ChatterBank0 min ago
More Death By T R O B.....
Why was this savage not in the slammer for his previous crimes?
Answers
As I understand it, he was diagnosed as having mental issues well before; so this seems to be another failure on the part of authorities to ensure he was in a suitable asylum for the protection of the public. I know it's a difficult job making such decisions but it should be what those involved are trained to do. The public, especially the victim's and their family/friends, have been badly let down again.
Going out armed with a dagger would give rise to thinking it was pre-mediated murder. He certainly was compos mentis enough to ring his brother after the slaughter and advise him to get his family out of country as he knew he had done something wrong and stupid.
///During the three-day hearing, the court heard how Calocane, a mechanical engineering graduate from the University of Nottingham, hid in the shadows in Ilkeston Road at around 4am on 13 June armed with a dagger before beginning his attack on Barnaby and Grace as they walked back to their student accommodation after an end-of-term night out.
Witness evidence read to the court described “an awful, blood curdling scream” as Calocane inflicted at least 10 stab wounds on Barnaby and then 23 separate dagger wounds on Grace, who was attacked as she tried to protect her friend.
The killer then walked slowly through the Radford area to Mapperley Park, ringing his brother to say “This will be the last time I speak to you. Take the family out of the country”.
Asked if he was going to do something stupid, Calocane told his brother: “It’s already done.”//
davebro - // If you kill someone while you're drunk out of your skull you have "diminshed responsibility" but you still get done for murder. //
Again I am not speaking from knowledge, but I am sure the 'Diminished Responsibility' clause comes as an adjunt to a Manslaughter charge, rather than a Murder charge
Two of the four conditions that need to be sstis for diminished responsibilities to apply are
"(1) D was suffering from an ‘abnormality of mental functioning’; and
(2) the abnormality of mental functioning must have arisen ‘from a recognised medical condition’"
...
"The abnormality of mental functioning must arise ‘from a recognised medical condition’. Whether something is a medical condition is capable of being answered by an expert, but the question is not one of medicine but of law. This was confirmed in Dowds, in which the Court of Appeal held that even though voluntary ‘acute intoxication’ is a medical condition, in that it is recognised as being such by both diagnostic medical manuals, it is not a ‘recognised medical condition’ for the purposes of establishing diminished responsibility." [emphasis added]