Not Guilty of Murder -Kieran Williams Trial Verdict

[Locke's SAFC]

Im not ending up under a flyover on the A19.......i think its time to retire to bed for me

Fair enough, mate!

I did read that Hackett claimed he was in fear of Cook's brothers so I did wonder if they were 'the family members'.

Anyway, 'understand that talking about these things on social media can be more trouble than its worth.

 

[dangermows]

That's rubbish. Manslaughter indicates he killed him. It's not an excuse for a murder that can't be proven. He either killed him or he didn't.

Earlier in the thread you've said assisting a murder can be manslaughter? So the jury might think that's exactly what he did, assisted. And the key thing is they don't know who murdered him.

Edit. Actually I think you're doubting assisting means manslaughter? And if you can't then that blows the above theory.

 

[shadowplay]

Earlier in the thread you've said assisting a murder can be manslaughter? So the jury might think that's exactly what he did, assisted. And the key thing is they don't know who murdered him.

Edit. Actually I think you're doubting assisting means manslaughter? And if you can't then that blows the above theory.

I did a bit of searching into definitions on the CPS site and it would appear that this could be the case

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Principles of Secondary Liability: Manslaughter:

• D2 will not be guilty of murder but will be guilty of manslaughter where:

• D2 is a party to a violent attack on another without an intent to assist in causing death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death.
• D2 participates by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another, and death results. The test is objective. [96]

In R v Johnson & Others [2016] EWCA Crim 1613 the Court confirmed that “after Jogee … a conviction for manslaughter does not depend on knowledge of the weapon”. [5]

Strange one, for sure.

 

[ATS]

i think it does...the jury would have said to each other that Hackett didnt do it.....but he knew about it and was there at the scene sometime after the murder ( fingerprints in grave)....his fone been there on the night might not be him carrying it etc etc etc.....the jury then decided we cant send a guilty verdict for murder when we dont know if he actually did it....hence manslaughter

read between the lines from the closing statement from defence lawyer and also the lack of police outrage after the verdict

So the jury must have thought both were there when he was killed but as one left his phone at home on airplane mode they had no proof so acquitted him. They know for certain though that the other one was there through his phone signal but no proof he actually killed him either - but because they know he was there (so therefore involved in some capacity) he has been charged with manslaughter?

 

[PrisonBroken]

Does not being able to prove who killed the person play into it?

Simple answer, congratulations lads you are now both guilty of murder

 

[dangermows]

I did a bit of searching into definitions on the CPS site and it would appear that this could be the case

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Strange one, for sure.

I reckon that's it. They don't know who murdered him. Possibly neither of them. But know one of them was there (assisted).

Simple answer, congratulations lads you are now both guilty of murder

Even though you're not. Canny.

 

[Ashley In!!]

Unless I'm missing something

Unless you were in the court room for the whole trial you'll be missing lots of things, as is always the case.

 

[lucky]

Them 2 defo murdered him and it does not matter if anyone else involved they did it at the end of the day but again joint enterprise should be allowed to all involved

 

[dangermows]

Them 2 defo murdered him and it does not matter if anyone else involved they did it at the end of the day but again joint enterprise should be allowed to all involved

You don't know that both murdered him. And neither did the court or jury. That's the point.

They can't even prove one of them was even there.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

You don't know that both murdered him. And neither did the court or jury. That's the point.

They can't even prove one of them was even there.

I don't think this is right.

Both admitted to being there, they blamed each other.

Cook even admitted to helping the other one move the body but claimed it was done at knife point and he had no idea what Hackett had planned.

I don't know if it's known but apparently this Cook lived with the lad (and his family) who was murdered for about a year.

It makes you wonder what exactly the jury heard in order to believe this Cook and find him not guilty. As I said, two jury members wanted to acquit the other one as well, 'doesn't really make much sense.

 

[dangermows]

I don't think this is right.

Both admitted to being there, they blamed each other.

Cook even admitted to helping the other one move the body but claimed it was done at knife point and he had no idea what Hackett had planned.

I don't know if it's known but apparently this Cook lived with the lad (and his family) who was murdered for about a year.

It makes you wonder what exactly the jury heard in order to believe this Cook and find him not guilty. As I said, two jury members wanted to acquit the other one as well, 'doesn't really make much sense.

Strange. That does remove the not being there if so. In that case it can only be they've determined he's witnessed but not in anyway been willing or assisted in the killing.

 

[columbo70]

You don't know that both murdered him. And neither did the court or jury. That's the point.

They can't even prove one of them was even there.

exactly....the defence lawyer even suggested that in his closing statement by saying Dark forces are involved here......the police also must be frustrated as they know this too hence their lack of disappointment at the verdict

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Jury system is totally flawed. There's too many morons around these days to make a sensible and obvious verdict.

Let’s remember those 12 people sat through the entire case and heard all of the evidence.

I’m assuming you weren’t in the public gallery throughout and therefore the only information you have on this case is that which has filtered down through news reports. They rarely, if ever provide the full picture.

I agree there are plenty of morons about but that is due to a failing education system which has led to a dumbed-down society. That’s not a weakness of the justice system. Being judged by peers is a critically important piece of our system.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Earlier in the thread you've said assisting a murder can be manslaughter? So the jury might think that's exactly what he did, assisted. And the key thing is they don't know who murdered him.

Edit. Actually I think you're doubting assisting means manslaughter? And if you can't then that blows the above theory.

I am not aware I said assisting meant manslaughter which seems against everything I've argued so can you point out the post as I can't be arsed.

 

[Chatty83]

Shit like this is gonna start leading to vigilante justice. If someone had killed a family member of mine then I think I'd just take it into my own hands to sort out at this point.

I mean you know fuck all will happen to them in court and you also know you're barely gonna get a sizeable punishment so why not.

 

[dangermows]

I am not aware I said assisting meant manslaughter which seems against everything I've argued so can you point out the post as I can't be arsed.

Have you not read the bit of the quote where I corrected myself?

exactly....the defence lawyer even suggested that in his closing statement by saying Dark forces are involved here......the police also must be frustrated as they know this too hence their lack of disappointment at the verdict

Does tally up.

 

[ErichZann]

Them 2 defo murdered him and it does not matter if anyone else involved they did it at the end of the day but again joint enterprise should be allowed to all involved

Were you there!?

 

[HorsePills]

They can't even prove one of them was even there.

Didn't both of their stories involve both of them being there?

 

[dangermows]

Didn't both of their stories involve both of them being there?

It appears to be muddy. There was talk of one of them having their phone at home so tracking wise it didn't place them there (the other one it's proven they were) iirc. Then there's a suggestion he reckons he was there but may have been pressured/coerced into saying that by others.

IMO both involved, but proving it is another matter. Plus, I wasn't in the court room so could be plenty of gaps filled that we aren't aware of.

 

[columbo70]

It appears to be muddy. There was talk of one of them having their phone at home so tracking wise it didn't place them there (the other one it's proven they were) iirc. Then there's a suggestion he reckons he was there but may have been pressured/coerced into saying that by others.

IMO both involved, but proving it is another matter. Plus, I wasn't in the court room so could be plenty of gaps filled that we aren't aware of.

Didn't both of their stories involve both of them being there?

5 were originally arrested in conspiracy to murder.....the 2 young lads eventually coughed up but blamed each other,,,,,,its a story where we dont know the true facts....and Im assuming the JURY thought this way too

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2022-06-03/five-arrested-as-body-found-in-search-for-missing-sunderland-teenager