I hope they never get out....IMO SSP would have been more acceptable given the systematic abuse torture and horrific life and death that little angel endured. I hope they never get out....IMO SSP would have been more acceptable given the systematic abuse torture and horrific life and death that little angel endured.
how much time did they get?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
how much time did they get?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
She's been jailed indefinitely and must serve at least 5 years. He was jailed for life, which means he will probably be out in about 8 years.
quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
how much time did they get?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
I'm still not sure exactly but for me whatever it is it's not long enough....She cried at the sentencing hearing the other day apparently....Rotten mare crying for herself it was noted she never once cried during the trial even when the injuries found on that darlin were read out...She never showed him mercy Temps then again did she ever show him love the love mothers feel for their babies even before they are born?
It's incomprehensible Lee...it's hard to imagine how a mother could do it...to such a young boy...those injuries...
Like you say, she only ever cried for herself she never gave a stuff about that little boy
Like you say, she only ever cried for herself she never gave a stuff about that little boy
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
how much time did they get?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
She's been jailed indefinitely and must serve at least 5 years. He was jailed for life, which means he will probably be out in about 8 years.
hopefully it'll turn into a Myra Hindley (sp) type situation and they never get out.
And this is the justice system in this country 
I think that's very probable Temps. There'd be a major outcry if it looked likely that any of them were going to be returned to our streets.quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
how much time did they get?
I laughed when I saw her letter of apology on the news, appealing for mercy...the same mercy she gave to her son?
She's been jailed indefinitely and must serve at least 5 years. He was jailed for life, which means he will probably be out in about 8 years.
hopefully it'll turn into a Myra Hindley (sp) type situation and they never get out.
I wished they'd been given longer sentences, however I think the judges hands may be tied by following the letter of the law.
As I've said previously I hope they rot in hell, as for violence to them I couldn't wish another person to injure them on my behalf.
As I've said previously I hope they rot in hell, as for violence to them I couldn't wish another person to injure them on my behalf.
The mother pleaded guilty and so that would have been taken into account. Potentially, they could spend the rest of their lives in prison. It's about public safety. Well, I say that but the principle of indefinite sentences was challenged some time ago if I recall correctly.
I can't help feeling appalled by these sentences.
I truly hope she isn't out in 3 years! That would be a travesty. And the man! That would be no justice for that little boy at all.
I truly hope she isn't out in 3 years! That would be a travesty. And the man! That would be no justice for that little boy at all.
The minimum sentences do seem bizarrely short.
I want to know about these people now. I can understand adults getting into a rage with other adults and it getting violent. But with kids? And sustained? I can't even conceive of how someone could do that sort of thing, let alone a couple one of whom was the parent. They're practically alien given what I understand to be human nature.
I want to know about these people now. I can understand adults getting into a rage with other adults and it getting violent. But with kids? And sustained? I can't even conceive of how someone could do that sort of thing, let alone a couple one of whom was the parent. They're practically alien given what I understand to be human nature.
Independent experts have said that Baby Peter's death should have and could have been avoided. Startling observational skills these people have. 
Sentences are a disgrace .
.
quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
Boyfriend received 12 years plus life for another case and the lodger received 3 years!!
The maximum sentence was 14 years, what sort of depravity do you have to indulge in to earn the maximum sentence, were his injuries and eventual death not enough, sickening isn't it.
The mother could potentially serve just three years.
I really don't understand the sentencing does that mean the mom could be out in a couple of years i'm confused 
did anything not get done about the teenage girlfriend of the lodger?
did anything not get done about the teenage girlfriend of the lodger?
quote:Originally posted by Shizzlex:
I really don't understand the sentencing does that mean the mom could be out in a couple of years i'm confused
did anything not get done about the teenage girlfriend of the lodger?
The judge has said she has to serve a minimum of 5 years before they will consider letting her go free. 21 months will be taken off that sentence since she has already served that. So potentially, she could be out by 2012
quote:Originally posted by ~Orchid~:quote:Originally posted by Shizzlex:
I really don't understand the sentencing does that mean the mom could be out in a couple of years i'm confused
did anything not get done about the teenage girlfriend of the lodger?
The judge has said she has to serve a minimum of 5 years before they will consider letting her go free. 21 months will be taken off that sentence since she has already served that. So potentially, she could be out by 2012
i thought that but couldn't quite comprehend that surely people get more for a build up of motoring convictions these days its appalling children are just not protected
what a joke
And worse still, when they are let out of prison we dont even know who they are because they have never been named.
It's a disgrace that either of them will ever see the light of day again.
In the USA, murderers are often jailed for 35/50 years plus with no hope of parole.
Life should mean life.
In the USA, murderers are often jailed for 35/50 years plus with no hope of parole.
Life should mean life.
quote:Originally posted by jujubedoo:quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
Boyfriend received 12 years plus life for another case and the lodger received 3 years!!
The maximum sentence was 14 years, what sort of depravity do you have to indulge in to earn the maximum sentence, were his injuries and eventual death not enough, sickening isn't it.
Totally sickening juju - I agree.
That poor little bairn died alone and obviously in a great deal of pain. They showed him no mercy and it's beyond my comprehension how any mother could be so heartless.
This sentence is a travesty!!
A little clarity, if I may.
The indeterminate sentences passed on Peter's mother and the lodger, Jason Owens, mean that they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer present a threat to the public before they can be considered for release.
That process will not commence until after the minimum terms have been served - 5 years in the case of the mother and 3 in the case of Owens.
None were convicted of murder or manslaughter and thus none could be sentenced on that basis.
So far as the boyfriend is concerned, once the specified minimum period for the purposes of the life sentence, namely 10 years, is past, he too could seek release, which he would only obtain if he were able to persuade the Parole Board that he no longer presented a risk to the public and in particular to small children.
It is by no means guaranteed that such persuasion would follow, and thus there is a strong likelihood that all of them will spend longer in stir than the minimum terms would suggest.
The sentencing remarks clearly demonstrate that the boyfriend was the worst of the three, if such quantative analysis can be engaged in.
Ultimately, the Judge was bound by the law and by the sentencing guidelines within which he is constrained to operate. Were he to step outside those restrictions the sentence could and would be successfully challenged on appeal. To see the test he applied carefully set out, and indeed read the judicial summary of this horrific business, I urge anyone interested to read the sentencing transcript, available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
The indeterminate sentences passed on Peter's mother and the lodger, Jason Owens, mean that they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer present a threat to the public before they can be considered for release.
That process will not commence until after the minimum terms have been served - 5 years in the case of the mother and 3 in the case of Owens.
None were convicted of murder or manslaughter and thus none could be sentenced on that basis.
So far as the boyfriend is concerned, once the specified minimum period for the purposes of the life sentence, namely 10 years, is past, he too could seek release, which he would only obtain if he were able to persuade the Parole Board that he no longer presented a risk to the public and in particular to small children.
It is by no means guaranteed that such persuasion would follow, and thus there is a strong likelihood that all of them will spend longer in stir than the minimum terms would suggest.
The sentencing remarks clearly demonstrate that the boyfriend was the worst of the three, if such quantative analysis can be engaged in.
Ultimately, the Judge was bound by the law and by the sentencing guidelines within which he is constrained to operate. Were he to step outside those restrictions the sentence could and would be successfully challenged on appeal. To see the test he applied carefully set out, and indeed read the judicial summary of this horrific business, I urge anyone interested to read the sentencing transcript, available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
I can't even get past the first few sentences without breaking down in tears for what that poor baby went through.quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
A little clarity, if I may.
The indeterminate sentences passed on Peter's mother and the lodger, Jason Owens, mean that they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer present a threat to the public before they can be considered for release.
That process will not commence until after the minimum terms have been served - 5 years in the case of the mother and 3 in the case of Owens.
None were convicted of murder or manslaughter and thus none could be sentenced on that basis.
So far as the boyfriend is concerned, once the specified minimum period for the purposes of the life sentence, namely 10 years, is past, he too could seek release, which he would only obtain if he were able to persuade the Parole Board that he no longer presented a risk to the public and in particular to small children.
It is by no means guaranteed that such persuasion would follow, and thus there is a strong likelihood that all of them will spend longer in stir than the minimum terms would suggest.
The sentencing remarks clearly demonstrate that the boyfriend was the worst of the three, if such quantative analysis can be engaged in.
Ultimately, the Judge was bound by the law and by the sentencing guidelines within which he is constrained to operate. Were he to step outside those restrictions the sentence could and would be successfully challenged on appeal. To see the test he applied carefully set out, and indeed read the judicial summary of this horrific business, I urge anyone interested to read the sentencing transcript, available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
Its something to do with the fact that no-one knows who dealt the fatal blow.quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
A little clarity, if I may.
The indeterminate sentences passed on Peter's mother and the lodger, Jason Owens, mean that they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer present a threat to the public before they can be considered for release.
That process will not commence until after the minimum terms have been served - 5 years in the case of the mother and 3 in the case of Owens.
None were convicted of murder or manslaughter and thus none could be sentenced on that basis.
So far as the boyfriend is concerned, once the specified minimum period for the purposes of the life sentence, namely 10 years, is past, he too could seek release, which he would only obtain if he were able to persuade the Parole Board that he no longer presented a risk to the public and in particular to small children.
It is by no means guaranteed that such persuasion would follow, and thus there is a strong likelihood that all of them will spend longer in stir than the minimum terms would suggest.
The sentencing remarks clearly demonstrate that the boyfriend was the worst of the three, if such quantative analysis can be engaged in.
Ultimately, the Judge was bound by the law and by the sentencing guidelines within which he is constrained to operate. Were he to step outside those restrictions the sentence could and would be successfully challenged on appeal. To see the test he applied carefully set out, and indeed read the judicial summary of this horrific business, I urge anyone interested to read the sentencing transcript, available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
What he said^^
quote:Originally posted by longcat:Its something to do with the fact that no-one knows who dealt the fatal blow.quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
Then treat all three of them the same and charge all of them with murder.
quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
To convict of manslaughter or murder would require the jury to be satisfied so they were sure (a) which injury proved fatal, and (b) which party was responsible for it.
Here, they clearly couldn't be sure which amongst these 3 pondlifes dealt the fatal blow, and thus couldn't convict.
Historically, cases like this would frequently result in no convictions at all, as the mother and the boyfriend would blame each other and the jury had to acquit both. It was to deal with that specific problem that Parliament brought in Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, under which these 3 were convicted.
Had that law not been made, it's likely that they would have walked (albeit that the boyfriend would still have faced the rape conviction)
I agree its the law thats needs changing. The judge gave the only sentence he could.quote:Originally posted by Kaytee:quote:Originally posted by longcat:Its something to do with the fact that no-one knows who dealt the fatal blow.quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
Then treat all three of them the same and charge all of them with murder.
Particularly nice touch, I thought, was that the lodger (aged 37) was shacked up in that hellhole with his own kids and a 15 year old girlfriend...
quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
A little clarity, if I may.
[snip]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
Thanks for that. The link is well worth a read, especially the sentencing justifications. I see he dismissed her plea letter.
But ...
"Anally raping"
Good god.
quote:Originally posted by longcat:I agree its the law thats needs changing. The judge gave the only sentence he could.quote:Originally posted by Kaytee:quote:Originally posted by longcat:Its something to do with the fact that no-one knows who dealt the fatal blow.quote:Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?
They were wholly responsible for that child's death.
They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!
Then treat all three of them the same and charge all of them with murder.
See above: had the law not been changed in 2004, it's likely they would have escaped scot free
quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Particularly nice touch, I thought, was that the lodger (aged 37) was shacked up in that hellhole with his own kids and a 15 year old girlfriend...
Thanks for posting that link BDO, I understand the sentencing a bit better now.
God it was hard going reading it though
Thanks for the link BDO.
It appears the judges hands were tied as to how severely he could punish these people.
I hope the parole board now step in when the time comes and ensure more appropriate sentencing is enacted. It seems they have more power than the judge in this case.
It appears the judges hands were tied as to how severely he could punish these people.
I hope the parole board now step in when the time comes and ensure more appropriate sentencing is enacted. It seems they have more power than the judge in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
A little clarity, if I may.
[snip]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf
Thanks for that. The link is well worth a read, especially the sentencing justifications. I see he dismissed her plea letter.
But ...
"Anally raping"
Good god.
These people are savages
Longcat & BDO
I understand that the judge had to act according to the law as it stands. However, as all three were responsible for that little boy's death, I wish that the niceties of who struck the final blow among many did not have to be taken into account and that all three could face the maximum punishment for such a heinous crime.
I understand that the judge had to act according to the law as it stands. However, as all three were responsible for that little boy's death, I wish that the niceties of who struck the final blow among many did not have to be taken into account and that all three could face the maximum punishment for such a heinous crime.
The judgements ought to be published prominently in the mass media in these sort of cases. Loads of people seem to come away from these cases thinking the justice system, mainly the judges, are ridiculous (in the bitter sense) and that the system is arbitrary rather than process-driven. That said, I've come across some really wank magistrates and JPs at the lower levels.