MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Really? None of the news I've seen has said that. In fact the only place I've seen anything like that is on the front page of the Daily Mail. Everywhere else seems to be reporting that he set fire to his house to try and frame his ex lover who had left him and given his history of being abusive, controlling and attempting to murder a previous girlfriend who had left him it seems the most likely explanation doesn't it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21875816 He started the fire in a bid to frame her for the crime and win custody of the children - and perhaps obtain a bigger house - the prosecution argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21875816 He started the fire in a bid to frame her for the crime and win custody of the children - and perhaps obtain a bigger house - the prosecution argued. And perhaps? An unsubstantiated claim by the prosecution becomes a pretty central event!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I may be wrong but it wouldn't surprise me if he died in prison. All that anger and rage! in a person is bound to have consequences on health.I hear that he shed tears in court,another example of an attempt to gain sympathy.If those tears were real they were a sign of self pity even now as before he still sees himself as a victim of injustice. I think you're right. I'd be surprised if he survives two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21875816 He started the fire in a bid to frame her for the crime and win custody of the children - and perhaps obtain a bigger house - the prosecution argued. What if he did it just to get back custody of his kids? The prosecution have to come up with a motive but what if it was just to get his kids back? Just because the prosecution says it doesn't mean that it is 100% correct. All in all a very tragic case...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 And perhaps? An unsubstantiated claim by the prosecution becomes a pretty central event!? Don't shoot the messenger, you thought the claim was DM claptrap; I just posted the link that says it isn't. ---------- Post added 04-04-2013 at 21:35 ---------- What if he did it just to get back custody of his kids? The prosecution have to come up with a motive but what if it was just to get his kids back? Just because the prosecution says it doesn't mean that it is 100% correct. All in all a very tragic case...... You are correct, but it does prove the DM didn't make it up as was claimed, they just reported the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 No- just part of the facts (assuming accuracy for at least that part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 No- just part of the facts (assuming accuracy for at least that part). Good point. Facts are punctuated with "stuff"..which are read as facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Good point. Facts are punctuated with "stuff"..which are read as facts. Try this, with any newspaper. Read a medium length article. Then, armed with a red pen, re-read it and delete all 'non-fact' comments. You'll be surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Try this, with any newspaper. Read a medium length article. Then, armed with a red pen, re-read it and delete all 'non-fact' comments. You'll be surprised! You mean like... Mick..the benefit system was the reason for my downfall..Phillpot, receives sentence..fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 And perhaps? An unsubstantiated claim by the prosecution becomes a pretty central event!? It wasn't an unsubstantiated claim it was an allegation made under caution to all parties, the allegation was supported by witness statements. He did also blame his ex - because she had become his ex and he wasn't happy. His ex and her partner were interviewed immediately following Mr Philpotts accusations and then released. The police suspected that by getting her nicked he'd try to automatically get custody of his kids. This was the ex he shared a bed with on alternate nights to his wife right up to her leaving him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.