Yeah you may be right about the tow rope and I suppose it depends on the weight of that compared to a person. I still think it's pretty likely that they'd notice, but it's impossible to prove and likely isn't enough for a conviction.
It's such a hard one to call. They were speeding, probably panicking and it was dark. Likely they felt something bumping along behind, but could have thought it was the heavy rope. In the mindset those lads were in, they might not have even considered that the copper had got tangled up and in the panic to get away, it's unlikely they would have given it much thought other than simply to drive as fast as they could away from the scene.
Drugs or booze maybe, country lanes, high speed, music blasting, thrill of a chase. they were out to rob, not kill...i hope i'm right in my thinking.
Although they weren't out to kill it doesn't mean that panic didn't take over. Could have quite easily noticed and panicked like **** about what would happen if they stopped and before they knew it he was dead. Or could have been high/drunk and noticed but didn't think that it'd kill him. Doesn't have to be intent to kill to be guilty of murder. Ultimately though this is all speculation. There's only 3 people on this earth who know for certain.
Depends, you can still commit murder in a state of panic. Prosecution only needs to prove that there was intent to seriously harm at the time of the incident to get a murder conviction. Though like I say that was never going to happen here. Probs over thinking it though tbh. Funnily enough this topic had already been on my mind today as I drove past Salisbury crown court where the murder trial was for my mate who was killed.
this is where i'd love to be on the jury. I'd have given them murder and there we have it... the flaws of our criminal justice system
It's not as simple as it sounds, having been on a murder trial myself. It all depends if they accept a majority verdict, if they want a unanimous verdict, then you'll just stay shut in that room until you sort your arses out. If you don't, then you've got to have the balls to go back and tell the Judge why. It always sounds easy, guilty or not guilty, but any upstanding Jury, takes it seriously, and you have to account for why, within the reigns of the Judges brief to you. Some stuff the Judge might state you can't consider in your evidence. Something like that anyway. Whatever happens though, don't piss the Judge off, he/she is more evil than me.
that's fair enough, i guess it depends on who can make a good argument. I still think i'd make the boys sit behind closed doors for 3 days until the final moment (before hung jury) before i give into manslaughter. obviously i haven't heard all the evidence and in this case i don't have the ins and outs and maybe i would have a change of mind but the first thought was it was intentional (obviously with commies scenario i agree it should be manslaughter but i imagine towing an actual body behind is pretty hard to miss and i imagine the guy is probably screaming a bit too)
I reckon they knew he was attached and just carried on trying to get away, as they had no moral compass.
Oh yeah you can stay steadfast to your belief, then the Judge can just dismiss the Jury and ask for a retrial I think. So your knackered either way mate.
The one not driving will defo have been looking back constantly the fact that it was dark and rear lights are not bright at all would leave me doubting the intention
Yep this I've done Jury service. I did three cases. Armed Robbery, Possession with intent to supply, and attempted murder (stabbing). And whilst it's tempting to think you'll go into court and it will be a breeze to work out a verdict, or you'll just find somebody guilty if it sounds bad, it is way more complex than that. You have to put your emotions to one side and make a decision based on the complexities of the law and strictly what the law deems to be acceptable and what it doesn't. As you say you are guided by the Judge and you are told what you can take into consideration, as the law determines and what falls outside of that remit too. It reminds me of that case of the lad who was killed when he broke into a farm house and the owner chased him off and eventually shot him with a shotgun. I remember loads of people at the time were screaming 'he deserved it !' and 'He'd still be alive if he hadn't of broken in' and 'The homeowner had the right to shoot him because he was on his property' etc. Well, no not it the eyes of the law. Reasonable force was not applied, the kid was running away, fleeing the scene and the bloke shot him in the back. He intended to shoot him despite the threat being over, and therefore the jury rightly found him guilty of murder.
There is NO WAY they didn't know he was being dragged, one of them was filming him chasing the car and saw him go down, the driver was zig zagging across the road to try and shake him off They should be going down for murder I hope they are made to pay for it during their stay in prison
