It's murder if it's intentional killing.
He didn't intentionally kill them, therefore it's not murder.

He was setting fire to the house in order to win back custody of his children. Setting fire to his children would not have been a very effective way of accomplishing this.
( Kroney, Wed 3 Apr 2013, 10:25, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

yeah, I think what PJ is saying
is that there's a grey area whereby you do something that is deliberate and almost totally certain to kill someone but you argue it wasn't your intention to kill them.

Legally it's going to be manslaughter as long as everyone believes it wasn't your intention to kill them. But even someone with the IQ of a red setter can see that setting fire to a house full of sleeping children is really likely to kill someone. So essentially they've escaped a murder charge because the CPS felt that they were stupid enough that a jury would give them the benefit of the doubt on that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 3 Apr 2013, 10:29, Reply)

Pretty much

( Peej, Wed 3 Apr 2013, 10:46, Reply)