llamatron Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I think any defence would struggle claiming it was manslaughter given the reckless nature of the offence (pouring petrol through the letterbox) and the knowledge that people were inside the property at the time. I guess what I am saying is that the CPS do not seem to think it was an insurance scam gone wrong because that would be manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Hmm, so on the basis of an arrest the 28 and 38 year old couple previously arrested must also be guilty? Must be good business for grinders honing pitchforks today. No BF don't twist my words, I was making the point that they did not seem convincing in their TV grief, how many times have we seen it & then it turns out to be the grief stricken people. I mentioned NOTHING else & made no other parallels, you decided to do that old bean, could you do something like that then turn on the "crocodile tears". Don't forget the 1st couple will have been picked up on evidence probably supplied or corroborated by the couple now arrested. It's called deflecting suspicion and no I don't own a pitchfork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjoker Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-18250397 Officers said a 55-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman were arrested on Tuesday and were due to be questioned How strange that the people arrested are the same age as the parents.... Others have also been arrested before regarding this case, and have been released without charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 On a serious note,it would be appreciated if we didn't speculate as to reasons for the crime. Threads merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 good job none of the SF regulars will be asked to be jurors in the trial should it come to that! prejudged and hung already lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 good job none of the SF regulars will be asked to be jurors in the trial should it come to that! prejudged and hung already lol In all fairness, the SF regulars blame both this couple and Madeleine McCann's parents for the death / disappearances of their respective children, so I don't think we can judge this couple guilty based solely on their economic background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodStar Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 good job none of the SF regulars will be asked to be jurors in the trial should it come to that! prejudged and hung already lol If it looks like a duck..and quacks like a duck.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I guess what I am saying is that the CPS do not seem to think it was an insurance scam gone wrong because that would be manslaughter. As far as Im aware, no ones been charged with any offence, murder or manslaughter. In writing up the charge the CPS would consider the appropriate offence at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No BF don't twist my words, I was making the point that they did not seem convincing in their TV grief, how many times have we seen it & then it turns out to be the grief stricken people. Apologises if you think I twisted your words, but you seemed to be arriving at a conclusion based on their demeanour. For what it's worth I didn't think they were particularly convincing either but it's dangerous territory to cover when speculating on their involvement because of it. There are many relatives, friends and associates of murder victims who've behaved 'oddly' during press conferences who were entirely blameless, but I guess we only remember those who are found guilty of involvement. I mentioned NOTHING else & made no other parallels, you decided to do that old bean, could you do something like that then turn on the "crocodile tears". I was really referring to this part of your post, which seems to suggest you believe they're guilty: I wondered if they were involved, still I hope to god I'm wrong, but we'll see, looks like I could be right though. Don't forget the 1st couple will have been picked up on evidence probably supplied or corroborated by the couple now arrested. It's called deflecting suspicion ..and the parents could have been arrested for similarly spurious reasons, we just don't know until they're charged, tried and convicted, so it's pointless speculating really. and no I don't own a pitchfork. ..sorry I meant a rake https://7chan.org/tg/src/132725947479.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I guess what I am saying is that the CPS do not seem to think it was an insurance scam gone wrong because that would be manslaughter. The CPS don't think anything - the couple have only been arrested, not charged. Arrest "on suspicion of murder" is fairly normal practice when somebody died, and it doesn't necessarily mean that a murder charge is the likely outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.