Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Avatar Image
Whilst she can't be tried for murder (for the reasons given in the article) it's unlikely that'll be wandering the streets of Ashington any time soon.
19:46 Thu 05th Mar 2020
I saw that too Denton on our local news, quite baffling that she wasn’t in court and they said she couldn’t stand trial for murder
Question Author
Unbelievable,Bobbi.!!
A Trial of facts is unusual but not unbelievable.


Dreadful case.
not baffling at all. Done among other reasons when someone is seriously mentally ill.
If someone is so 'insane' (to use non-PC terminology) as to be unable to even know that they're in a court room and/or to have the slightest idea of what the proceedings are all about, they can't be required to enter a plea and therefore can't be tried. The same applies when the person suffers from severe psychosis (or did so at the time of the alleged offence), meaning that they are/were unable to differentiate fact from reality:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/mental-health-suspects-and-defendants-mental-health-conditions-or-disorders
Whilst she can't be tried for murder (for the reasons given in the article) it's unlikely that'll be wandering the streets of Ashington any time soon.
too mad to plead I think
but they still want to know if she did it or not - mad or not

in the Good Old Days - someone was found unfit to plead and they didnt check whether he had done it or not
and it turned out he was mad but innocent ( as in someone else did it)

the idea that you have to be sane to commit capital offences dates from Victorian times. Of the 600 or so murders a year abotu a third are mad.
Sutcliffe tried it and was found sane by a jury (of course) and later was transferred to the psychiatric hospital - a few years later

It would be interesting to know though why a Newton hearing has been started when an inquest could have covered much of the same ground.
Obviously a very, very sick, and disturbed individual.
Her poor mother.
would an inquest point the finger at a perpetrator?
While the purpose of an inquest isn't to assign guilt to anyone, the (fairly) recent change to the law which allows a jury to return a narrative verdict (rather than just, say, "murder by person or persons unknown") means that the verdict can include quite a bit of detail.
I am left wondering why the man at the allotment waited until the next day to report it to the police. I'm sure I wouldn't have slept if I'd seen that.
I wondered that too...maybe he was in shock.
// would an inquest point the finger at a perpetrator?//

finger pointing was stopped around 1975
and I dont think is back

1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Can't Be Tried For Murder!!

Answer Question >>