Philpotts

Loveday wrote:To be honest they really don't seem the brightest people. I suspect she, in particular, is mentally retarded, even if it has never been officially diagnosed. My money is on her being the perpetrator because she wasn't bright enough to foresee the potential consequences. Those children never stood a chance. He's awful. Borderline feral.

I agree, from what I've seen of them they are not the brightest tools in the box, possibly borderline learning disability.
I imagine that as they wanted a new and bigger house they thought they would pretend someone set fire to t.. eir house to get moved...
However, they did not forsee how quickly everything would go up. I think they should get charged with manslaughter if anything, whatever sentence they get from a murder charge is never going to change their thoughts every day about the children they killed whilst thinking they were clever.
I don't really think charging them is in the public interest to be honest, who is going to look after all those other children?

I feel sorry for the whole family.

Justiceforallkids wrote:

margaret wrote:I've made almost 3000 posts and have been attacked today for ONE word.

Thanks all, really appreciated......

oh sweetie im not attacking you noone is we were just pointing out theres better words

I'm just throwing my toys out of the pram, I'll get over it. Point taken.

Thanks loveday.

margaret wrote:I've made almost 3000 posts and have been attacked today for ONE word.

Thanks all, really appreciated......

Margaret, apologies if you felt I was attacking you. That was not my intention at all. I was just saying that I don't like the word.

It has been reported that the Philpotts desired
a bigger house to cater for their growing family.
It has also been said, that this simple request
for a bigger house may have instigated a plan
to 'fire' as a means to realising their housing need.
I'm finding it difficult to comprehend this in view
of having so many small children, why not flood
their home? less dangerous and would gain the
same result surely.

marxman wrote:It has been reported that the Philpotts desired
a bigger house to cater for their growing family.
It has also been said, that this simple request
for a bigger house may have instigated a plan
to 'fire' as a means to realising their housing need.
I'm finding it difficult to comprehend this in view
of having so many small children, why not flood
their home? less dangerous and would gain the
same result surely.

<

Yes. I was thinking about this today. If you wanted to burn down your house, why not leave a chip pan on and go out for the day ? There are many ways to set fire to a property without running the risk of killing your family. Although, perhaps the same public sympathy and discussions of heroism would not be there. Maybe saving the children was part of the plan in order to appeal more to the public ?

mossman wrote:

marxman wrote:It has been reported that the Philpotts desired
a bigger house to cater for their growing family.
It has also been said, that this simple request
for a bigger house may have instigated a plan
to 'fire' as a means to realising their housing need.
I'm finding it difficult to comprehend this in view
of having so many small children, why not flood
their home? less dangerous and would gain the
same result surely.

<

Yes. I was thinking about this today. If you wanted to burn down your house, why not leave a chip pan on and go out for the day ? There are many ways to set fire to a property without running the risk of killing your family. Although, perhaps the same public sympathy and discussions of heroism would not be there. Maybe saving the children was part of the plan in order to appeal more to the public ?

Yes maybe, but this is not sitting right with me.
I think they're innocent or just plain stupid.
but again, I maybe totally wrong

You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

kitti wrote:You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

I have to agree with you, kitti. they've been charged with murder for a reason imo.

They look to me like a couple of low life scum bags,i'm sick of paying tax to support useless human beings like these that serve no purpose other than making other peoples lives difficult.
Dont know for sure if they killed the kids but they look well capable of it.

Lioned wrote:They look to me like a couple of low life scum bags,i'm sick of paying tax to support useless human beings like these that serve no purpose other than making other peoples lives difficult.
Dont know for sure if they killed the kids but they look well capable of it.

My sentiments exactly Lioned.

AnnaEsse wrote:

AnnaEsse, there was a similar scenario when the neighbours of Karen Matthews, found out she'd faked Shannon's abduction. I think they would have lynched her, if they could have got hold of her.

wjk wrote:

kitti wrote:You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

I have to agree with you, kitti. they've been charged with murder for a reason imo.

The DPP/police do charge people hoping to
obtain a more serious conviction. They do
this whilst their investigation is ongoing
and while building a case towards that charge.
However, its the courts that decide if the
police have sufficient evidence to convict
for murder or manslaughter.
Philpotts, like them or loath them, they
are innocent until proven guilty.

marxman wrote:

wjk wrote:

kitti wrote:You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

I have to agree with you, kitti. they've been charged with murder for a reason imo.

The DPP/police do charge people hoping to
obtain a more serious conviction. They do
this whilst their investigation is ongoing
and while building a case towards that charge.
However, its the courts that decide if the
police have sufficient evidence to convict
for murder or manslaughter.
Philpotts, like them or loath them, they
are innocent until proven guilty.

I'm with you on this, marxman. Innocent people do get found guilty and sent to prison, as was seen recently when a young man was released after serving 7 years of a sentence for murder.

AnnaEsse wrote:

marxman wrote:

wjk wrote:

kitti wrote:You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

I have to agree with you, kitti. they've been charged with murder for a reason imo.

The DPP/police do charge people hoping to
obtain a more serious conviction. They do
this whilst their investigation is ongoing
and while building a case towards that charge.
However, its the courts that decide if the
police have sufficient evidence to convict
for murder or manslaughter.
Philpotts, like them or loath them, they
are innocent until proven guilty.

I'm with you on this, marxman. Innocent people do get found guilty and sent to prison, as was seen recently when a young man was released after serving 7 years of a sentence for murder.

Absolutely, and to prove 'intent' beyond any
shadow of doubt is the court's headache.
Its this intent that I believe will be the crux
of this case.The recent media melee does
not help.

marxman wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

marxman wrote:

wjk wrote:

kitti wrote:You don't charge someone with murder unless you have evidence to prove it.

I have to agree with you, kitti. they've been charged with murder for a reason imo.

The DPP/police do charge people hoping to
obtain a more serious conviction. They do
this whilst their investigation is ongoing
and while building a case towards that charge.
However, its the courts that decide if the
police have sufficient evidence to convict
for murder or manslaughter.
Philpotts, like them or loath them, they
are innocent until proven guilty.

I'm with you on this, marxman. Innocent people do get found guilty and sent to prison, as was seen recently when a young man was released after serving 7 years of a sentence for murder.

Absolutely, and to prove 'intent' beyond any
shadow of doubt is the court's headache.
Its this intent that I believe will be the crux
of this case.The recent media melee does
not help.

The recent melee has definitely not helped. And the constant use of the image of the Philpotts at the press conference creates an impression in the minds of the reading public of two people crying for the cameras, two people whom the media has already found guilty with how they are presenting the news. The newspapers are stirring up hatred. I think the Philpotts probably did set fire to the house, but not intentionally to kill the children. It's for the courts to decide if Mick and his wife are guilty of a crime, based on the evidence presented, not the newspapers and not vigilantes.

this is just myopinion imo but if they did this on purpose IMO they didnt mean it to go this far there is no exuse at all but imo THEY DIDNT DELIBRITLY set out to kill/hurt their kids imo if anything imo it is manslaughter

There was a fire investigator on the other night saying that they believed that the accelerant was spread from inside the house.
Have to say it doesn't look good

It's the crown prosecution service that decides if these enough evidence to proceed with a trial.



The police gather the evidence together in the hope that the CPS agree with the police .


Lets not forget , there are people walking around who the police feel are undoubtedly guilty but can't proceed with a trial because either the police or CPS won't proceed with a trial and waste money in case they are found not guilty and walk free.


The CPS like to be clear that these people are guilty on the evidence (enough evidence) and don't go to trial because the police know with gut feeling that they are guilty with the hope that the little evidence they have got will convict a guilty person.....jurors need evidence.

People are asking....why murder....the simple answer is.....the fire was started deliberately not by accident...if you do something by accident and someone dies, that's manslaughter but if you set out to do something and it's premeditated and someone dies, thats murder.


Apparently the petrol wasn't poured through the letterbox, I don't know who was in the house at the time, whether the children were in there alone but if they were then it could off been one off them playing with something but to be near the front door seems odd.


Obviously the police know more.

Iris wrote:There was a fire investigator on the other night saying that they believed that the accelerant was spread from inside the house.
Have to say it doesn't look good

yeah i heard petrol was inside the house i guess i just dont want to believe parents could kill6 kids on purpose im sure theres many who think the same its too horrible to comprohend

kitti wrote:People are asking....why murder....the simple answer is.....the fire was started deliberately not by accident...if you do something by accident and someone dies, that's manslaughter but if you set out to do something and it's premeditated and someone dies, thats murder.


Apparently the petrol wasn't poured through the letterbox, I don't know who was in the house at the time, whether the children were in there alone but if they were then it could off been one off them playing with something but to be near the front door seems odd.


Obviously the police know more.

yes and wasnt the fire in the early hours??

Mick Philpott reported the fire at 3am

gillyspot wrote:Mick Philpott reported the fire at 3am

exactly so you assume all the kids were sleeping so i doubt they would have been playing with petrol

kitti wrote:It's the crown prosecution service that decides if these enough evidence to proceed with a trial.



The police gather the evidence together in the hope that the CPS agree with the police .


Lets not forget , there are people walking around who the police feel are undoubtedly guilty but can't proceed with a trial because either the police or CPS won't proceed with a trial and waste money in case they are found not guilty and walk free.


The CPS like to be clear that these people are guilty on the evidence (enough evidence) and don't go to trial because the police know with gut feeling that they are guilty with the hope that the little evidence they have got will convict a guilty person.....jurors need evidence.

Yes. Excellent explanation. That is why we often hear the police comment that they are not pursuing any other avenues of inquiry, or perhaps in a Portuguese context the variation applies that the case has been archived and can only be re-opened if new evidence emerges.