Can someone explain .....

[Gritt23]

.... how these two men can be guilty of "causing the death" of this poor little child, yet have somehow been found NOT GUILTY of murder or manslaughter?!?!

We have got some unbelievably sick people around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7706598.stm

Men found guilty of baby's death

Two men have been found guilty of causing the death of a 17-month-old boy in north London.

Jason Owen, 36, from Bromley, and a 32-year-old who cannot be named had denied killing the child who suffered a series of injuries, including a broken back.

The boy's 27-year-old mother had pleaded guilty to causing or allowing the death of the child, who was on the council's child protection register.

Both men have been found not guilty of the child's murder or manslaughter.

Numerous injuries

A court order prevents the identification of the baby's mother and her 32-year-old boyfriend who was found guilty at the Old Bailey on Tuesday.

Prosecutors claimed the boy was beaten during the last eight months of his life.


The boy suffered bruises, as this computer-generated image shows

A post-mortem examination revealed the baby had suffered numerous injuries including eight fractured ribs and extensive bruising.

He was seen 60 times by health or social workers during that period, being seen about twice a week.

The boy should have been protected by social workers, police and health professionals, the Old Bailey heard.

But his mother had been able to told them lies and even smeared him with chocolate to hide bruises.

In the 48 hours before the boy was found dead in his blood-spattered cot, a doctor failed to spot his broken spine.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

what a joke.

 

[clippedgull]

Let's hope they suffer a slow painful death behind bars.

The post mortem revealed Baby P had suffered:

• Eight broken ribs and a broken back, with another area of bleeding around the spine at neck level.

• Numerous bruises, cuts and abrasions, including a deep tear to his left ear lobe, which had been pulled away from his head.

• Severe lacerations to the top of his head, including a large gouge which could have been caused by a dog bite.

• Blackened finger- and toenails, with several nails missing; the middle finger of his right hand was without a nail and its tip was also missing, as if it had been sliced off.

• A tear to his fraenulum, the strip of skin between the middle of the upper lip and the gum, which had partially healed.

• One of his front teeth had also been knocked out and was found in his colon. He had swallowed it.

The jury was not shown photographs of the child's actual injuries because it would be too upsetting but was shown computer generated images of his injuries.

 

[CHAPPERS]

That actually makes me feel sick.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I really do not understand how an adult can do that to a child.

I hope that they suffer all of the pain that they inflicted on that child. Scum

 

[dannyboy]

its one thing i just cant understand. how can someone hurt a child?
get into a fight with someone your own age , fine but a defenceless, innocent child? i really dont get it. on top of the one the other day where the bloke broke the childs spine by snapping it over his knee. i dont really agree with the death penalty as a rule but these people should have some serious damage done to them. my daughter is 18 months old and these sort of things i find really upsetting. lets hope they get their come uppance in this life or the next.

 

[Skint Gull]

I'm pretty much lost for words. I just hope all 3 of them get put in regular prisons with regular nutjobs who make their lives as unbearable as possible for ever. Throw away the key

 

[Elder for England]

I can't believe what I'm reading. It's so horrific and upsetting.

 

[Wardy]

I have to admit I stopped reading when I got to the part where they were listing his injuries. How anyone can do that to another human being let alone a baby is beond me.

 

[Dr Q]

That is shocking, I cannot fathom how anyone can do that to a child.
I hope the get theirs in prison, slowley and very painfully.
Wonder why the 32 yr old couldn't be named, I though it was only under-16's?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Surely if they're guilty of "Causing the death" - doesn't that have to be manslaughter or murder ? Doesn't that rule out accidental ?

 

[tinx]

Having a 10 month old daughter myself at the moment and a 4 year old son. I can''t imagine how anyone can hurt something so delicate as a baby of that age. She is so delicate and 100% dependant on us. THis baby was 100% dependant on these people who killed him. f***ing SCUM

 

[pasty]

Surely if they're guilty of "Causing the death" - doesn't that have to be manslaughter or murder ? Doesn't that rule out accidental ?

I always thought that was the case too. I thought the definition of manslaughter was non pre-meditated killing.

 

[crasher]

That is shocking, I cannot fathom how anyone can do that to a child.
I hope the get theirs in prison, slowley and very painfully.
Wonder why the 32 yr old couldn't be named, I though it was only under-16's?

It could be because he's charged with different offences which have yet to come to trial and so his identity is withheld to avoid prejudicing a future jury.

Or it could be because he's the father, and has other children who may be the subject of care orders and so would be identified by association with him.

Though it sounds like identification would be the least of their problems living with a monster like that.

 

[pasty]

Prosecutors claimed the boy was beaten during the last eight months of his life.

He was seen 60 times by health or social workers during that period, being seen about twice a week.

In the 48 hours before the boy was found dead in his blood-spattered cot, a doctor failed to spot his broken spine.

f***ing hell. I've just re-read those bit. Shocking

 

[SNOOBS]

How can those people live with themselves

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely if they're guilty of "Causing the death" - doesn't that have to be manslaughter or murder ? Doesn't that rule out accidental ?

thats what i thought. but reading between the lines, the "causing death" is a new thing to avoid people getting avoid a charge of murder by blaming another. its difficult to prove who commited the actual manslaughter, but easy to prove, by their presence, they were involved in causing the death. i think. f***ed up whatever.

 

[sten_super]

thats what i thought. but reading between the lines, the "causing death" is a new thing to avoid people getting avoid a charge of murder by blaming another. its difficult to prove who commited the actual manslaughter, but easy to prove, by their presence, they were involved in causing the death. i think. f***ed up whatever.

Yeah they've updated the news article to reflect that now...

Both men were found not guilty of the child's murder or manslaughter at the Old Bailey.

They were convicted of the specific charge of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person", under section five of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

The law was brought in to prevent several adults blaming each other for the death of a child or vulnerable adult.

 

[Easy 10]

Both those men should spend the remainder of their miserable lives being hauled back and forth, naked, across cheesegraters until they are dead.

 

[bhaexpress]

The answer we're all looking for is not so much what they were convicted of but just how long a stretch they'll get. Personally I think people like this need life, and I do mean life.