty. If the charge is murder the jury could go either way as juries can be funny. In such a case I would presume the Prosecutor may try for manslaughter unless they had a really good case, they could also try for manslaughter for one girl and murder for the other. Probably guaranteed they will get a conviction on the lesser crime and still a possibility to get a greater conviction of murder on the other.</font>

[ 12-16-2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

At this point, it's not up to the lawyers, it's up to the jury.

definately murder. It really is a crap cover up story, and its amazing that it took him weeks to think it up.If he doesnt get at least one murder (and he basically admitted to one) then the jury are of their heads!!!

Not only did he burn their clothes, he also attempted to burn the bodies.

The questions refer to the following five charges.

Count One: alleges Mr Huntley murdered Jessica Chapman.
Count Two: alleges Mr Huntley murdered Holly Wells.
Count Three: alleges Ms Carr assisted an offender, namely Mr Huntley, knowing or believing he had murdered or unlawfully killed Jessica Chapman.
Count Four: alleges Ms Carr assisted an offender, namely Mr Huntley, knowing or believing he had murdered or unlawfully killed Holly Wells.
Count Five: alleges Ms Carr conspired to pervert the course of justice.
___________________________________________
Count One Questions:

1. Are we sure that Ian Huntley caused the death of Jessica Chapman?
If the answer to the first question is no, the defendant is not guilty of Count One.
On Thursday the judge warned the jury against "trial by media"

2. If the answer to question one is yes, are we sure that he did not accidentally cause her death?
If the answer to question two is no, the defendant is not guilty of Count One.

3. If the answers to questions one and two are yes, are we sure that at the time he killed Jessica Chapman, he intended to kill her or to cause her really serious bodily harm?
If the answers to questions one, two and three, are yes, the defendant is guilty of murder, and your verdict should be guilty.

If the answers to questions one and two are yes, but to question three no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
_____________________________________
Count Two Questions:

4. Are we sure that Ian Huntley caused the death of Holly Wells?
If the answer to question four is no, the defendant is not guilty of Count Two.

5. If the answer to question five is yes, are we sure that he did not accidentally cause her death?
If the answer to question five is no, go on to consider the questions relating to gross negligence manslaughter.

6. If the answers to questions four and five are yes, are we sure that at the time he killed Holly Wells, he intended to kill her or to cause her really serious bodily harm?
If the answers to questions four, five and six are yes, the defendant is guilty of murder on Count Two, and your verdict should be guilty.

If the answer to questions four and five are yes, but to question six no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
_________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3311377.stm

[ 12-16-2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

He reaches for a towel and the girl falls backwards into the water, hits her head and drowns. The other girl starts screaming "you pushed her, you pushed her" so he panics and puts his hand over her nose & mouth to stop her. She suffocates.

She may fall into the bath, she may hit her head and go unconsious, but to drown!!!! c'mon who in the world would believe that.

And any bloke with a proir record with children then inviting a couple of 10 year old girls into his bedroom is guilty. Getting them to sit down outside while he brings a towel or something is the actions of a normal man.

How can you accidently suffocate someone while trying to keep them quiet?!
I mean a normal person would realise that if the child stopped making noise then holding his hand over her mouth was no longer required, and that it takes a losn while for a person (even a girl as young as her) to run out of oxygen to cause death that is unconciousness would come first. So the only possibility i see is (as unlikely as this is) when the first girl fell in she did hit her head and did fall unconcious but instead of giving her priority he choose to keep the other girl quiet and both suffocated/drowned basically simultaneously.
either that or he saw the opportunity and purposely killed them both

This is the biggest bullshit (sorry) alibi in the history of bad alibis...

it's almost like if the Columbine kids had lived and said they were just cleaning their guns when they accidentally went off, killing 14 and maiming god knows how many... would anyone believe them?

Of course, but I don't think there's any harm in people giving their opinion.

Latest news: The judge will accept majority decision 10-2.

As a gambling man I have to ask myself what the odds are on things having happened as he said they did. I'm afraid that they are astronomical.

Latest: Huntley has been found guilty on 2 charges of murder. Carr found not guilty of assisting, but guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Now of course we get the full picture:

August 1995: Underage sex
A joint investigation by police and social services takes place following a complaint that Huntley was having sex with a 15-year-old-girl. The girl admits she was having sex with Huntley. No further action is taken.

15 November 1995: Burglary
Huntley is alleged to have broken into a house in Grimsby via the loft of the next door house. He and an accomplice are said to have stolen electrical goods, jewellery and a small amount of cash. Huntley is arrested and charged with burglary in March 1996. The case was eventually dropped by the CPS.

March 1996: Underage sex
Another complaint to social services that Huntley is having a sexual relationship with an underage girl. The girl denies the allegation. Social services say this was the only case in which the police are not involved.

April 1996: Underage sex
Another 15-year-old, another alleged underage sexual relationship. Social services exchange information with the police, but again the allegation is denied by the girl.

May 1996: Underage sex
Another joint police and social services investigation, this time into allegations that Huntley had had sex with a 13-year-old girl. The girl denies sex had taken place. Supported by her mother she refuses to have a medical examination. In spite of the previous incident with the 15-year-old the police do not interview Huntley.

April 1998: Rape
Huntley is arrested after a woman claimed he had raped her. She met Huntley at a nightclub, they shared a taxi home and went back to her house. The alleged victim did have a medical examination. Huntley admits they had sex but claimed it was consensual. The police took the view there was not enough evidence to take the matter any further.

May 1998: Rape charge
Another woman claims Huntley raped her while she was walking home. She said Huntley had threatened to kill her. Huntley again claims the sex was consensual. Huntley is charged with rape. The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no chance of a conviction and dropped the case.

July 1998: Indecent assault
A young girl claims she was subject to a serious indecent assault by a man called Ian 10 months before, when she was 10 years old. Huntley, who was living in her street at the time is arrested and denies the allegation.

Huntley had been living in a caravan with his then 15-year-old girlfriend - she was away that day. The 10-year-old told police he threatened her with pressure points saying he was an expert in martial arts, he had his hands round her neck and told her if she told her anybody he would kill her.

She was interviewed but according to her parents the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case because there was no forensic evidence and it was the little girl's word against Huntley's. The girl has suffered psychologically since that time. Social services are also involved in this case.

May 1999: Rape
A 17-year-old girl alleges that Huntley had raped her in February after meeting him at a night club. Huntley claimed the sex was consensual. The police decided there was not enough evidence to proceed.

July 1999: Rape
A woman is raped and Huntley was interviewed because of his previous behaviour. He was by this time using the name Nixon. He supplied a DNA sample and had an alibi provided by Maxine Carr. The woman subsequently said Huntley was not the rapist. This case was different in that in all the others the victims named or identified Huntley.

Only going on your first post Donut (haven't read your long last one yet), I would say murder. I'm with Wellard, the part where he says she hit her head then drowned makes no sense. He may have been reaching for a towel, but he's still right there, drowning isn't an instant thing, he'd have plenty of time to take her out of the water. And of course shusshing the other girl and "accidentally" killing her isn't believable to me either. Who places their hands over a little girls nose AND mouth to quiet them? That is an agressive maneuver.

After reading your last post Donut, did the jury get to hear all that or did they suppress it from them?

Previous charges and convictions cannot be introduced by the prosecution so the jury would have not known about them. Interestingly, Huntley (the accused) introduced the last case himself, apparently to plant the seed in the minf of the jurors about false allegations.

The debate now raging in the UK is how he got a job working as a caretaker in the murdered girls' school. The debate is also about the balance between protecting children and the civil liberties of people accused of crimes which are not proven or are even malicious. It only takes one girl to accuse a teacher of improper behaviour to make it impossible to get a teaching job.

TALK ABOUT BAD LUCK, Here the Intrepid Mr Huntley discovers that 9 inches of water in the bathtub creats a warp in the fabric of time, where time is sped up on the order of at least 100. Mr Huntley sits on the pinickle(sp?) of at least a Nobel Prize for Pysics, if not the greatest dicovery of Humankind. What happens to the poor Mr Huntley, along comes two school girls, one gets a nose bleed, he tries to help her but she slips into the time warp hits her head and drowns, as time races by inside the warp, before Mr Huntley moving at normal time can turn around and get a towel. Then her friend starts screaming, Mr Huntley tries to stop her and calm her by placing his hand over her mouth and nose, but since she is standing closer to the event horizon then Mr Huntley. Time for her also passes faster then for Mr Huntley and she too sufficates,although Mr Huntley only had his hand covering her mouth and nose for a little while just to quite her and calm her.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
As the song says "that's my story and I'm sticking to it"

I know that the EU has no death penalty. But if they did, this monster is one who'd qualify for 'special circumstances' in my arrogant opinion. (I'm advocating death, so by definition my opinion can't be humble)

Actually, for him I'd vote to bring back quartering: 4 landrovers and 4 sections of some very strong rope.