The elements of common law murder are:

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human
4. by another human
5. with malice aforethought.^[4]

The Unlawful—This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war. ^[5]

Killing—At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest^[4]—the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.^[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.^[4]

of a human—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.^[4]

by another human—at early common law suicide was considered murder.^[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought—originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

If that's the case why on earth didn't they do it when the kids were at school or out of the house? Why would you risk doing it with the kids asleep upstairs? A fire is a fire whenever it happens. What is the mentality of these people? It makes me feel physically sick to even look at them in that press conference.

This is too hideous to contemplate.

I'm shocked that the parents have been charged. It's beyond comprehension to any rational person that they could have (not proven yet) carried out such a wicked act on their innocent children.

God almighty. Whatever goes on in the minds of people who could do that - be it deliberate or 'accidental'.  

It is an unimaginable nightmare to most . 

That's the bit that gets me Soozy, why, why, why when your children are in the house?

with 6 kids about, they would have had to  do lots of things differently than they would normally do, like arrange  for the younger ones to go out child minders etc. and make sure the older ones went to school and  weren't suddenly off sick,  and any deviation from their norm would immediately throw suspicion on them.

 I now I 'm assuming they are guilty, but it's hard not to.

Well .............................if the older kids were at school and the younger ones out shopping or something with the mum it would have ensured 100% their safety without raising suspicion surely? This was an absolutely ridiculous/foolhardy idea (if indeed this is the scenario). How anyone envisaged they could set fire to a house and rescue six sleeping children without it ending in tragedy is beyond me. What is the IQ of these people?

I'm shocked and disgusted beyond belief - I accept that it's not proven yet - I hope the Police have got it wrong cos it doesn't bear thinking about TBH.

They probably  have that attitude many seem to have, that everyone else is really stupid and they are really clever.

What they don't realise, because they are too stupid to realise is what they know and understand  in life  is  about 10%, they have no intellect to think beyond their own narrow boundaries.

 Totally agree with that Jackson.

When this story first hit the news my instant gut reaction was it was them..(the same feeling I had about Maddie and her parents)....I challenged my own feelings...*lal don't be absurd who would do that to their own children!!!*...To most people this is just incomprehencable and it breaks my heart..those poor children..

Edit; to say, I hope my gut feeling in this case is proved wrong and they didn't do it..

It's just so sad Some people just shouldn't be allowed to be 'parents'

I just can't stop thinking of how painful it must have been for them all.......

You really would hope they were overcome with smoke inhalation in their sleep .........................I soo hope so. I know the oldest survived for a bit but - it's just too terrible to think that they were awake.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ring-6-children.html

The 1st pic

For murder you have to have the intention to kill.  If he set the fire and thought he'd get them out in time, then there was no intention to kill. The prosecution will have to prove there was an intention to kill.

If he set the fire, thinking he'd get them out on time, and the fire took hold quicker than he thought....I kind of feel sorry for him.  I can't imagine the mentality of some one that would ever light a fire with their kids in the house just for the insurance or a bigger house, there's no words for that kind of stupidity and recklessness.  If he meant to kill them then he's a beast, but if it was some stupid idea that went horribly wrong, then he has to live with that (and so he should for what he did)  but imagine having to live with that.

Jees...you don't think he did it to intentionally kill the kids and come back and say 'told you so' about the house being a crap hole do you?

It did say on the news that the younger 5 children all died from smoke inhalation as they slept.  A very very small mercy.

I'm not sure about that Temps, you can be'reckless' and not have the intention to kill, but some is killed anyway because you acted  recklessly.

Accident or design.... I think if I'd killed six of my kids, the others would be orphans by now.

Why would he want to kill his kids?

Has anyone postured a reason?

It does seem an extreme way to be re-housed BUT i knew someone who did it ... no one was in the house at the time though.

It's the other kids i feel most for, they've lost 6 siblings and now their parents are in custody/court for it....

It's an extreme way to get anything.  Remember the girl in Cowgate whose baby died in a house fire she claimed was started by 2 intruders who tied her up and set the house on fire.  Then it was discovered she in fact started it herself to try to win her boyfriend back.

exactly... better off without them (if they did it, of course)

It's a fine line, I remember in college doing a case on manslaughter, a man threw a box off a peer into the water, it hit a swimmer and died.  The guy was accused of murder, but it was reduced to manslaughter because he had no intention to kill, but he acted recklessly and some one died because of that.

Now, I know that's different to the case here, the guy(assuming he did it and did it with the intention of getting everyone out alive)  took a huge gamble and he lost.  He knowingly put the children in danger,maybe that's the fine line he crossed that makes it murder?

I think drunk drivers, if they kill, can be guilty of murder, you may not set out to kill, but you got behind the wheel driving which automatically put people in danger.  So maybe the same rule applies here.

During the 10-minute hearing at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court, two people were asked to leave after swearing from the public gallery.

They were escorted from the courtroom by a police officer.  

The Philpotts, who both wore white vests, stood to confirm their names and gave their address as a Derby hotel.

Mr Philpott shook his head as the charges were read out. Mrs Philpott sat impassively.

As they were led from court Mr Philpott mouthed a word twice at officers sitting on the opposite side of the room, and Mrs Philpott blew a kiss to around 22 relatives listening to the hearing.

The couple will next appear at Nottingham Crown Court on Friday

It said on the lunchtime news that no plea was entered in court this morning... is that normal?

We have to be careful. Often when we look across the internet we may pick up aspects of US law. I think also that there may be subtle differences between Eire and the UK.

Had the same guy thrown the same box off a bridge above a footpath (where there were more than likely going to be people walking underneath) it would have been different though right? As the possibility of injuring/killing people is more obvious.

I think that's where the fine line comes in, others call it common sense, if someone acted in a way that normally wouldn't kill someone but in the circumstances it happened they did, that's manslaughter. Where as if someone acts in a way that they know could kill someone hoping they don't yet someone still dies that's murder.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_...hter/#familialdeaths

ah...

An offence under section 5 DVCV Act is an offence of homicide for the purposes of venue in the Youth Court.

The offence is made out where evidence exists to establish the following elements: 

• a child or vulnerable adult ("V") has died; 
• the death was the result of an unlawful act, course of conduct or omission of a person ("D") who was member of the same household as V and who had frequent contact with V; 
• there existed at the time of death a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of any member of that household and either:
  • a) D was the person whose unlawful act caused V's death; or
    b) D was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from that risk of serious physical harm; and
    c) The death occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

But don't forget homicide is any killing ranging from justifiable to murder..

aaaaand we're back to square one

sorry! I keep reverting to one of my former jobs.

sorry! I keep reverting to one of my former jobs.

What was that? 

Parrot

The link I got was a UK one.  The manslaughter case I referred to above, as far as I remember was a UK one, our law extends from yours so the basis for a lot of our legal definitions would be the same as yours.  Obviously as different cases and judgements came up after our independence they both went their separate ways and different laws were introduced in each jurisdiction as required, but the roots are the same. The definitions of murder and manslaughter, would have come from the same tree.  Even in any murder trials you hear now, there always has to be intention, that I don't think, has changed all that much?  Perhaps its interpretation of whether you have intention, or whether the action is such that you SHOULD have known you could have caused serious harm and that constitutes intention. *stops typing intention*

I don't remember doing anything about familial deaths though, I'm wondering was this introduced recently in the UK as a result of all the Baby P type cases...*goes to look at the link again*

There is a trust fund for the children

http://www.philpottsangels.co.uk/

Anthony Slater, from the Osmaston Community Association of Residents (Oscar), set up D-J's Trust to help pay towards the funeral costs of the six Philpott children.
He said: "We have seen the reports and we cannot talk too much about it but we need to stress the fact that Oscar's involvement with D-J's Trust was for the six children, to help with the funeral and the headstone costs.
"You have to appreciate that an average funeral cost is now £3,500 to £4,000 and if you times that by six you are looking at £24,000.
"The money is solely for the six children and anything that may be left over after their funeral will be donated to charity, possibly Birmingham Children's Hospital where young Duwayne died, but that is yet to be finalised

Oooh that sounds like it could be it.  The higher the risk involved, or the more obvious the risk, the closer it is to murder?  If he started the fire (again, not saying that he did, just speaking hypothetically) thinking there was no one in the house, that seemingly would be an obvious manslaughter?  There's a clear indication that he didn't mean to cause harm, but unfortunately, no matter who started the fire, it was started with them all in the house.

I suppose, if you take the relationship away, it makes it a bit clearer.  If a third party threw something through the letter box and started the fire, but said they didn't mean to kill anyone, they just started a fire, it would be a clear murder, because there was a strong likelihood of serious harm or death?  So I suppose on that basis it has to be murder?

*stops waffling*

That's they way i've always thought it worked Temps.