3rd body found...

I was going to question if several murders included the animals - or has this madman been at it before?
shocked.gif
Far as I know, shooting three horses and four dogs - all presumably in good health - is legal, and in some people's eyes humane.
 
Personally I wouldn't rely on a psychiatrist to assess state of mind of anyone, having met one who seemed less sane than moi.

Speculating about this horrendous slaughter (even if it was by rifle) is surely part of human nature. So too, is getting hot under the collar about the waste of life, the perceived arrogance of the man etc etc.

Nothing we write on this forum will bring back those lost lives.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only speculating I have done is to predict that the best people to assess motives/state of mind are PSYCHIATRISTS.
smile.gif
I use uppercase because of their undoubted importance and superiority.
smile.gif

I included the animals as well as people when I said 'several'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, my cousin is a CONSULTANT and certainly always uses capitals when writing or speaking of himself (seriously
confused.gif
) so I understand your point regarding PSYCHIATRISTS.
I don't like to be pedantic but (ok, I do
wink.gif
) technically, however, I don't believe animals can be 'murdered', perhaps only killed...otherwise flyswatters and waspslayers might face lengthy terms...
S
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is interesting. I had never really considered whether killing an animal was murder or not. What is the difference between murder and killing, in particular, when referring to animals? Anyone got any definitions??
 
[ QUOTE ]
One of the reasons he would have shot the horses & dogs is that once the fire had started in the stable block (which judging by the photos was seperate to the house) the noise they would have made would have alerted the wife and daugther. They would have no doubt have come running and thus mucked up his plan for them to be in the house at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jill and Kirstie were killed before he slaughtered the animals.

He could have let the horses go without detection.
 
QR:

You know what?
I really don't CARE if Chris Foster was pushed to the edge / distraught / stark raving bonkers.
He lost the right to my sympathy when he blew away his fifteen year old daughter.

This is about a man not only killing himself and his family, but systematically destroying EVERYTHING he considered to be HIS.

He didn't lose his mind and rampage about with a gun, killing all and sundry. He didn't direct his anger at himself, or his creditors, or the population in general. He selected what he considered to be his possessions alone. Nothing else.

The ultimate control freak imho.
 
[ QUOTE ]

What is the difference between murder and killing, in particular, when referring to animals? Anyone got any definitions??

[/ QUOTE ]

Murder - The act of putting a PERSON to death, intentionally and unlawfully

Kill - To cause the death of, to slay, to destroy

To murder is always to kill. To kill is not always to murder.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Murder - The act of putting a PERSON to death, intentionally and unlawfully

Kill - To cause the death of, to slay, to destroy

To murder is always to kill. To kill is not always to murder.
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to C&P, but as I put in SB earlier...

Murder requires a specific mens rea (Acting with the intention to kill, or in a manner that either intentionally causes, or recklessly risks, very serious harm) with no legal defence.

Self defence and diminished responsibility are partial defences that reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter.

Diminished responsibility is basically pleading insanity (which is not the same legally as it is medically, and therefore a surprising number of killers don't like to do...
crazy.gif
).

To be successful in pleading such a defence, the killer must prove that they were unaware in the circumstances, of (1) the true circumstances (i.e they were so mentally disturbed that thought they were killing aliens not people!!), or (2) unaware that what they were doing at the time was wrong (i.e they didn't think it was wrong to kill), (or it can also be pled that at the time time of trial they are now in a state of diminished responsibility where they don't understand the proceedings so should be hospitalised rather than imprisoned).

To me the actions of Mr Foster; killing his wife and daughter (as said, to have done so to both of them in different parts of the house, means in great likelihood with a silencer), but then not immediately kill himself, but to then go onto block the gates to the property with the horsebox AND shooting out the tyres, followed by killing the horses, dogs, and other pets so systematically - including moving the bodies, spreading accelerant around such huge grounds and the cars, so as to start three fires, ALL indicate to me that this was not rash, and it was more than flipping out, or even a couple of mad hours of actions
crazy.gif


I totally agree that the likelihood was that he had this planned BEFORE the happy BBQ pics, as he's already made up his mind and wanted them to have one more last night before the balliffs came. I don't think that the timing is coincidental, and I think this was carefully planned.

IMO, Mr Foster is indeed a murderer - and not legally excusable for his actions, albeit he must have had a certain mindset to act in such an evil manner.

I find it all so sad for the friends and family of those effected
frown.gif
frown.gif
frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top