Always the family

LJC wrote:

tigger wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The parents are still in police custody this morning.

I have a horrible feeling that they set fire to their house to get moved to a larger one (they were turned down when asked) and fully intended to get all the children out but were overcome by how fast the fire started.

A heartbreaking tragic case whatever has happened. Those poor children I hope that they didn't suffer.

I don't know about trying to get them out - they can't have tried very hard, not a scratch on them - didn't need an ambulance. I do wonder if they thought there was a chance of setting up a Fund?
He's already has been on TV - no problem with the limelight, none at all in the interview, doling out pats on the backs of the emergency services and the police.

They must have indicated very soon that the ex mistress and her new man had done it.
So imo we already have quite a scenario here. Children, fire, nationwide collection for the homeless pair and darling kiddies, appeal for the evil perpetrators on TV, new home courtesy of the council forced by public opinion to provide one (examples will be given of homes worth millions given to immigrants so an honest to goodness British family should have the same), possibly newspaper exclusive stories. Mmm. Celebrity and money, what's not to like?

I was very impressed with the police appeal video by the chief constable, why couldn't we get him to run the McCann review?

Yep, the limelight is no trouble at all, is it. Reminds me as well of Karen Matthews. If the McCanns can do it, so can we.

I am more convinced than ever now that Madeleine must be dead and buried somewhere. Why do I think this? Because Karen Matthews tried to convince her daughter Shannon had been abducted whereas she was really being kept a prisoner with an accomplice who was hiding her. However, this plan could not go on indefinitely and so Karen's idea was for the accomplice to somehow take Shannon to a public place, where she would be found. I seem to recall it was a market square. Therefore, if Madeleine is being hidden by an accomplice, well its an awfully long time to keep her a prisoner and I am certain it is easier to hide a dead child than it is a live child. Whichever way it is achieved, it is just such a long time (even for a genuine abductor who is keeping her in a lair, as the McCanns believe).

The Philpotts tried it in a different way altogether. The abduction route had been gone down before and Karen Matthews had been rumbled, so time to try something different. No good starting a fire if the kids are safe somewhere else, that would not have the same impact. The kids had to be inside to gain the most sympathy and somebody else had to be set up as the guilty party. Whether or not they meant to harm the kids is another question, perhaps it did not really matter to them either way (but I prefer to believe it did matter to them). The objective though was to gain maximum public sympathy, equaling money, and a bigger or better house. Just think, so much money could have been raised they perhaps could have afforded to buy their own property out of it.

I really believe the Philpotts, especially Mick, were a couple who wanted what other hard working people have, but without actually working for it at all. The family, the house, the money, the holidays, and far more than just 15 minutes of fame. Mick Philpott has seen how well the McCanns have done, dining with celebs, fancy hotels, meeting the Pope etc. The limelight suited Mick Philpott perfectly, he wanted more of Jeremy Kyle definitely.

The above comments are just my opinion.

Well said LJC.

In my opinion the McCanns have a lot to answer for. Apart from their apalling behavour towards their own children, which at the moment they're not being held responsible for, we know for certain that Karen Matthews used them as some kind of a role model, when she set out to fake her daughter Shannon's abduction, for monetary gain

Unfortunately for Karen Matthews, she failed to make a penny from her daughter's faked abduction. Whereas the McCanns and now their wider family have all profited and are still profiting from Madeleine's abduction, which in my opinion was also faked. The police suspected Karen Matthews had faked this abduction and thankfully Shannon was found safe and well. However while Karen Matthews was rightfully prosecuted and jailed for her crimes, the McCanns who should be in jail, have the right people eating out of their hands. These people are responsible for making sure the McCanns will never go to jail

The only good thing that came out of Shannon's faked abduction, as far as Shannon and her siblings are concerned, is that they've been given new identies and are now living with people who are taking care of them. Hopefully the children will have a chance to make something of themselves, this would never have happened if they had remained with their mother.

However there is a sad side to this sorry story, if the media report which I have just read is true. While Karen Matthews will never see her children again, her parents aren't being allowed to see them either, even though they were promised visiting rights. While I can understand why the children's grandparents aren't seeing the children, in my opinion, they should have been told from the start that this wasn't going to happen and why. Telling them that they could have visiting rights, when they haven't been given those rights is not fair. Social Services have kept this couple hanging on for the past 3yrs and when they were asked for a statement, they said they didn't discuss individual cases.

The media report was dated March the 11th 2011, I've just been on Google to see if there is an update, but I can't find anything. So it appears that nothing has changed since that report.

Roasted Arizona wrote:I can't get my head around why they have been charged with murder. If the fire was started with the aim of getting a new bigger house, then surely the charge would be manslaughter. My other thought was that maybe they tried to blame the ex mistress, as there was a court case for custody of the children the next day. They were maybe hoping she'd get charged with arson, they'd get all the kids, with a bigger house as well. But if this was their reasoning, then surely the charge would still be manslaughter?

Murder, means you have to have wanted to kill doesn't it?

Certainly "premeditated" murder means you wanted to kill. But I would think "murder" can have other lethal elements that are of a more serious nature than "manslaughter"... without death being the intended outcome.

For example if a person put the date rape drug in someone's drink, and that person died as a result of vomiting whilst unconscious, it seems to me that would not be considered manslaughter, but rather murder? Similarly arson with all those kids in the house; or drugging a child to go out with friends and that child broke his/her neck whilst under the influence...... seems that these would all be considered far more serious crimes than manslaughter???

Roasted Arizona wrote:I can't get my head around why they have been charged with murder. If the fire was started with the aim of getting a new bigger house, then surely the charge would be manslaughter. My other thought was that maybe they tried to blame the ex mistress, as there was a court case for custody of the children the next day. They were maybe hoping she'd get charged with arson, they'd get all the kids, with a bigger house as well. But if this was their reasoning, then surely the charge would still be manslaughter?

Murder, means you have to have wanted to kill doesn't it?

Likewise RA... I can't get my head around it if
their motive was to gain better or bigger housing.
Why not flood the place? less danger and same
result.

i read in the mirror that the dad -- mick -- was due at court that day in a custody battle with the ex --- if the fire was started from the inside and they wanted a new home -- why not do it in the day time --- say take the kids out for the day ---- cant get my head around it

pennylane wrote:

Roasted Arizona wrote:I can't get my head around why they have been charged with murder. If the fire was started with the aim of getting a new bigger house, then surely the charge would be manslaughter. My other thought was that maybe they tried to blame the ex mistress, as there was a court case for custody of the children the next day. They were maybe hoping she'd get charged with arson, they'd get all the kids, with a bigger house as well. But if this was their reasoning, then surely the charge would still be manslaughter?

Murder, means you have to have wanted to kill doesn't it?

Certainly "premeditated" murder means you wanted to kill. But I would think "murder" can have other lethal elements that are of a more serious nature than "manslaughter"... without death being the intended outcome.

For example if a person put the date rape drug in someone's drink, and that person died as a result of vomiting whilst unconscious, it seems to me that would not be considered manslaughter, but rather murder? Similarly arson with all those kids in the house; or drugging a child to go out with friends and that child broke his/her neck whilst under the influence...... seems that these would all be considered far more serious crimes than manslaughter???

For a conviction for murder, the prosecution has to prove intent. Intent not being identical with premeditation but rather the state of mind of the person or persons at the time of committing the act. In other words a person can kill another person and if at the time they did it they fully intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and provided that they were sane at the time and that the killing is not justified (e.g. self defence), then it is murder.

Intent
For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent

T4two wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Roasted Arizona wrote:I can't get my head around why they have been charged with murder. If the fire was started with the aim of getting a new bigger house, then surely the charge would be manslaughter. My other thought was that maybe they tried to blame the ex mistress, as there was a court case for custody of the children the next day. They were maybe hoping she'd get charged with arson, they'd get all the kids, with a bigger house as well. But if this was their reasoning, then surely the charge would still be manslaughter?

Murder, means you have to have wanted to kill doesn't it?

Certainly "premeditated" murder means you wanted to kill. But I would think "murder" can have other lethal elements that are of a more serious nature than "manslaughter"... without death being the intended outcome.

For example if a person put the date rape drug in someone's drink, and that person died as a result of vomiting whilst unconscious, it seems to me that would not be considered manslaughter, but rather murder? Similarly arson with all those kids in the house; or drugging a child to go out with friends and that child broke his/her neck whilst under the influence...... seems that these would all be considered far more serious crimes than manslaughter???

For a conviction for murder, the prosecution has to prove intent. Intent not being identical with premeditation but rather the state of mind of the person or persons at the time of committing the act. In other words a person can kill another person and if at the time they did it they fully intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and provided that they were sane at the time and that the killing is not justified (e.g. self defence), then it is murder.

Intent
For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent

Thanks T4two, that makes it much clearer xx.

I get confused between UK and US laws where they have first and second degree murder, and several types of manslaughter, of which it can vary greatly from state to state what exactly these crimes encompass.

pennylane wrote:

T4two wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Roasted Arizona wrote:I can't get my head around why they have been charged with murder. If the fire was started with the aim of getting a new bigger house, then surely the charge would be manslaughter. My other thought was that maybe they tried to blame the ex mistress, as there was a court case for custody of the children the next day. They were maybe hoping she'd get charged with arson, they'd get all the kids, with a bigger house as well. But if this was their reasoning, then surely the charge would still be manslaughter?

Murder, means you have to have wanted to kill doesn't it?

Certainly "premeditated" murder means you wanted to kill. But I would think "murder" can have other lethal elements that are of a more serious nature than "manslaughter"... without death being the intended outcome.

For example if a person put the date rape drug in someone's drink, and that person died as a result of vomiting whilst unconscious, it seems to me that would not be considered manslaughter, but rather murder? Similarly arson with all those kids in the house; or drugging a child to go out with friends and that child broke his/her neck whilst under the influence...... seems that these would all be considered far more serious crimes than manslaughter???

For a conviction for murder, the prosecution has to prove intent. Intent not being identical with premeditation but rather the state of mind of the person or persons at the time of committing the act. In other words a person can kill another person and if at the time they did it they fully intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and provided that they were sane at the time and that the killing is not justified (e.g. self defence), then it is murder.

Intent
For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent

Thanks T4two, that makes it much clearer xx.

I get confused between UK and US laws where they have first and second degree murder, and several types of manslaughter, of which it can vary greatly from state to state what exactly these crimes encompass.

There is also the offence of constructive manslaughter ie causing death by or as a consequence of the carrying out of a criminal act and requires no intent to cause the death.

cass wrote:i read in the mirror that the dad -- mick -- was due at court that day in a custody battle with the ex --- if the fire was started from the inside and they wanted a new home -- why not do it in the day time --- say take the kids out for the day ---- cant get my head around it

You know what, I really am starting to believe now that whether those kids lived or died did not matter. This was done for monetary reasons - doing it whilst the kids are out for the day, just losing your council house, knowing the council can re-house you, would not gain any public sympathy.

As for a flooded house well that can be repaired over time and may not necessarily mean they would automatically get moved to a larger house elsewhere, just a temporary accommodation whilst the flooded house gets fixed.

To gain the most public sympathy, your kids either have to be abducted, badly injured or even die, so long as its not your fault. And if you can lay the blame at someone else's door, even better, especially if you have old scores to settle with someone, but any old scapegoat will do otherwise.

And then the money comes rolling in by the bucket full.

If the McCanns had found Madeleine within hours, that would not equal money, so it has to be more final than that in order to carry on and on and on and so on.

Same for the Philpotts, no kids in the house equals quite simply just a switch to a new council house but no money going into the bank account.

All in my humble opinion of course.

LJC wrote:

cass wrote:i read in the mirror that the dad -- mick -- was due at court that day in a custody battle with the ex --- if the fire was started from the inside and they wanted a new home -- why not do it in the day time --- say take the kids out for the day ---- cant get my head around it

You know what, I really am starting to believe now that whether those kids lived or died did not matter. This was done for monetary reasons - doing it whilst the kids are out for the day, just losing your council house, knowing the council can re-house you, would not gain any public sympathy.

As for a flooded house well that can be repaired over time and may not necessarily mean they would automatically get moved to a larger house elsewhere, just a temporary accommodation whilst the flooded house gets fixed.

To gain the most public sympathy, your kids either have to be abducted, badly injured or even die, so long as its not your fault. And if you can lay the blame at someone else's door, even better, especially if you have old scores to settle with someone, but any old scapegoat will do otherwise.

And then the money comes rolling in by the bucket full.

If the McCanns had found Madeleine within hours, that would not equal money, so it has to be more final than that in order to carry on and on and on and so on.

Same for the Philpotts, no kids in the house equals quite simply just a switch to a new council house but no money going into the bank account.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Your humble opinion sounds very plausible but that would make it premeditated murder - so not only intent at the time but planned in advance with the intent to murder them. In the Telegraph he was described as a father of 17. Initially I thought that 17 referred to his age until I saw a picture of him. So, the man has a total of 17 children. Does this mean that 6 more or less didn't really matter compared to the potential celeb status and financial gain that goes with it?

Look at the video I posted on the other thread. The man is quite plainly a control freak. He has a wife and a live-in girl friend, both half his age, and they have a dozen kids between them. He was even controlling what the women could say. He is a monster and I think he is quite capable of playing God with his kids' lives too.

Iris wrote:Look at the video I posted on the other thread. The man is quite plainly a control freak. He has a wife and a live-in girl friend, both half his age, and they have a dozen kids between them. He was even controlling what the women could say. He is a monster and I think he is quite capable of playing God with his kids' lives too.

I agree. He looks like an abusive, aggressive, stupid, macho scumbag. She looks dumb as a rock and abused. I reckon they cooked up a vile and completely ridiculous plan to make money, get a bigger house and frame the mother of some of his other kids, with whom he was engaged in a custody battle. Both of them are too moronic to be aware of the consequences. Well they know now.

Still, sitting around doing nothing in a small space for the rest of their lives will hardly be new to them will it.

Loveday wrote:

Iris wrote:Look at the video I posted on the other thread. The man is quite plainly a control freak. He has a wife and a live-in girl friend, both half his age, and they have a dozen kids between them. He was even controlling what the women could say. He is a monster and I think he is quite capable of playing God with his kids' lives too.

I agree. He looks like an abusive, aggressive, stupid, macho scumbag. She looks dumb as a rock and abused. I reckon they cooked up a vile and completely ridiculous plan to make money, get a bigger house and frame the mother of some of his other kids, with whom he was engaged in a custody battle. Both of them are too moronic to be aware of the consequences. Well they know now.

Still, sitting around doing nothing in a small space for the rest of their lives will hardly be new to them will it.

You sum up my feelings and opinion too, Loveday.

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

I understand funeral of 6 Philpott children who died in a Derby house fire will not take place at Derby cathedral as originally planned
Expand Collapse

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite

chrissie wrote:Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

I understand funeral of 6 Philpott children who died in a Derby house fire will not take place at Derby cathedral as originally planned
Expand Collapse

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite

I think that's a real pity.

AnnaEsse wrote:

chrissie wrote:Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

I understand funeral of 6 Philpott children who died in a Derby house fire will not take place at Derby cathedral as originally planned
Expand Collapse

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite

I think that's a real pity.

So do I. They were only kids, they couldn't help what happened to them and they couldn't help having scumbag "parents".

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

chrissie wrote:Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

I understand funeral of 6 Philpott children who died in a Derby house fire will not take place at Derby cathedral as originally planned
Expand Collapse

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite

I think that's a real pity.

So do I. They were only kids, they couldn't help what happened to them and they couldn't help having scumbag "parents".

I think it would be good to honour those children with a service at the cathedral.

I agree it is sad. They should have the funeral as planned. IIRC, people have contributed towards the funeral and I'm sure they would want it to go ahead. It's not the poor childrens fault.

According to this BBC report the use of Derby Cathedral has not been ruled out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18413776

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9328830/Derby-house-fire-parents-will-not-be-at-childrens-funerals.html

From the article:

Father Burbidge said: "We have had confirmation this morning that the parents of the six children will not be attending the funeral which will take place at St Mary’s Catholic Church at 11am on June 22.

"The family have chosen that church as a venue because they are Catholic children and they wanted a full requiem mass in a Catholic church."

Over £14,000 has been raised by volunteers who set up a fund to pay for the funeral and burials, and organisers said today they had reached their target to cover the costs.

Each of the children will be brought to the service in a horse-drawn hearse before being taken to a private burial at Nottingham Road Cemetery.

awww glad they are getting a propper funeral--- poor babies

There has been a third arrest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18521989#TWEET162288

20 June 2012 Last updated at 12:34
Share this page

* Email
* Print

Share this page
34

* Share
* Facebook
* Twitter

Third arrest over Derby fire deaths

A 45-year-old man has been arrested in Derby in connection with a fire that killed six children from the same family.

Jade Philpott, 10, and brothers John, nine, Jack, eight, Jessie, six and Jayden, five, died in the blaze and Duwayne, 13, died three days later.

Their parents Mick Philpott, 55, and Mairead, 31, have been charged with their murder.

Derbyshire Police said forensic officers were at an address in Derby.

The funerals for the children will take place at St Mary's Catholic Church on Friday. Mr and Mrs Philpott are not due to attend the funeral service.

The start date for the trial has been set for January 14th - that's fairly quick as delays of over a year are more usual.

http://news.uk.msn.com/blaze-parents-face-trial-next-year-1

I know that photos can be very deceptive but it does seem to me that, in this one, Mick is trying not to laugh.

Interesting news about a third arrest.

Funeral is at 11am today, RIP. Thoughts are with the family.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16251210

The funerals of six children who died as a result of a blaze at their home are to take place this morning.

The coffins of the Philpott chidren – Duwayne, 13, Jade, 10, John, nine, Jack, seven, Jessie, six, and five-year-old Jayden - will be brought to St Mary's Roman Catholic Church in Derby on six horse-drawn hearses.

Their parents, Mick Philpott, 55, and his wife Mairead, 31, are charged with murder and have been remanded in custody.

Derbyshire Police have said the couple will not be attending the funerals.

The eldest of Mick Philpott's 17 children have been at the forefront of planning the service after local people raised more than £13,000 to pay for the funerals.

Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead are charged with murder

A death notice placed in the Derby Telegraph by family members paid tribute to the youngsters.

It said: "They all touched the hearts of so many.

"Wonderful brothers and a beautiful special sister of David, Richard, Michaela, Mikey, Aiden, Jordon, Shareen, Katrina, Kirk, Yawrey and Josh.

"Much loved and precious grandchildren of Peggy and the late John Philpott and Jimmy and Vera Duffy.

"Sadly missed by uncles, aunts and families.

"They will be so greatly missed by us all. Please wear bright-coloured clothes only."

The youngest children perished in the fire at their house on Victory Road, Allenton, in the early hours of May 11 after suffering smoke inhalation. Duwayne died two days later at Birmingham Children's Hospital.

The funerals are due to take place at 11am after the cortege has passed through Allenton.

Father Alan Burbidge, who has known the family since baptising Duwayne 12 years ago, will conduct a full requiem mass.

As well as bible readings, prayers and hymns, the children's two head teachers and other members of staff were expected to pay tribute to the youngsters, and fellow pupils from their schools will also be attending.

Following the service the children will be buried at Chaddesden's Nottingham Road Cemetery.

On Wednesday, a 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with the deaths. He was released on police bail after questioning by detectives.

Shortly after the fire, police arrested a 38-year-old man and a 28-year-old woman who were released without charge the following day.
Recommended Stories

Tributes from the family here:

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-06-21/derby-house-fire-funerals/

chrissie wrote:Tributes from the family here:

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-06-21/derby-house-fire-funerals/

What lovely tributes.