Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Stabbed 57 times, but no intent to kill

By lemaChet 23 April 2008 66

From the SMH article…

Glen Porrit has been found not guilty for murder (and instead found guilty of the lesser manslaughter charge) as Justice Higgins told the court that “he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Porritt inflicted any of the injuries with an intention to kill his mother or with reckless indifference to the probability of her dying.”

It is of course possible, based on the other claims made at the court, that he didn’t intend it…..

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to
Stabbed 57 times, but no intent to kill
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
ant 10:05 am 26 Apr 08

See the CT? Seems we’re not the only ones wondering what the hell is going on. ACT gov’t is planning to shut down some of these mechanisms by which people can choose to bypass a jury trial:

shauno 9:49 am 26 Apr 08

“I think the idea is that they didn’t actually go there with an ironclad definite plan to murder them. Things just escalated out of control til they did.”

OK not sure about in Aussie but in the USA that would be murder 2 instead of murder 1. Dont we have those laws in Aussie.

123qwe 9:00 am 26 Apr 08

One would have to assume that the fella that ran over his girlfriend in the northern suburbs on New Years Day would be feeling confident about beating his murder charge. If this guy stabs 57 times and is not a murderer, well failing to swerve when driving your car is just dangerous driving.

Spideydog 7:37 pm 25 Apr 08

Sorry 57 stabs is an act of pure rage and hate, not one of random violence. Try counting to 57 in your head …… Thats more than ooops. It seems that “reckless” is also forgotten in the ACT in terms of considering intent….. Stabbing someone 57 times in any persons mind, mental illness or not would mean death.

sepi 7:34 pm 25 Apr 08

I think the idea is that they didn’t actually go there with an ironclad definite plan to murder them. Things just escalated out of control til they did.

ant 2:10 pm 25 Apr 08

It’s interesting. I remember many years ago, when Eastman was found guilty of murdering winchester. We held a sweepstake at work to see what penalty he’d get (he was a regular client of ours), and I cursed my luck when an ex-senior policeman drew 1st lot to cast his vote for the penalty.

Becuase in finding him guilty, the court had bought all the evidence, which was that in going to Winchester’s house with a gun, he’d planned it, and there’s only one penalty for pre-meditated murder. Well, imagine my delight when the ex-policeman chose 20 years! har! I chose “life”, and crowed at him, while he groaned in embarassment.
(I won the sweepstake when the result was announced).

So, in light of this, I am at a loss to see how they can find that the above two examples did not “intend” to kill their victims? plunging a knife into a person 57 times, or blasting away at someone with a gun, somehow is separate from the person dying?

And if the killers were somehow unable to draw that connection, then I reiterate that I am not comfortable with them walking around in society.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site