And people think the US justice system is lax... [Archive]

Duck Duck Goose

02-19-2003, 09:09 AM

December, I don't think it's fair to blame the German justice system and make snide remarks like, "Maybe German law regards the murder of Americans as a misdemeanor."

The actual facts of the Monica Seles case.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/100799/Sports/Disturbed_fan_stabs_t.shtml
Despite the presence of two nearby security guards, heavy-set, disheveled Guenter Parche, a 38-year-old lathe operator, reached from the sideline seats and stabbed Seles between the shoulder blades.

She screamed, stood up and took several steps, then gently fell in the arms of a tennis official. "At first, everything seemed calm. Very calm," said Toni Waters-Woods of Tampa, a Women's Tennis Association official at the stadium. "People were trying to figure out what it was. She jumped up and ran near the net, holding her back over her shoulder. You thought maybe it was a back spasm."

Lisa Grattan of St. Petersburg, a WTA tour director since 1991, was among the first to reach Seles, who asked if she was bleeding. Grattan told her she would be okay, reminded her to breathe easily and held a towel to the wound to stem the flow of blood. And when Seles burst into tears, Grattan held her head and tried to comfort her.

"I was sitting right across from where it happened," Grattan said. "I heard a scream and I looked over there. It looked to me like he just hit her. I thought, "What the hell is he doing?' She got up, then she grabbed her back, (and) I knew she was hurt."

Not badly. The inch-deep slit cut some muscle tissue but it missed her spinal cord and did not injure her lungs. Although doctors said Seles could resume competition in about three months, the emotional trauma of the attack kept her off the tour for more than two years.

Parche was convicted of causing Seles grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Because of diminished responsibility, he could have received a maximum of 3 years, 9 months. The prosecutor had asked for a sentence of 2 years, 9 months. Parche received a two-year suspended sentence. IANAL, but I don't see any problem with Parche's sentencing. First, it wasn't *that* serious an injury. Second, "diminished responsibility" means "the lights are on but nobody's home". Third, the judge was quoted somewhere else as saying, basically, "I don't think he's a danger to anyone else except possibly Steffi Graf's tennis opponents."

So all those mitigating factors led to the suspended sentence and no actual jail time. You wanna work that up into some kind of anti-German rant, be my guest.

SmackFu

02-19-2003, 09:22 AM

In the US, couldn't the terms for all 3,045 crimes be served one-after-another? So the judge could essentially sentence him to life in prision?

friedo

02-19-2003, 09:42 AM

Depends on the jurisdiction and stuff. The US also has concurrent sentences in some cases. I don't know if they're the norm for accessory to murder though.

Barbarian

02-19-2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by El Elvis Rojo
Am I the only one that sees something INCREDIBLY wrong with this?
Yes, yes you are.

Please tell us how a judge is supposed to sentence someone to a jail sentence longer than the maximum allowable by law.

15 years for accessory to murder is pretty stiff. In BC, one man was just sentenced to 5 years in prison for his role in 329 deaths (http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/airindia/cjb_ms_03-02.htm)

On the other hand, two years of kindness (http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/2003/kindness.asp) for killing a man in the US is pretty fucking light, if you ask me.

El Elvis Rojo

02-19-2003, 11:11 AM

I read the post about the "5 Years for 329 Deaths" and was pretty sickened by that as well. From what I understand, though, there was some sort of bargain made in that case, not in this one.

As for "How is a judge supposed to sentence someone to a jail sentence longer than the maximum," what about concurrent sentences? What about sentencing him for each individual death? Does anyone know what the maximum punishment in Germany for the "assisted murder" of one person is? Even if it's only 6 months, multiply that by 3,045 and it's much longer than fifteen years! Shit, if it's two weeks, it's more than fifteen years.

Riboflavin

02-19-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Barbarian
Please tell us how a judge is supposed to sentence someone to a jail sentence longer than the maximum allowable by law.

The thread title says "Justice System", not "Judge". If the best the justice system can do is a mere 15 years in jail for helping to murder 3000 people, then yes, there's a problem with the justice system. Then again, this is the German justice system we're talking about, which gave out sentences of 0 years to a lot of accessories to the murder of 12 million people, so it has improved some in the past 50 years!

On the other hand, two years of kindness (http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/2003/kindness.asp) for killing a man in the US is pretty fucking light, if you ask me. [/B]

Except that that one wasn't murder, that was a vehicle accident which is an entirely differnt sort of crime than premeditated killing. Trying to defend 'oh, gosh, Germany figures helping to kill 3000 people is worth 15 years in jail' with 'Gosh, somewhere in the US treated a car accident that resulted in a death as something very minor' just doesn't wash.

Riboflavin

02-19-2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
IANAL, but I don't see any problem with Parche's sentencing. First, it wasn't *that* serious an injury.

And as long as the person attempting to kill you doesn't do a good job of it, they shouldn't go to jail! That makes perfect sense!

Second, "diminished responsibility" means "the lights are on but nobody's home".

"Diminished responsibility" is nonsensical; either someone is capable of controlling their actions, or they need to be locked up in an institution untill they are for the protection of the people they might decide to stab with their "diminished responsibility".

the judge was quoted somewhere else as saying, basically, "I don't think he's a danger to anyone else except possibly Steffi Graf's tennis opponents."

I'm sure that's a real comfort to the woman who had a knife shoved into her back. Hell, maybe she should get jail time, she probably caused the poor guy emotional disturbance by yelling and screaming at him. I smell a countersuit!

So all those mitigating factors led to the suspended sentence and no actual jail time. You wanna work that up into some kind of anti-German rant, be my guest.

Yeah, mitigating factors like 'Well, the knife in her back only incapacitated her for three months, the guy isn't in controll of himself enough to really make a decision about stabbing people, and the judge figures he's only a danger to this particular woman'.

Duck Duck Goose

02-19-2003, 02:28 PM

I'm saying what was going through the judge's head, the "mitigating factors" that were cited that led to only a two-year suspended sentence.

There are American judges that have "mitigating factors" go through their heads and lead them to hand down light sentences, too. Why flame the entire German legal system just because one judge handed down a sentence that you think is too light?

Duck Duck Goose

02-19-2003, 02:30 PM

And judges are supposed to use common sense, and distinguish between "what the law allows" and "what the law demands". The law demanded that Parche be punished, but the law, as interpreted by the judge, allowed his punishment to be suspended, due to the three mitigating factors cited.

Cheesesteak

02-19-2003, 03:25 PM

DDG, how WAS Parche punished for his actions? Besides having to hire a lawyer (presumably) he does no jail time for stabbing someone and causing her to be so emotionally scarred as to be unable to compete effectively in her sport for years after the attack. He accomplished what he set out to do, Graf became the #1 player after Seles was unable to compete again, and he hardly got a slap on the wrist.

The very idea that he's "not a danger" to others is nonsense, since ANY of Graf's competition could be a target. Not an anti-German thing, but that sentence was way too light.

sailor

02-19-2003, 05:15 PM

This is idiotic. If there is a place in the world where criminals go free on legal technicalities it is the USA and we are supposed to scoff at the German legal system? I am sure many Germans could find plenty of stupid laws and stupid application of them in the US. The Germans think 15 years is the appropriate sentence. Deal with it. Or is the US going to invade Germany when it's done with Iraq?

I get sick and tired of the usual idiots justifying everything the US does and denigrating everything any other country does if it doesn't fit what the USA thinks should be done. december, I'm talking to you.

Duck Duck Goose

02-19-2003, 06:30 PM

Parche was punished by having the conviction on his record. However, I suppose you could argue that like most not-quite-functional people, he doesn't realize that he's being punished by having this on his record. But so what? Is it really that important to make sure a not-quite-functional person understands that it's Bad to stab people in the back?

If Seles had been killed, or even seriously injured, I'd be more upset, but as it is...Guess what? There are judges out there who give suspended sentences to murderers, so why shouldn't the German judge have given a suspended sentence to Parche, who didn't even kill anyone?

http://www.jfw.org.uk/ONTRIAL.HTM
In 1991 Joseph McGrail was tried in Birmingham for the murder of his wife. He pleaded provocation on the basis that his wife was an alcoholic and swore at him. He killed her by repeatedly kicking her in the stomach. At the trial the judge commented ….."this lady would have tried the patience of a saint", he gave him a two year suspended sentence.

In 1992 Judge Dennison gave Bisla Rajinder Singh, an 18 month sentence suspended for one year for the manslaughter of his wife on the grounds of provocation. The judge told him "you have suffered through no fault of your own….your wife was a domineering lady with a sharp and persistent tongue".

Lucy Kellet was preparing to leave Oliver Kellet after years of abuse. As she as waiting for the removal van to take her to her new home he stabbed her repeatedly with a bowie knife. He pleaded manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was given 3 year probation.http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/18/1040174295390.html
Justice Robert Hulme handed the underworld figure Michael Kanaan, 27 - already serving three life sentences for murder - a term of three years and four months. Mohamed Dib, 24, received the same sentence and Narwas Refai, 28, walked free with a two-year suspended sentence.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/example/mumfree.htm
Killer Mum Weeps As Judge Sets Her Free
by Fiona Hudson — The Courier-Mail, Friday 7th July, 2000

A MOTHER who stole back and stabbed to death the toddler she was forced to adopt out walked free yesterday.

Maria Giulia Sette, 32, wept with relief as she left court with a two-year suspended jail sentence.

Sette spent only 24 days behind bars for stabbing to death 15-month-old James after he called her "mummy" for the first time in February last year.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Graham Barr said during sentencing yesterday that the bare facts of the case seemed "brutal indeed".

But jail was not called for because of "quite extraordinary" circumstances.

Riboflavin

02-19-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
I'm saying what was going through the judge's head, the "mitigating factors" that were cited that led to only a two-year suspended sentence.

And I'm saying that the result of what went through the judges head is simply wrong.

There are American judges that have "mitigating factors" go through their heads and lead them to hand down light sentences, too.

When American judges use nonsensical mitigating factors to let someone get away with attempted murder, I complain about that too. In fact, enough americans have complained about bogus 'mitigating factors' that a number of states have passed laws requiring judges not to give absurdly short sentences.

Why flame the entire German legal system just because one judge handed down a sentence that you think is too light? ]

Because the entire German legal system agrees that 15 years is a perfectly good sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. And not just any individual murder, but murder of 3000 people that is also a hate crime!

Riboflavin

02-19-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
But so what? Is it really that important to make sure a not-quite-functional person understands that it's Bad to stab people in the back?

What I care about is that he either A. understands that he can't stab people when he feels like it or B. is removed from society to protect me (and other people) from being stabbed in the back.

If Seles had been killed, or even seriously injured,

So, a knife wound in the back that keeps someone from engaging in strenuous physical activity for 3 months doesn't qualify as 'seriously injured'? OK, I can't take you seriously anymore unless you're willing to get a similar non-serious injury to prove how non-serious the injury is.

II Gyan II

02-19-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Riboflavin

Because the entire German legal system agrees that 15 years is a perfectly good sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. And not just any individual murder, but murder of 3000 people that is also a hate crime!

No, they don't. No law is passed with a 100% vote.

And the German legislators didn't have accessories to mass murderers in mind when drafting this particular limit.

JRDelirious

02-19-2003, 08:32 PM

Let me support Gyan9's latest post here. Whenever this was legislated it was likely not unanimous, almost certainly there's any number of German judges and attorneys that would rather have it different, and quite likely it was not imagined that this would be one of the cases involved.

Does it means the Bundestag should revisit its sentencing guidelines in view of new crime patterns? Probably. Does it means their laws are inferior to the USA's? No way to objectively answer THAT.

But then again -- there are a large number of justice systems in the world that have different criteria for sentencing than the US. There are even countries where there is a recognized constitutional right to never be incarcerated more than 30 years, period, whatever you did (and yes, it means ABSOLUTE maxima, i.e. no "consecutive/concurrent sentences") and the death penalty is so outlawed no criminal whatever can be extradited to a DP jurisdiction. Then there are countries where a woman becoming pregnant outside of marriage means she gets stoned to death; or where an official who took bribes is condemned to be shot that very afternoon and the family is billed for the ammo. Such is the world.

Reeder

02-19-2003, 10:11 PM

The woman who killed her husband by running him over in Texas, her name escapes me right now, could have received probation upon her conviction. Texas allows passion or "the heat of the moment" to be taken into consideration in a murder trial.

As for the OP, the judge gave exactly the sentence that America asked for. The maximum.

El Elvis Rojo

02-20-2003, 08:08 AM

Reeder, the "heat of passion" defense is the reason she only got 20 years. If it weren't for that, most likely here, she would have gotten life in prison or possibly the death penelty if it was proven premeditated. 20 years was the max for "crime of passion/temporary insanity" in this case, and that's what she got.

DDG, every case you posted about makes me sick. I'm sick of every instance where a person commits murder and is given a simple slap on the wrist for stupid fucking made up excuses and shit. A spouse abused by another finally snaps one day and kills the assailant...that, I have no qualms with. An abusive spouse is killed by abusing spouse and the assailant goes free...that's just sick. There are a lot of shitty cases in the US that have results I do not agree with.

Many people who bitch about the US use the fact our legal system is shitty as a point of argument, and it's a good one. But, obviously, we are not the only ones that have our heads up our asses. Whether this trial was here, or in France, or Brazil, or Mars, I don't care...the verdict just sickens me, and I find it amazing that any "justice system" ANYWHERE can chalk the lives of more than 3,000 people up with fifteen years of incarceration for thier murder.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus

02-20-2003, 08:26 AM

IANAL, and I'm hoping that a real one will correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves most U.S. jurisdictions no longer allow someone to be charged as an accessory before the fact. If you aid or abet in any way in the comletion of the crime you are fully guilty of the completed crime, and can be sentenced accordingly. So Motassadeq, if charged in the U.S., would be guilty of mass murder and could be sentenced accordingly.

Could he be extradited to the U.S., and tried here?

Again with the caveat that IANAL, you can, however, be charged as an accessory after the fact, which I think is basically hiding the perpetrator, or the evidence.

Duck Duck Goose

02-20-2003, 08:37 AM

Well, me, too, Elvis, but what the German judge has to go by is what "The Law" says. And what "The Law" says in Germany is that the maximum penalty for "accessory to murder" is 15 years. Period. The judge can't decide to slap some extra time on there just because the crime was extra-heinous. "The Law" doesn't work like that.

He also can't decide to change the way the sentence is carried out, like having the guy serve 3,045 consecutive sentences of 15 years each, because that's not the way The Law reads.

If you want this guy to get a bigger sentence, you'd have to change The Law.

The woman in Texas was Clara Harris, and the jury rejected the "heat of the moment" defense since she deliberately backed the car up and ran over him twice more, there in the parking lot, making three times in all. If she'd just run him down the one time, she might have gotten off with the "crime of passion" defense. But reversing and going over him twice more just to make sure (and while his 17-year-old daughter was in the car with her, begging her to "stop killing my dad!") got her 20 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/14/harris.trial/index.html
On Thursday, jurors found Harris, 45, guilty of murder for repeatedly running over her 44-year-old orthodontist husband with her car. The crime was caught on tape by a private investigator Clara Harris had hired to document her husband's affair.

Jurors found that Harris acted with "sudden passion," which could have reduced the jurors' recommendation to probation. Instead, the jury said Harris should be fined and sentenced to prison at the upper limit of the sentencing guidelines for the special circumstance.

Barbarian

02-20-2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by El Elvis Rojo
As for "How is a judge supposed to sentence someone to a jail sentence longer than the maximum," what about concurrent sentences? What about sentencing him for each individual death?

I think you mean consecutive sentences. As far as I know, every multiple sentence in the Commonwealth are served concurrently (which is why Reyat is getting 5 years for 329 counts), and it looks like Germany does the same thing.

The only western country I've heard of that sentences people consecutively is the United States, which is why people get sentenced to hundreds of years in prison.

If you can correct me, please do; I'm no expert in international law.

El Elvis Rojo

02-20-2003, 12:46 PM

DDG, reread the story, or at least the line you posted:

Jurors found that Harris acted with "sudden passion," which could have reduced the jurors' recommendation to probation. Instead, the jury said Harris should be fined and sentenced to prison at the upper limit of the sentencing guidelines for the special circumstance.

They found she acted with "sudden passion". Due to that, the sentencing she could receive due to this was probation to up to 20 years in prison. That's "the sentencing guidlines for the special circumstances". That's why she got a cap on her sentence of 20 years and not life in prison. I work at a news station here in Austin, and that's how we presented it, anyway.

Duck Duck Goose

02-20-2003, 03:19 PM

Right, they agreed that she acted with "sudden passion", but they still convicted her of the murder.

If they had accepted the "heat of the moment" defense, they wouldn't have convicted her in the first place.

Riboflavin

02-20-2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Gyan9
No, they don't. No law is passed with a 100% vote.

That's completely irrelevant and hypocritical; you can't defend this absurd verdict by saying both 'it's the maximum sentence the German legal system can give out' and 'well, some people in the German legal system think it's fine.'

And the German legislators didn't have accessories to mass murderers in mind when drafting this particular limit.

Yeah, because it would be completely impossible for there to ever be a conviction for mass murder in Germany of all countries! I mean, when has there ever been any instance of mass murder by Germans?

II Gyan II

02-20-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Riboflavin
That's completely irrelevant and hypocritical; you can't defend this absurd verdict by saying both 'it's the maximum sentence the German legal system can give out' and 'well, some people in the German legal system think it's fine.'

Huh ? What can't you understand ? :dubious:

A law in parliament doesn't require ALL people to support it. But, once a majority vote for it, it applies to ALL citizens. More than half the American voters didn't vote for Bush as President but he's EVERYONE's president now. His policy applies to all Americans, not just those voted for him. What can't you understand about this ?

If you're outraged by German law, fly over and go lobby at the Bundestag.

At most, the only valid argument one can make in this case is that the charges pressed should have been one with harsher sentences. That's the prosecutor's fault at best, not the judge's or the justice system's. So get over it.

Spavined Gelding

02-20-2003, 05:11 PM

Before we get our shorts in too big a bind here, the guy was convicted as an accessory to a conspiracy to commit murder. That is a fair remove for the crime of murder. For purposes of comparison, in Iowa, under State law, murder one carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Conspiracy, that is the agreement with others to facilitate or do a felony offense when any one party to the agreement actually does something that advances the conspiracy, carries a maximum sentence of 25 years with eligibility for parole. Aiding and abetting, the same thing as accomplice before the fact, is punished the same as the offense aided or abetted—in the case of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to do a felony -or 25 years. Being an accessory after the fact by concealing the crime, preventing apprehension and the like is a serious misdemeanor when the offense is a felony and is punishable by up to two years imprisonment. If this guy had gone up in Iowa the max would have been 25 years, or maybe 12 years before parole.

According to the NPR report the case wasn’t all that strong. The most damaging evidence was that the defendant took care of one of the high-jackers’ banking and once introduced the high-jacker as “our pilot.” There was no direct evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of what was going on or was involved in planning in any way. According to one German commenter the court, which was panel of professional judges not a lay jury, could convict, not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt, but based on a preponderance of the evidence showing that the defendant likely knew that something criminal was afoot and that the defendant somehow helped the bad guys despite that knowledge. None the less, the guy was convicted and received the max, which is some indication that the court recognized the seriousness of the situation.

Kalimero

02-20-2003, 06:14 PM

Mounir el Motassadeq deserved the max. sentence.

But, there´s absolutely no need to tighten the German penal code! It makes Germany a fairly safe country, without incarcerating an unnecessary amount of its citizens. Why change it?
Deterrence can hardly be seen as an argument in this case.

Kalimero

Jeff Lodoen

02-20-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Kalimero
Mounir el Motassadeq deserved the max. sentence.

Deterrence can hardly be seen as an argument in this case.

How do you figure?

Riboflavin

02-21-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Gyan9
Huh ? What can't you understand ? :dubious:

The real question is "what can't you understand?". Less than two days per murder is simply screwed up, the German justice system says that's fine, hell, it's the max, therefore the German justice system is screwed up.

A law in parliament doesn't require ALL people to support it. But, once a majority vote for it, it applies to ALL citizens.

I don't give a rat's ass what percentage of people voted for it, it's screwed up.

More than half the American voters didn't vote for Bush as President but he's EVERYONE's president now. His policy applies to all Americans, not just those voted for him. What can't you understand about this ?

What I don't understand is how it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. If you were to say 'the American justice system is screwed up because it would give this guy something worse than 2 days in jail per victim', I would either disagree with your determination of what sentence is appropriate or agree that things were screwed up and needed to change. I would not argue "well, not everyone voted for the law, therefore you can't say that it's screwed up" like your bunch is doing.

If you're outraged by German law, fly over and go lobby at the Bundestag.

Just how much of a moron are you? Whether German law is fucked up has nothing to do with whether I'm concerned enough about it to screw up my own life by flying across the ocean and lobbying the Bundestag to change it.

At most, the only valid argument one can make in this case is that the charges pressed should have been one with harsher sentences. That's the prosecutor's fault at best, not the judge's or the justice system's. So get over it.

The justice system produced the result, I don't care which person in the justice system is responsible for it. Still, it's good to know that our "allies" think that the murder of Americans warrants less than two days per victim, to give the murderer a second chance at life.

Riboflavin

02-21-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Spavined Gelding
If this guy had gone up in Iowa the max would have been 25 years, or maybe 12 years before parole.

Nope. Multiply that by 3000 and you've got the correct answer, but thanks for playing.

II Gyan II

02-21-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Riboflavin

Just how much of a moron are you?

The justice system produced the result, I don't care which person in the justice system is responsible for it.

I think you should stick to the Pit.

Intelligent Argument is an oxymoron (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron) to you. (A link since you'll need to look it up anyway)

sailor

02-21-2003, 03:57 PM

Of the hijackers only the leaders knew they were going to crash the planes into the WTC. The others did not know they were going to die. So how could a guy in Germany know more than some of the hijackers themselves? I don't think so.

I think some people here are passing judgment without knowing the facts of the case.

In any case, it is laughable for Americans to deride the German judicial system when the examples of ridiculous judgments in the USA are legendary.

Spavined Gelding

02-21-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Riboflavin
Nope. Multiply that by 3000 and you've got the correct answer, but thanks for playing.

3000 deaths, more or less, one conspiracy, one aiding and abetting, one count of aiding and abetting a single conspiracy to murder 3000 people. 25 years in Iowa.

JRDelirious

02-23-2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Riboflavin
Still, it's good to know that our "allies" think that the murder of Americans warrants less than two days per victim, to give the murderer a second chance at life.

There's the problem. You're effectively accusing them of doing this specifically out of scorn for "Americans". And you know that is not true.

Now, if you phrase it as "a Justice system that does not allow a court to ever put away someone forever no matter what, is screwed up", you DO have a point.

You believe the only true justice is 3 thousand consecutive life sentences (or, who knows, hanging him 3,000 times?),and anyone saying otherwise is "wrong, but thanks for playing". Fine. That is YHO. Duly noted. Sanrkiness allowed,this being The Pit.

In the jurisdiction we're bitching about the decision was taken years, maybe decades ago, that their society is not well-served by such draconian sentencing.. MAYBE, just maybe, precisely because they had bad experiences with systems of harsh merciless "justice"?

kung fu lola

02-23-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Barbarian
15 years for accessory to murder is pretty stiff. In BC, one man was just sentenced to 5 years in prison for his role in 329 deaths (http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/airindia/cjb_ms_03-02.htm)

This is disingenuous.

From the site:

"Although Mr. Reyat acquired materials for [the bombing], he did not make or arm an explosive device, nor did he place an explosive device on an airplane, nor does he know who did or did not do so.

At no time did Mr. Reyat intend by his actions to cause death to any person or believe that such consequences were likely to occur. "