Page 29 | Caroline Flack found dead

WatcherintheRye · 16/02/2020 20:09

The evidence won't be heard and now a potential victim is left to deal with the ramifications of that.

Or a wrongfully accused person is never now to be exonerated.

I just think people should be more measured in what they are saying about her and mindful of the recent history.

I couldn't agree more about a measured approach, but surely 'innocent until proven guilty' is the very essence of that?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 16/02/2020 20:10

Accounts say she had been suffering from severe depression for some time. She was known to have taken drugs such as cocaine as do many with MH conditions to try and help them cope.

How do you know she wasn't in the grip of psychosis IF she hit him with the lamp. She certainly wasn't acting rationally at the time, as reports say she continued to act in an agitated manner when the police arrived some time later. Surely someone thinking rationally would have calmed down enough by that point to avoid arrest?

And? If she was taking drugs at the time then that's on her, no one else. If she was psychotic or otherwise mentally unwell then that's on her defence team to evidence and argue isn't it?

It doesn't make the harm to the victim any less real.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:10

This reply has been deleted

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

FrippEnos · 16/02/2020 20:10

todayisnottuesday

So IF he wasn't being hit why did he ring the police?

you have given a lot of excuses for her behaviour so lets here one for his.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 16/02/2020 20:15

I couldn't agree more about a measured approach, but surely 'innocent until proven guilty' is the very essence of that?

Then that should be applied in all cases, but it isn't. Plenty of people on MN argue that being found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent. I've seen people insinuating things about people where no charges have been brought at all ( Prince Andrew and Philip Schofield are just 2 examples I've seen on here recently).and CF ex bf is being accused of all sorts on line - on what basis?

So, are you defending all of these people too?

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:19

So IF he wasn't being hit why did he ring the police?

I haven't given any EXCUSES for her behaviour, I have given a possible REASON for it to try (in vain it would seem) to explain to those who are wrongly labelling her as guilty (even though a court of law had not yet deemed her as such) that things can be far more complex than they seem, and so to say she was guilty as fact is wrong. She may not have been, even if she DID hit him with the lamp.

I use the word IF as we don't know for definite she did it.

His reasons for ringing the police if he wasn't hit? No idea - that's for him to tell, for me to give a reason would be pure speculation, just like you and others keep giving.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:26

Hearhoovesthinkzebras

And?

And - if she was in the grip of MH related psychosis she would not have been seen as accountable or guilty for whatever happened.

If she was psychotic or otherwise mentally unwell then that's on her defence team to evidence and argue isn't it?

It WOULD have been, yes. And would likely have resulted in a not guilty charge. So why is she being labelled as guilty when that conclusion was not reached in a court of law. Yes, she MAY have been guilty, but that is not a fact.

It doesn't make the harm to the victim any less real.

Never said it did.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 16/02/2020 20:28

His reasons for ringing the police if he wasn't hit?

I don't think there's any question about him being hit. Pretty sure that the police and the paramedics saw proof that he had been hit. How, why and by who are the questions to be answered.

LuxDesignWish · 16/02/2020 20:29

So IF he wasn't being hit why did he ring the police?

It ran through my head that she may have harmed herself and he was protecting her from the media in a panicked sort of way. He clearly loved her very much and I suspect there is more to this than we know.

Bluntness100 · 16/02/2020 20:29

The police statements, as well as the 999 call are publicly available. As are the images of the scene.

He called 999 saying she had been trying to kill him, she'd hit him with a heavy based Lamp as he slept, after reading text messages on his phone. She also cut her wrists, and the images of the bloodied scene are publicly available, she was also physically restrained by officers on the floor after trying to attack them.

Pretending that's not true does no one any favours, least of all Caroline. These facts are public record, disputing them is just silly.

LittleSweet · 16/02/2020 20:31

I thought he said in his phone call to police that she had hit him while he was sleeping and he felt in fear of his life. I did see a photo of the bed with lots of blood. I'm happy to be corrected.

I truly think she was mentally ill and not getting proper treatment for her illness. This in my eyes is due to a lack of funding for mental health services. Also people who are mentally ill can decline treatment, but how can they be allowed to when their judgement might be impaired by their illness? I have found this whole thing really upsetting from the start. I think she has been badly let down with her health care. Also her poor boyfriend.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 16/02/2020 20:33

And - if she was in the grip of MH related psychosis she would not have been seen as accountable or guilty for whatever happened.

People are still sentenced though aren't they? How do we have secure mental health facilities like Broadmoor? Was a plea not entered when she attended the magistrates court? I think you're reaching quite a bit here. If she was psychotic and attacked someone during an episode then why on earth was she released and allowed to carry on her daily life?

DivinationDandy · 16/02/2020 20:36

To add to what Bluntness said, the police officers were wearing body cameras; there's evidence of their interactions with CF and her bf.

There was a hearing at the magistrates court in December when a lot of this was said in open court and reported on. Despite her having obviously not been through a trial and found guilty, there were facts known in this case because of the hearing at the magistrates.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:39

If she was psychotic and attacked someone during an episode then why on earth was she released and allowed to carry on her daily life?

Perhaps for the same reasons that paramedics judged her as mentally well enough to not need a hospital assessment the day before she killed herself. Exactly the same as they did with my Mum, only for her to kill herself later that day. There is fuck all help, facilities and resources out there even for the seriously mentally ill.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:40

there were facts known in this case because of the hearing at the magistrates.

Yep. There are also no doubt many facts we DON'T know about the case. But no one seems to be considering that.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras · 16/02/2020 20:42

My sympathies for what happened to your mum and I agree that mental.health services are woeful and inadequate but I really do doubt that someone who had been arrested at the scene of a crime, who was experiencing a psychotic episode and where they were alleged to have been the attacker in a potentially serious assault would just be allowed to go free.

Bluntness100 · 16/02/2020 20:43

If she was psychotic and attacked someone during an episode then why on earth was she released and allowed to carry on her daily life?

Indeed, questions that all need to be answered.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:44

Was a plea not entered when she attended the magistrates court?

Yes - she entered a plea of not guilty.

I expect she had very good lawyers, why would they instruct her to plead not guilty to something unless there were considerable mitigating circumstances given that much of the evidence against her seemed indisputable?

Bluntness100 · 16/02/2020 20:45

I'd also urge people to remember that part of Caroline's bail conditions were she was allowed no contact with her "victim".

This was not done lightly.

Bluntness100 · 16/02/2020 20:47

I expect she had very good lawyers, why would they instruct her to plead not guilty to something unless there were considerable mitigating circumstances given that much of the evidence against her seemed indisputable

I'm sorry but can you clarify how you know how she was instructed versus what was her own decision?

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:48

I really do doubt that someone who had been arrested at the scene of a crime, who was experiencing a psychotic episode and where they were alleged to have been the attacker in a potentially serious assault would just be allowed to go free.

Then you are unaware of just how bad MH provision is at the moment. If she had been given anti-psychotic medication and it was seen to be effective, and had people to look after her they would not have had justification to keep her in custody or keep her under section for an assault charge.

DivinationDandy · 16/02/2020 20:50

Yep. There are also no doubt many facts we DON'T know about the case. But no one seems to be considering that.

No one? I'm considering it. I think it's likely there were mitigating factors definitely. Which is different from facts that directly dispute the facts known.

It is possible of course that the police and CPS have got this totally wrong, but I don't think the probability is high.

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:51

I'm sorry but can you clarify how you know how she was instructed versus what was her own decision?

She was represented by her lawyers when making the plea so clearly they supported a decision to plead not guilty.

Can you clarify how you know she was guilty?

todayisnottuesday · 16/02/2020 20:53

I'd also urge people to remember that part of Caroline's bail conditions were she was allowed no contact with her "victim".

This was not done lightly.

Eh? It is done automatically in a suspected crime where one person is a possibly a witness for the prosecution and the other for the defence.

Bluntness100 · 16/02/2020 20:54

I didn't say she was guilty, I didn't put an ascertain either way, as you did. I simply questioned your ascertion that you knew.

As said, the police statements, the scene images, the 999 calls, rhe bail conditions are public record,