Philpotts

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.

Spot on kitti. Great post

There's a difference between NO evidence and NOT ENOUGH evidence ...the pros for the mccanns jumped on the NO evidence bandwagon because there was no prosecution ....but we all know there was NOT ENOUGH evidence to proceed hence the archiving and not looking for anyone other than the mccanns.


They need corroborating evidence to go with the dogs as GM keeps drumming in to us and for some reason the lying doesn't seem enough evidence off a cover up.

kitti wrote:There's a difference between NO evidence and NOT ENOUGH evidence ...the pros for the mccanns jumped on the NO evidence bandwagon because there was no prosecution ....but we all know there was NOT ENOUGH evidence to proceed hence the archiving and not looking for anyone other than the mccanns.


They need corroborating evidence to go with the dogs as GM keeps drumming in to us and for some reason the lying doesn't seem enough evidence off a cover up.

Yes, this is a good point.

kitti wrote:There's a difference between NO evidence and NOT ENOUGH evidence ...the pros for the mccanns jumped on the NO evidence bandwagon because there was no prosecution ....but we all know there was NOT ENOUGH evidence to proceed hence the archiving and not looking for anyone other than the mccanns.


They need corroborating evidence to go with the dogs as GM keeps drumming in to us and for some reason the lying doesn't seem enough evidence off a cover up.

Indeed Kitti, plus can I add a third factor regarding
evidence? This being 'type' of evidence and is this
admissable in court?
Evidence such as phone/texts/e-mails and doggy
intel maybe available in abundance but depending
on various legal jurisdictions it maybe deemed as
'no evidence' but it sure as hell is!

They reminded me of the Mccanns when i saw the interview, when not a single shed of tears were spotted, just a lot of wiping the eyes with hankies and screwing their faces up. Right at the begining of the interview before they walked through the door, he was smiling then he lifted up his hankie, and pretended he was crying.

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.

One or both of them may well have poured petrol on the floor inside the house deliberately, but not with the intent of killing their children. The intent may have been to make it appear that someone wanted to kill them/their children. It may have been one of them who did this, with the intention of making it appear to the other that someone else was out to kill them/their children. The fact that their children died wouldn't make it a premeditated act of murder in my understanding of things. Mind you, don't the prosecution make the charge 'murder' sometimes, where they know the jury may decide in the end that it was manslaughter? or is it the case that if someone's tried for murder, the jury have to find them either guilty of murder or not guilty of murder, full stop? (ie, they can't introduce the charge of manslaughter).

With thanks to beachy on MCF.

" there is a case in UK law (R v. Moloney) in which it was held that the intent to kill required for a murder charge is met when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the act committed by the defendant. In my opinion, using an accelerant to start a fire in a house in which young children are sleeping, particularly one that would block one of the main escape routes, would be sufficient to meet this test."

A good summary imo, as to why it is a murder charge.

i cant believe for one minute the police would charge the Philpotts with murder if they didnt have damning evidence ...i mean thy have lost six children ...[what is going to happen about the burial]..could you imagine the backlash if they were not involved ...grieving for there children in a prison cell....how barbaric would that be

imo..they are of low intelligence ...so never thought about the consequences..what happened was not suppose to happen..so no back up plan.......

so did they think they were making it right by donating the eldest boys organs ...like he sad it made them feel better..... probably what the fairytale funeral was about ...

thankfully they couldnt afford top of the range lawyers ...

whereas the mccs did have intelligence ...they also hatched a back up planned first and foremost the top notch lawyers were brought into it..

but it beggars belief ..the same outcome ..how can you know you are responsible .....and all they think about is themselves ...save there own skins at all costs...and every thing in there power to get away with it...

to me they are not responsible for there actions it tells you they dont care....just hell bent getting out of it the best way they can...and at the end of there selfishness ...its the poor little children that have suffered...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fears-over-fire-childrens-funerals-113424244.html

We don't of course know if the Philpotts will be found guilty but is it usual for people accused of murder to be allowed to attend the victims' funerals?

Darshna Soni ‏@darshnasoni

I'm at Nottingham Crown Court for opening of trial against Mick & Mairead Philpott for the manslaughter of their 6 children in house fire.

The prosecution are saying that there was no intention to kill the children but it was a house fire that went horribly wrong. Mick wanted a house full of children and benefits. The fire was deliberately started with petrol in the hallway.

This seems to be what some of us thought before.

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

Mick's 999 call lasted 8 minutes. Jury being played it now

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

Mick philpott stands up in the dock crying he "doesn't want to listen to it"

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

Listening to screams on the 999 call. Mairead puts her hand to her face, crying, in the dock

Peter Lane ‏@peterlane5news

Court hearing Philpott's 999 call. Mick tried to leave dock, restrained by guards, shouted 'I can't listen to it'. @5_News

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

Mick philpott has his hands on his ears, leaning forward and looking down as the emergency call is played

At least they are alive to listen to the call......the children are dead....dead because Mick Philpott wanted a bigger house and benefits .....the very next day was suppose to be a hearing to see if he could get the other five children off his other lover.....he didn't work, both his lovers did.

Rupert Evelyn ‏@rupertevelyn

As fire raged Mick ran around screaming the kids were in the house in the back room. But, children were recovered from 3 rooms.


That sounds quite dodgy, poor children.

http://news.sky.com/story/1051082/derby-house-fire-childrens-parents-on-trial

A man accused of killing his six children in a house fire started the blaze as part of a "plan" to frame his ex-girlfriend after becoming locked in a custody battle with her, a court has heard.

Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead allegedly started the fire at their semi-detached home after telling police his former partner, Lisa Willis, had been threatening him and his family.

There were emotional scenes during their manslaughter trial at Nottingham Crown Court today as the 999 call made by the couple as the fire took hold was played to the jury.

Philpott stood and tried to leave the dock saying "I can't listen to it" before being made to sit down by security officers.

The court was told the family shared an unconventional lifestyle. Philpott, 56, his 31-year-old wife and Ms Willis, 28, all lived in the same house.

A total of 11 children also lived there. Six were those of Mick and Mairead Philpott, while four were his with Ms Willis. Another child was Ms Willis's by another man.

Mick and Mairead Philpott's children - Jade, 10, and her brothers John, nine, Jack, eight, Jesse, six, Jayden, five, and Duwayne, 13 - all died after the fire at their home in Victory Road, Allenton, Derby.

They were all asleep when the blaze engulfed the three-bedroomed property in the early hours of May 11 last year.

The couple, along with a third defendant, 46-year-old Paul Mosley, have all denied six separate counts of manslaughter in relation to the deaths.

Earlier prosecutor Richard Latham QC told the jury the fire was started on the day Ms Willis and Philpott were due in court to discuss the residency of the children.

She had left the house in Victory Road in February last year, taking her children with her, and had become embroiled in a bitter fight with Philpott.

He planned to frame her and eventually win his children back, and had made numerous reports to the police that she had threatened him, his wife and the children.

Mr Latham told the jury of six men and six women: "By May 1st Mick Philpott was reporting to the police that Lisa Willis had made telephone threats to kill him.

"The police visited him, he was at times highly emotional and made it clear that he wanted Lisa arrested. If she had been this would have assisted him in the court proceedings, wouldn't it?"

About a fortnight before the fire Philpott told friends he had an idea for a way of getting Lisa and the children back, Mr Latham said.

"He told people he had a plan up his sleeve and that she wasn't going to get away with it - watch this space."

Mr Latham told the jury the fire was no accident - it had been started using petrol in the hallway of the house.

Pointing out the Philpotts were not accused of murder, he said: "This was a plan that went horribly wrong and resulted in total tragedy."

The trial is expected to last six weeks.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROGRAMME ON MR PHILPOTT.
INCLUDES THE WOMAN HE STABBED 27 TIMES.