Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Those Firebombs...

paolo999 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
OpalFruit said:
The yellow witness notices say 'Arson / Murder' - or possibly 'Murder / Arson'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
London_Calling said:
Unless he admits a clear intention, my guess is it won't be too easy to satisfy the burden of proof re Murder.
Click to expand...
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.
 
and db - on the subject of murder and intent, isn't it also sufficient that one could "reasonably expect" the outcome?
 
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.
 
paolo999 said:
and db - on the subject of murder and intent, isn't it also sufficient that one could "reasonably expect" the outcome?
Click to expand...
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.)
 
detective-boy said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Ah ok - thanks for explaining.
 
London_Calling said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
The Black Farmer declares his support for Reform
Replies
22
Views
1K
pbsmooth
P
Lee Japser
Who Owns Black Remembrance? The Battle for Windrush Square
Replies
6
Views
421
lang rabbie
lang rabbie
editor
Pope's Road, Brixton: the former railway station building/Brixton Furniture Stores discussion
Replies
21
Views
3K
editor
editor
Eric Jarvis
Who wants to replace the awful Jim Dickson as Councillor for Herne Hill
Replies
1
Views
888
CH1
CH1
editor
Police facial recognition operation in Brixton
2 3
Replies
87
Views
11K
Gramsci
Gramsci
Back
Top Bottom