Not guilty..

not many news stories would outdo the budget!

wow - i wonder if they will go after the mother for it now!?

i'm not shocked, a bit surprised maybe.

Edited by Bizzy

I'm not shocked, remember it is up to the crown to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a very high burden of proof. It almost sounds like it didn't take much for the defense to be able to bring in witnesses who could give that reasonable doubt. It's not actually up to the defense to prove innocence.

Sounds like they would have a good case against the mum...hopefully another trial will be brought.

Edited by Paws

I wasn't particularly surprised. I've always wondered if it was actually the Mum who did it.

seems like they will be... just read that the police will not be laying any further charges!!!!

Now that makes me very angry!!!!

That really sucks....maybe the crown doesn't have enough evidence to charge the mother or the police don't have enough to lay charges.

Mum2Lucas wrote: The police HAD to find a scapegoat for the crime, and unfortunately he was taken down. Poor guy will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

With all due respect, he was their father and he was there when they were injured. Whether he did it or not, he had a duty of care to those boys and as far as I'm concerned I hope he DOES live with it for the rest of his life, he certainly deserves to.

mum2lucas wrote: He has a very reputable lawyer, she has gone to lengths to ensure his innocence is proven, she wouldn't have done so if he was guilty of committing this crime.

In theory. But he's on legal aid and you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't have gotten such a reputable lawyer were it not such a high profile case. If he had been your average wife beater or drunk he would have got the Duty Solicitor for his first court appearance and been stuck with them. It's always amusing to see the high profile lawyers come out of the woodwork when these big cases come up: Comeskey, Dhyrberg, Harder.... oops no, sorry he got disbarred

Sorry, I am just a bit of a cynic about the whole case...

I'm not surprised abot the non-guilty thing either. there was too much circumstantial evidence. however, the thought that they all just walk away....ick. to say the least. but then i suppose if you can do that to a child, you would also be the kind of person to be able to walk away and feel ok.
At school worship we are talking about forgiveness. don't know how people do it in cases like this

Also it must have been a pretty convincing case for the jury to take 10 mins in deliberations. Now that did surprise me! We took about 8 hours!!!

Kels wrote: I think the mother did it. It was never proven that the father was even there when they were injured. Yes I think someone should do time for it for justice for the boys but I dont believe in convicting an innocent man just because he was an easy target. Yes he has duty of care for his kids but so did the mother not to mention all the adults that were in the house at the time.

Nicely put Kels ...and I totally agree with everything you said above.