Talk

Advanced search

To be surprised the chip shop husband/deep fat fryer man got found not guilty

(131 Posts)
Cinammoncake Tue 19-Nov-19 16:05:49

That's the court verdict and they heard the evidence. But still, I was really surprised, given what I read in the papers about it, that the husband was found not guilty of murder.

mrsbyers Tue 19-Nov-19 16:08:15

Murder has to be premeditated I believe

PerkingFaintly Tue 19-Nov-19 16:10:13

Yes, I was astonished by this. I appreciate I wasn't in court and didn't see all the evidence, but I'm shock.

Haworthia Tue 19-Nov-19 16:10:28

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PlanDeRaccordement Tue 19-Nov-19 16:11:36

I was not surprised. People in their 70s should not be deep fat frying. It’s not safe due to impact of aging process on reaction times.
Besides, husband is usually #1 suspect and has to prove innocence anyway. Papers always make the #1 suspect look guilty.

PerkingFaintly Tue 19-Nov-19 16:11:53

Not guilty of manslaughter either.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50474374

GrumpyHoonMain Tue 19-Nov-19 16:12:54

Hopefully there’s an appeal

Vilanelle Tue 19-Nov-19 16:13:50

She had told her friend and paramedics that her husband went crazy and did it.

However I believe the fact she was intoxicated went in his favour.

NeedAnExpert Tue 19-Nov-19 16:14:55

As did the medical expert saying her injuries were consistent with someone that had fallen and pulled a deep fat fryer onto themselves.

fluffygal Tue 19-Nov-19 16:17:34

Odd that your wife would fall and pull burning oil fat on her and you wouldn't do anything to help her- apparently he just kept serving customers and ignored her for two hours.

BarbaraofSeville Tue 19-Nov-19 16:19:58

The jury, having heard the evidence that no-one on this thread has heard, has to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

His defence solicitor may have been able to introduce sufficient reasonable doubt that they were unable to convict, even for manslaughter.

The BBC report says that she was drunk at the time of the incident, and that a consultant plastic surgeon said that her injuries were consistent with pulling the fryer on top of her.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50474374

I have no idea, but it seems like a case of her word against his, plus whatever other evidence was available. Presumably they examined the fryer as in could it have fallen over, was there any damage and whether her injuries were consistent with a fall and a large amount of oil falling on her, rather than being thrown at her, which may look different to the forensic experts.

TriangularRatbag Tue 19-Nov-19 16:20:11

Message deleted by MNHQ for repeating deleted message. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lhastingsmua Tue 19-Nov-19 16:20:51

I agree that the circumstances were unclear but this adds a lot of credibility to his version of events:

Steven Jeffrey, a consultant burns and plastic surgeon, agreed her burns could have been sustained by her falling to the floor and pulling the fryer down over herself, saying: "This version of events is consistent with her injuries."

I don’t think he intentionally set out to kill her, especially as it seems she died of complications such as sepsis rather than the burns.

His actions after her injuries were sustained are strange though. He essentially left her to it and carried on serving customers. He may not have purposely burned her but he didn’t seem to care either way.

geojellyfish Tue 19-Nov-19 16:21:22

Yet another woman failed by our legal system. He didn't even seek medical attention for her afterwards! If it was an accident, surely the caring/human thing to do would be to make sure the injured person is ok?

She predicted he was going to severely harm her, she told several people that he did this to her, he admitted initially that they had argued at that time, he did not attempt to help his severely injured wife and yet... nothing!

I am really struggling to understand how women can be failed so miserably so frequently by our justice system. Something is broken.

userxx Tue 19-Nov-19 16:22:44

Jesus Christ, what a horrible way to go.

BarbaraofSeville Tue 19-Nov-19 16:23:16

Odd that your wife would fall and pull burning oil fat on her and you wouldn't do anything to help her- apparently he just kept serving customers and ignored her for two hours

I agree that is odd. Even if they'd been arguing, you would have thought that he'd help her straight away.

JasonPollack Tue 19-Nov-19 16:24:22

So shocking. Why wouldn't he have called an ambulance for her? Surely that is a crime in itself?

ClaraThePigeon Tue 19-Nov-19 16:24:57

He's innocent! The jury actually heard the evidence and saw him cross-examined rather than looking at the pictures in the Daily Mail.

After having served on a jury three times I have very little confidence in them.

Thescrewinthetuna Tue 19-Nov-19 16:25:38

As she was intoxicated she could well have done it to herself - so there’s the reasonable doubt therefore he cannot he found guilty. However, the fact he didn’t help her for 2 hours after the event knowing she was badly injured? That is horrendous.

Fightingmycorner2019 Tue 19-Nov-19 16:26:30

Maybe he didn’t murder her . I get outraged as everyone does about the statistics
But I also trust the jury and judge who had the actual facts in front of them

Thescrewinthetuna Tue 19-Nov-19 16:26:41

He's innocent! The jury actually heard the evidence and saw him cross-examined rather than looking at the pictures in the Daily Mail.

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

CuriousaboutSamphire Tue 19-Nov-19 16:27:55

She predicted he was going to severely harm her, she told several people that he did this to her, This is the bit we need to focus on... helping women feel confident to tell the right people and then forcing those right people to do something rather than standing around with their thumbs up their arses!

Too many women getting hurt with no recourse to justice!

Whatsnewpussyhat Tue 19-Nov-19 16:28:17

The fact that he did absolutely nothing to help her tells me all I need to know about him.

Dissimilitude Tue 19-Nov-19 16:29:18

I more than raised an eyebrow at this verdict, but the court would have had the full facts of the case.

Also of interest is the family seem to have supported the verdict, or did I infer that wrongly?

justanotherlemontree Tue 19-Nov-19 16:31:51

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

Let's remember this.

He was found not guilty based on the facts of the case.

That means that there was reasonable doubt.

It doesn't mean he was innocent.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »