https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for
GBH was clearly there
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for
GBH was clearly there
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for
GBH was clearly there
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said
Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service. >>
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for
GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely
when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by
the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground.
He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support
a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said >>> Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service. >>>
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for >>> GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely
when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by
the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground.
He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support
a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
Doesn't the "thin skull principle" (IIRC) apply?
On 2026-02-17, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said >>>> Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service. >>>>
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for >>>> GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely
when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by
the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground.
He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support
a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
Doesn't the "thin skull principle" (IIRC) apply?
Eggshell skull rule. And sort of - they have, after all, been found
guilty of causing his death even though they presumably did not intend
to kill him. But murder requires intent, and the eggshell skull rule
doesn't invent intent, it just makes you liable for the consequences
of your actions even if you didn't know those consequences were likely.
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on
someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," said >>>>> Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent for >>>>> GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely
when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by
the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground.
He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support
a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
Doesn't the "thin skull principle" (IIRC) apply?
Eggshell skull rule. And sort of - they have, after all, been found
Well, at least I was close enough for you figure out what I meant ---
thanks for the correction.
guilty of causing his death even though they presumably did not intend
to kill him. But murder requires intent, and the eggshell skull rule
doesn't invent intent, it just makes you liable for the consequences
of your actions even if you didn't know those consequences were likely.
Well, sort of. They did intend to injure him.
On 2026-02-19, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on >>>>>> someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," >>>>>> said Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown
Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent >>>>>> for GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely
when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by
the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground.
He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support
a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
Doesn't the "thin skull principle" (IIRC) apply?
Eggshell skull rule. And sort of - they have, after all, been found
Well, at least I was close enough for you figure out what I meant ---
thanks for the correction.
guilty of causing his death even though they presumably did not intend
to kill him. But murder requires intent, and the eggshell skull rule
doesn't invent intent, it just makes you liable for the consequences
of your actions even if you didn't know those consequences were
likely.
Well, sort of. They did intend to injure him.
Sorry, I don't understand what bit you're disagreeing with. "Intent to injure" is not enough for murder, eggshell skull or no.
It is enough for manslaughter though.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:14:44 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-19, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-16, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lr91enp9po
"This was a carefully pre-planned deliberate and violent attack on >>>>>>> someone who was not expecting it and who could not defend himself," >>>>>>> said Natalie Smith, senior crown prosecutor from the Crown
Prosecution Service.
Given the above, what condition for murder was not met ? The intent >>>>>>> for GBH was clearly there
I think it can only be that the jury thought the intent to cause
grievous bodily harm was *not* there. This doesn't seem so unlikely >>>>>> when you consider that the pathologist said that he died of heart
disease rather than the assault per se, and many of the injuries,
including the broken ribs and abrasions, could have been caused by >>>>>> the victim being given CPR after the assault while on rocky ground. >>>>>> He concluded "the overall extent of injuries do not readily support >>>>>> a significant assault".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e12rzz779o
Doesn't the "thin skull principle" (IIRC) apply?
Eggshell skull rule. And sort of - they have, after all, been found
Well, at least I was close enough for you figure out what I meant ---
thanks for the correction.
guilty of causing his death even though they presumably did not intend >>>> to kill him. But murder requires intent, and the eggshell skull rule
doesn't invent intent, it just makes you liable for the consequences
of your actions even if you didn't know those consequences were
likely.
Well, sort of. They did intend to injure him.
Sorry, I don't understand what bit you're disagreeing with. "Intent to
injure" is not enough for murder, eggshell skull or no.
It is enough for manslaughter though.
If someone dies as a result of an injury where the intent to cause GBH,
they can be tried for murder - or so I always understood.
So I presume that the intent of GBH either was not met or could not be
shown ?
That is a question not a statement.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:13:15 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |