I Do Hope That Things Turn Out Well For This Lady.

[Tilly2]

I have been following this story since reading a detailed account of the circumstances which resulted in her murder conviction.

Well done to her sons for following this through and getting a 'good' result so far.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47407204

[bluemoon1]

It seems to be the case that there are no evil people in the world these days, they all seem to have some excuse for doing evil deeds.
In the past, many people were sent to prison or even executed, when their case would now be thrown out of court, but when does leniency for the evil doer stop and justice for the victim take precedence?

[Deskdiary]

"Are we allowed to discuss this on here? Just asking in case I have made a bit of a blunder, in light of the fact that this is ongoing."

If AB are going to be consistent, then I doubt it.

On two occasions a couple of months or so ago I asked a reasonable question about Carl "Nick" Beech, the VIP paedophile accuser, who had been arrested for perverting the course of justice.

The story was in the public domain - but for reasons beyond me my first question was yanked, so when I tried to ask it again, the second question was yanked.

As far as this lady is concerned, if I had a magic wand I'd reduce the conviction to manslaughter and the jail term would be time already served.

What this lady suffered sounds horrific, but as Gromit has stated so was the way she killed her husband, so we shouldn't get sucked into considering an exoneration is in order just because she's a woman who suffered abuse.

[pansypotter]

It all sounds a bit premeditated she didn't kill her husband in self defence to save her own life, she did it in a jealous rage!

[Ken4155]

I've just read the details of the initial court case and, imho, this psychological manipulation defence is 'iffy' to say the least. She says he controlled much of her life yet she was monitoring his phone calls and counting his Viagra tablets. And, she actually travelled to his home (they had separated) armed with the hammer yet she states that she only used it after redialling the last number he had called which was answered by a woman. It may be telling that the appeal judges have ordered her retrial for murder and not manslaughter?

[anotheoldgit]

It is not as if she pushed him down the stairs and he happened to suffer fatal injuries, she actually obtained a hammer and beat her husband over the head several times thus killing him.

Seems like murder to me.

[dannyk13]

It has been said that she was suffering from a mental illness so a lot will depend on her mental state at the time of the offence.

[anotheoldgit]

dannyk13

And how can that be proven, unless she was under treatment for mental issues at the time?

[ludwig]

// I Do Hope That Things Turn Out Well For This Lady. //

Me too.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // It is not as if she pushed him down the stairs and he happened to suffer fatal injuries, she actually obtained a hammer and beat her husband over the head several times thus killing him.

Seems like murder to me. //

But not to the legal system, in view of new evidence which is to be presented.

No-one disputes that this woman killed her husband.

The re-trial is in order to present additional evidence that was not presented at the original trial, which may have a significant bearing on the judgement - specifically that the offence may be altered from murder to manslaughter, which will in turn affect the sentence handed down.