Those Firebombs...

[Dubversion]

I used to shop in the Oval store almost every day. The guys in there were lovely - i suspect i still owe them a quid or so in 'credit'. Can't believe they'd be a target for a firebomb.

any indication why it happened? :(

[Tank Girl]

the mirror is saying that the police reckon all the firebombed shops have been done by the same bloke, targetting asian shops (though not by religion).

[gaijingirl]

Lot's of info here (http://www.alicewood.co.uk/gallery/gallery3-5.jpg)...

They reckon racist attacks. :(

There's a link to the BBC story on there with video footage too (now updated on the BBC website warning Asian shopkeepers to make sure they have an escape route from their businesses). Very sad business... :(

[Tank Girl]

gaijingirl, your link goes to the knitted cake you posted up for wiskey's birthday :o

[Dubversion]

not appropriate but :D

[citydreams]

The Guardian led with this on the front page. It reports that enquiries have turned to the alleged (?)Birmingham gang rape last year. I hope this is just to look for useful tips on how to lead an investigation.

[gaijingirl]

gaijingirl, your link goes to the knitted cake you posted up for wiskey's birthday :o


ooops! How did that happen? :o

I meant http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=158563...

soz!!

[London_Calling]

I heard a terribly nice BBC newsreader term the person responsible a 'bomber', which sounds to me like he's an aircraft of WW2 vintage.

I wondered why he wasn't an arsonist ?

[lostexpectation]

not that I wish to spread rumours but there must be local gossip about who this is??

[paolo999]

Because they're (petrol) bombs.

If you lobbed a bomb through a glass window say, you wouldn't call it "vandalism" would you?

[paolo999]

not that I wish to spread rumours but there must be local gossip about who this is??

If the e-Fit is any good then it can only be a matter of time. With the non average body of 5' 8" + barrel chest, he sounds reasonably distinctive. The fact that some innocent person died will also mean that people who might not normally speak up will be more inclined to do so.

[editor]

gaijingirl, your link goes to the knitted cake you posted up for wiskey's birthday :o
<editor races off to examine link and is suitably impressed by its cakeness>

Back on topic, let's hope they get this scrotum in double quick time.

[Dubversion]

i found myself wondering about the hand of the far right in all this, pre-election, wouldn't take much to find some nutjob who hates asians enough to act on behalf of the right, even if he's black himself, and cause even more interracial tension.

i'm probably paranoid but..

[London_Calling]

Because they're (petrol) bombs.

If you lobbed a bomb through a glass window say, you wouldn't call it "vandalism" would you?
I think I'll stick with the definitions in the Criminal Code, rather than sensationalist headlines - s/he's an arsonist, to me.

Fwiw, I'm happier with that terminology because (as best I know) it appears the direct intention here is to destroy property, not kill.

[paolo999]

I think I'll stick with the definitions in the Criminal Code, rather than sensationalist headlines - s/he's an arsonist, to me.

Fwiw, I'm happier with that terminology because (as best I know) it appears the direct intention here is to destroy property, not kill.

So you think he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter? :eek:

[detective-boy]

I think I'll stick with the definitions in the Criminal Code, rather than sensationalist headlines - s/he's an arsonist, to me.
Well you'd probably be a bit wrong then.

In the UK we do not have a "Criminal Code". We have a variety of Acts of Parliament which create offences. One is called the Explosive Substances Act 1883. Under s.2 of that Act it is an offence to cause, by using any explosive substance, an explosion likely to endanger life or property.

And a petrol bomb would be included in that.

When he is caught he is likely to be charged with this offence and murder. He may be charged with causing criminal damage with intent to endanger life by the use of fire (ss1(2) and 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - arson) as well or instead of the other charges, but it wouldn't be the charge of first choice.

[paolo999]

Quality knowledge, as ever db.

[Stobart Stopper]

Someone has been arrested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4964320.stm

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Someone has been arrested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4964320.stm



Good. Hope they've got the right guy

[Dan U]

Good. Hope they've got the right guy

they'd have to go some to nick the wrong person after such a strange photo-fit!

good news if its him.

[waverunner]

they'd have to go some to nick the wrong person after such a strange photo-fit!

good news if its him.
:D I really want to see a proper picture of this guys face... can't believe he really looks like that...

[trashpony]

:D I really want to see a proper picture of this guys face... can't believe he really looks like that...

That is the worst photofit I've ever seen. Someone yesterday suggested that he may give himself up just to prove he's not that ugly ...

[Iemanja]

That is the worst photofit I've ever seen. Someone yesterday suggested that he may give himself up just to prove he's not that ugly ...

It was onenameshelley! Who was on top form yesterday! :D

[trashpony]

It was onenameshelley! Who was on top form yesterday! :D

Aha - I suspected it may have been her but didn't like to attribute in case someone else claimed it. :D

Shells - as ever :cool: and funny as fuck

[cemertyone]

That is the worst photofit I've ever seen. Someone yesterday suggested that he may give himself up just to prove he's not that ugly ...

LOL>>>>:rolleyes: :cool: :D ;)

[London_Calling]

In the UK we do not have a "Criminal Code". We have a variety of Acts of Parliament which create offences. One is called the Explosive Substances Act 1883. Under s.2 of that Act it is an offence to cause, by using any explosive substance, an explosion likely to endanger life or property.

And a petrol bomb would be included in that.

When he is caught he is likely to be charged with this offence and murder. He may be charged with causing criminal damage with intent to endanger life by the use of fire (ss1(2) and 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - arson) as well or instead of the other charges, but it wouldn't be the charge of first choice.
Good stuff and thanks for the correction.

Only issue I now have is actually more a point of interest. According to the CPS (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_a.html)

Proof of an Explosion

Sections 28 or 29 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Section 2 Explosive Substances Act 1883 require proof that an explosion has actually occurred. Evidence of an explosion must be distinguished from evidence of some other form of reaction, such as an act of combustion. Particular care should be taken with regard to incidents involving petrol bombs in this context, as they may either explode or combust. It is also necessary to distinguish incendiary devices that are designed to cause fire (Arson/Criminal damage offences), not to explode.

Positive proof that an explosion, as opposed to an act of combustion, occurred will require expert evidence. Expert evidence will also be required whenever the manufacture, possession or use of any explosive substance is alleged in order to fully identify the articles in question.

[Dan U]

:D I really want to see a proper picture of this guys face... can't believe he really looks like that...

i know, its class isn't it!

might have worked though!

[detective-boy]

Evidence of an explosion must be distinguished from evidence of some other form of reaction, such as an act of combustion. Particular care should be taken with regard to incidents involving petrol bombs in this context, as they may either explode or combust.
Indeed they might! And I would think that you could quite easily end up with a case with two experts each giving a contrary opinion - "It was quite clearly an explosion" ... "No, no, it just burst into flames" ... :rolleyes:

The descripiton I have seen of at least one of the fires (the fatal one I think) sounded like a petrol vapour flash / explosion and, if I were the SIO, that is where I would be headed - I think the distinction would be whether or not the bottle broke / split, causing the whole contents to ignite or whether it did not, and the lighted wick and leaking petrol just set fire to things.

Fortunately I think in this case it'll be pretty academic - murder, manslaughter, arson with intent to endanger life and causing an explosion likely to endanger life/property all have a maximum penalty of Life imprisonment.

[waverunner]

Just heard that the other guy from the PriceCutters has died in hospital :(

[trashpony]

Just heard that the other guy from the PriceCutters has died in hospital :(

Bollocks :(

[KeyboardJockey]

If the e-Fit is any good then it can only be a matter of time. With the non average body of 5' 8" + barrel chest, he sounds reasonably distinctive. The fact that some innocent person died will also mean that people who might not normally speak up will be more inclined to do so.

This is what happened after a rather nasty racist murder in Canning Town about ten years ago. if it was just a beating the police would probably have never caught the perpetrators but it was a particularily nasty murder of an asian cab driver who was drowned in the Victoria Dock after a robbery.

All it took was one person to speak out and the scum were nicked even though it had horrendous consequences to the person who spoke out (she had to change name and move and could never ever come into Custom House / Canning Town again from what I heard).

[trashpony]

They've arrested someone already

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4964320.stm

[KeyboardJockey]

They've arrested someone already

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4964320.stm


Good.

[OpalFruit]

The yellow witness notices say 'Arson / Murder' - or possibly 'Murder / Arson'.

Very sad about the second victim.

[detective-boy]

The yellow witness notices say 'Arson / Murder' - or possibly 'Murder / Arson'.
There isn't room for an in-depth discussion of the legal niceties on the witness appeal boards. I think that sums it up sufficiently for the purpose of the boards.

[London_Calling]

:d

[ddraig]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4971326.stm

Man charged with firebomb murders

Two men died as a result of the fire
A man has been charged with murdering two people in an arson attack on their shop in south London.

Robert Torto, 32, of Stockwell Park Road, will appear in court on Thursday accused of double murder.

He will appear at Greenwich Magistrates' Court on Thursday.

good

[London_Calling]

So charged with Murder twice, plus three counts of Arson With Intent to Endanger Life.

Unless he admits a clear intention, my guess is it won't be too easy to satisfy the burden of proof re Murder.

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I'm half expecting it to be revealed that maybe this guy is care in the community or some such

Considering his looks and size and the fact that he committed these crimes pretty locally (Stockwell resident), how on earth did he think he was going to get away with it once his description was put out? :confused:

[detective-boy]

Unless he admits a clear intention, my guess is it won't be too easy to satisfy the burden of proof re Murder.
Regardless of any admissions, I would be extremely hopeful of convincing a jury of an intention to kill OR cause serious bodily harm (GBH level) (the required intent for murder) simply on the basis of his actions - throwing a lighted petrol bomb into a shop, especially if they are convinced of him having done the previous two attacks and, hence, having seen what the outcome of his action was (i.e. instant serious fire, trapped people, etc).

If there is a problem with a murder conviction in this case, I would suspect it to revolve around his mental state. It would not surprise me if we ended up with an offer of a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Whether or not that is accepted will depend on the opinion of prosecution psychiatrists.

Whatever happens, if he is convicted of committing the attacks, he will either be imprisoned for life or made subject of a secure hospital order, probably without limit of time.

[paolo999]

and db - on the subject of murder and intent, isn't it also sufficient that one could "reasonably expect" the outcome?

[London_Calling]

Don't really read it that way, DB, but neither of us have the facts.

With the very little we do know, it seems both men died because they didn't/couldn't leave the shop through the rear. We can guess as to why that was, but we don't know.

Unless someone can prove, or get the defendent to admit, he knew there was no rear exit, I feel establishing 'intention' may prove difficult as the Defendent can claim he believed an escape route existed.

[detective-boy]

and db - on the subject of murder and intent, isn't it also sufficient that one could "reasonably expect" the outcome?
Murder is a crime of specific intent - there must be an intent to kill or to cause really serious harm. In the absence of any admission (which would be the obvious way to find out what was happening inside someone's head) then the actual acts and whether or not they would have reasonably foreseen that the acts would cause harm would go some way to convincing a jury of the intent but, on it's own a reasonable expectation would not normally be enough. Reportedly there were some words shouted as he threw the petrol bomb into at least one of the shops which, I suspect, would be useful in helping to prove intent (I won't repeat them here as the case is now sub judice)

(The difference between a crime of specific intent like murder and many other crimes is that there is no "reckless" way of committing it. If all the prosecution could prove was some form of recklessness as to whether death or serious injury occured then manslaughter would be the outcome.)

[paolo999]

Murder is a crime of specific intent - there must be an intent to kill or to cause really serious harm. In the absence of any admission (which would be the obvious way to find out what was happening inside someone's head) then the actual acts and whether or not they would have reasonably foreseen that the acts would cause harm would go some way to convincing a jury of the intent but, on it's own a reasonable expectation would not normally be enough. Reportedly there were some words shouted as he threw the petrol bomb into at least one of the shops which, I suspect, would be useful in helping to prove intent (I won't repeat them here as the case is now sub judice)

(The difference between a crime of specific intent like murder and many other crimes is that there is no "reckless" way of committing it. If all the prosecution could prove was some form of recklessness as to whether death or serious injury occured then manslaughter would be the outcome.)

Ah ok - thanks for explaining.

[detective-boy]

Unless someone can prove, or get the defendent to admit, he knew there was no rear exit, I feel establishing 'intention' may prove difficult as the Defendent can claim he believed an escape route existed.
If you threw a petrol bomb into a shop containing people then I would hope that you would have to go a very long way to convince any jury that you did not at least intend to cause some of them serious harm (serious burns would suffice).

The existence or lack of any escape route is irrelevant as the petrol bomb has an instant, flash effect. It would be far more of an issue if, for instance, someone wandered in and used a lighter to set fire to the display of newspapers hanging on the door which would have a far slower effect.

[London_Calling]

We'll have to agree to differ DB.