Any legal people around ... why no manslaughter charge for Alice / Janine?
puppetangel
Posts: 2,892 Forum Member
✭✭✭
When both Janine and Alice where found not guilty for Murder, and why didn't the option of finding them guilty of manslaughter come up? Jury decided they had no intention but a man was still killed even if in self defence.
You still have to be found guilty of that even if a judge suspends the sentence or says you've served enough time for the crime. I dont get what on earth happened? Thanks
You still have to be found guilty of that even if a judge suspends the sentence or says you've served enough time for the crime. I dont get what on earth happened? Thanks
0
Comments
If this was in the real world, away from Eastenders - Yes, things wouldn't have been particularly straight forward, but both Janine and Alice would have almost undoubtedly been jailed. A defended, to my knowledge, can only be tried for one charge once, assuming that no new evidence crops up, or anything else along those lines. Therefore, with Janine and Alice being found not guilty under the charge of murder... Then obviously, they're not guilty and so theoretically are innocent. However, considering the case at hand, what would have happened is that the two women would have been tried under a NEW charge of manslaughter, not murder.
During this time, both defendants could have applied for bail and potentially may have been granted it. It's not for us to determine whether or not bail would have been granted, so who knows? With or without bail, they'd have to go through another trial for the charge of manslaughter, and considering Janine's confession, she would have been jailed as would have Alice because she too admitted to stabbing Michael.
To be more realistic, they should have granted Janine bail and have her run away. However, like we've seen with Stacey, bringing back Janine would have then been too difficult. I just see the whole plot as DCT thinking ahead to make it possible for Janine to return with ease... Even it does see him overlook the legal system. Oh, how I love Eastenders
To be honest though, I'm happy Janine got off. It wouldn't have happened in the real world... But it's a TV show, and she's a great character, so I'm glad she'll be able to come back. She won't be able to stay away, we all know that
If, for instance, it is likely they would not be found guilty, they would not waste time or money on it. This could have been decided off screen.
But why are people saying that Alice should be trialled for manslaughter along with Janine? It's been proved now that Alice hasn't killed anyone (Michael probably would have been fine, considering he was able to get up again) and it was Janine who delivered the fatal wound?
Alice would have been trialled for GBH in the real world I assume, using the fact that she was defending Janine as a defence, which would be taken into account at sentencing.
The judge would have called a halt to proceedings, in the light of Janice's confession on the stand the judge would have adjourned it to consult council. I understand it's just a story and so some element of shock was for the story but in the real world there's no way a trial would have continued it was a farce.