One for the lawyers

[Donut]

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 ]

[Thoran]

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.

[pritchke]

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.

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

[Mouse]

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

[RoSs_bg2_rox]

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!!!

[Lanesra]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[wellard]

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.

[Intrepid]

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

[Jorath Calar]

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?