Sally Challen

[Tilly2]

You may remember me posting this link wishing this woman well.

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1648041.html

She has had the conviction for murder quashed and is now back home.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47845450

She will now face a new trial and again, I hope that things turn out positively for her.

[Calicogirl]

Spicey- from the article (my caps to highlight relevance), so yes clearly more than one act of physical violence :-

//Two events stand out in that early period. One is that Sally became pregnant at 17 and was taken to Harley Street by her brothers for a late-term abortion. Afterwards, they approached Richard, only to be told: “It could have been anybody’s.” THE OTHER IS THE FIRST ACT OF VIOLENCE RECOUNTED BY SALLY TO WISTRICH.Sally said she had challenged Richard about seeing another woman, and he had dragged her down the stairs and thrown her out of the front door. (She claims that, for the rest of her life, she hated to confront him in case he did it again.)//

[Spicerack]

There was no question of physical abuse. She wouldn't have been charged with murder in the first place if there was. That's been a 'get out of jail free card' for man killers for years.
'He was flaunting his new girlfriend in front of her'
Can you imagine, when a man murders his ex, any bloke coming on here and saying 'Well, she had a new boyfriend, what did she expect?'

[wolf63]

She killed her husband and she should be punished for doing it.

only those who can fully understand the law, have access to all the evidence and can make a decision using their brain and not their heart can decide what crime she should be tried for.

[sherrardk]

Well done wolf, a bit of common sense :)

[Spicerack]

I tend to agree with you , Wolf. It's the knee-jerk reaction of some wimmin that gets on my toot.

[Calicogirl]

I actually agree wolf but I'm not at all sure there will be another trial. I'm sure Barmaid can confirm if the crown prosecution service can drop it altogether as this is a quote from the article which seems to suggest that a trial date might be deemed unnecessary?

//On Friday, Mr Justice Edis set a further hearing for 7 June and a trial date for 1 July "if necessary".//

[Mamyalynne]

I said much the same on page 1 Wolf , there have been some spectacular statements from both men and women on this thread.

I'll wait.

[Calicogirl]

No-one had a kneejerk reaction spicey, it was just that Hear No, See No and Speak No Sense jumped in with both feet winding people up calling the women here a coven and bra burners, which obviously lead to lengthy replies.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah I had noticed the judge had added
if necessary

[Khandro]

The only justification in law for killing a person (outside the arena of war) is self-defense, bludgeoning someone to death with a hammer, instead of removing yourself, isn't that.

[pixie374]

We still don't know what the mental illnesses were, khandro. Or if they would have any affect on how responsible she was for her actions.

[Togo]

Is she a mentally ill killer then? If so, how can she be deemed safe to be back "home" and not a danger to anyone else who might inadvertently arouse the feelings that triggered her fatal actions?

[jno]

they weren't aroused inadvertently, it tooks years of hard work.

[Baldric]

She is a convicted murderer who has not yet been cleared, dangerous woman imo.

[pixie374]

I genuinely don't know togo. I haven't seen the answers anywhere yet. She obviously has not been deemed a risk to anyone else or herself. I don't know any more than that.

[sherrardk]

She is not a convicted murderer, her conviction has been over turned. Obviously, people with access to all the facts and the legal brains to to sift through it have made that decision.

[Khandro]

pixie; We are all responsible for our actions. The French (alone) may have their crime passionnel which doesn't exonerate, but can lead to a reduction in sentence, but murder is still the most serious crime of all.

[pixie374]

Not necessarily khandro. In this country people are not held entirely responsible for their actions, if they either didn't know what they were doing at the time- or didn't know it was wrong at the time. That can only be decided by professionals that have assessed her.

[Baldric]

Honest Guv, I didn't know it was not legal to hit my husband on the head 20+ times with a hammer was wrong !!!!!!!

[pixie374]

Which mental illness was it Baldric? You obviously know more than I do about her. I have literally only seen what have read online.... and thankfully, the courts don't work with... "the opinions of ABers are...." they have to actually use facts and science and stuff...