Eleanor Williams gets 8 years

[YNK]

Is this the right length of sentence to reflect the damage done?

I didn’t say they were infallible. No one is infallible. However, she has been seen by multiple consultant psychiatrists. The evidence that both psychiatrists presented to the court was then examined under questioning by barristers and cross examined again. Two legal teams have have scrutinised every single line in her medical notes and records and these reports. No one is infallible, but no one has yet been able to establish this woman is mentally ill. I don’t know the circumstances that unfortunately led to your misdiagnosis and please do correct me if I am wrong but I am assuming that the assessments you went under were not subject to the kind of high level scrutiny the evidence was in this case. Again please do correct me if I am wrong but your comment seems to suggest you received some kind of diagnosis of illness, albeit the wrong one. This woman has not been diagnosed with any mental illness.

She was seen by TWO psychiatrists who did not even agree with each other! There was no consensus so which psychiatrist was wrong? Or were both wrong? Because out of TWO psychiatrists the minimum error rate we are looking at is 50%.

Neither said she had mental illness or a personality disorder which contributed to or led to her offending. Neither of them said she was mentally unwell so as to mean she should be detained in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison. Neither of them said that she was so too unwell to be tried for the offences. Neither of them was able to diagnose her with an illness or disorder which provided an explanation for her behaviour.

But they wholly disagreed on her symptoms. That’s pretty critical and the basis of everything you mention. Even you accurately reported that the judge chose between the reports. If the psychiatrists had been in agreement, the judge wouldn’t have had to choose which psychiatrist report to accept. The judge would have accepted both reports.

This isn’t a case where two psychiatrists examined her and agreed on her mental state even though you are trying to make it look like that.

There is no scenario where both psychiatrists were right in this case. One was wrong, at the minimum.

Neither said she had mental illness or a personality disorder which contributed to or led to her offending.

This is incorrect:

“Dr Lucy Bacon, a forensic psychiatrist who assessed Williams multiple times since 2019, diagnosed complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from childhood trauma. Williams displayed all of the key symptoms, said Bacon, including suicidal ideation and substance misuse.

Bacon said Williams had learned to “maintain a mask” to hide her emotions, which she said was very common in trauma. The psychiatrist said she suspected “undisclosed sexual abuse” in childhood, which she said Williams had referred to “opaquely” in their sessions.

A male psychiatrist, Dr Martin Lock, commissioned by the prosecution, was not able to diagnose Williams with any psychiatric disorder. Bacon suggested this may be because he was a man, and that Williams had refused to engage with some male healthcare professionals in prison.”

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/why-did-eleanor-williams-frame-innocent-men-for-and-trafficking

The psychiatrists reports in this case have got “appeal” written all over them.

And dare I type this. Mr Justice Altham decided on the basis of what? that the man doctor was right and the woman doctor was wrong. Normally the court would appoint a 3rd consultant when two consultants disagree like this. Perhaps women doctors are just second class doctors.

They didn’t wholly disagree on her symptoms. In any event neither was able to diagnose her with an illness or disorder which could account or contribute to her offending. One psychiatrist said he thought she had symptoms of CPTSD. The other didn’t. It is very common for psychiatrists to disagree with one another regarding the symptoms of CPTSD. Even if both agreed on CPTSD symptoms that would still not explain the defendant’s offending. In a criminal case or indeed a civil case if opinions vary the Judge will have to prefer one piece of evidence over another. A Judge can’t say they are both right. In this case even if the Judge preferred the evidence which said she had symptoms of CPTSD that’s not the basis of her defence. Her defence was she was telling the truth, that she hadn’t perverted the course of justice, that she hadn’t deliberately lied to the authorities. Her defence wasn’t I am mentally unwell to the extent I didn’t know or didn’t understand what I was doing or that the state of her mind was so altered that she should not be held accountable for her actions.

‘which contributed to or led to her offending.’ this is the bit you are ignoring. I said that one psychiatrist said the defendant had symptoms of CPTSD.

On what basis?

Yes they did fundamentally disagree and one did diagnose her with cPTSD due to childhood abuse, likely sexual abuse.

As I said it is quite common for psychiatrists to disagree on diagnosing CPTSD.

Really? You see no connection between a likely childhood sex abuse victim to go to extreme attention seeking lengths all with the objective to be seen by the world as a sex abuse victim? And potentially get help for their trauma? None at all? And done in such a way to not disclose the identity of her CSE abuser? When we know large numbers of CSE victims do not feel safe coming forward and naming their abuser until after the abuser has died? It’s a potentially act of desperation imho.

Oh, yes apparently it’s at least a 50% chance a psychiatrist will be wrong. This only proves my point on fallability and counters your your point that there is no way she could be mentally unwell.

‘You see no connection between a likely childhood sex abuse victim to go to extreme attention seeking lengths all with the objective to be seen by the world as a sex abuse victim? And potentially get help for their trauma?’ That’s not the defence she provided though. She didn’t say I came up with this all because of what I went through in my childhood and my CPTSD symptoms. She denied perverting the course of justice. She said she hadn’t lied. She said she hadn’t injured herself.

Whether she has complex ptsd or not her actions were despicable and her sentence appropriate. I only hope she stops telling lies when she gets out again.

I too wish rapists were given longer terms and they should have to serve the whole time and not be released early - did you hear Gary glitter was recalled to prison after being released midway through his sentence ? 🤢

However I’m glad this is getting the attention it deserves. There was a case a few years ago of woman who made several rape allegations against various men - most or all of them were Asian. One of them even spent some time in jail before they uncovered her lies. She was sentenced to ten years.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47738892.amp

This is irrelevant to the question of whether she is mentally unwell. You can be unwell or well and have a shit defence.

She didn’t say I came up with this all because of what I went through in my childhood and my CPTSD symptoms.

Most of those who are mentally ill have poor insight into how their illness affects their decision making. A person with cPTSD would not realise anything like this about themselves without long term trauma therapy.

It’s completely relevant. If she was mentally unwell that would have formed part of her defence, indeed her defence team would have made it the centrepiece of their case. They didn’t because she isn’t.

If she could use the mentally unwell card for her actions, then what would stop rapists doing so?

I am angry at 'mentally unwell' being thrown about constantly, especially when a women does something wrong to excuse the 'women cant do anything wrong and if they do it is a mental illness' , not people who have genuine mental illnesses

Thats not how it always works though irl. You can have a shit, incompetent defence team to the point of a mistrial for inadequate defence. You can have a noncooperative client who refuses to agree to the diminished responsibility defence. You can have a Justice known for bias against such defences, so the legal team attempts a different one. Any number of reasons are possible.

So yes it is irrelevant. If a defendant is mentally unwell, it is not a certainty that it will be the centrepiece of their defence.

Rapists already do use the mentally unwell card. Have done for donkeys years. Anyone mentally unwell is accorded sentence mitigation for it and/or remanded to a hospital instead of prison if seriously unwell.

Yes. It is worth noting that one of her victims had to be sectioned because his mental health issues had led him to suicide attempts and I understand the two other victims also tried to kill themselves. There defendant hasn’t been sectioned and the only injuries she inflicted on herself were those to try and substantiate claims she knew were completely false.

The bar for a genuine mental disorder isn’t being sectioned.
8.75 million people in the U.K. have a diagnosed mental disorder
Around 53,000 people are sectioned each year.

Meaning that at any one time 99.91% of the genuinely mentally unwell are not sectioned.

‘You can have a shit, incompetent defence team to the point of a mistrial for inadequate defence’ - mistrials do happen but that’s not what happened here. I don’t even think you would have a ‘mistrial’ on the basis of a ‘shit, incompetent defence team’. The defendant like any others will have the opportunity to appeal. I would be surprised if she did.
‘You can have a noncooperative client who refuses to agree to the diminished responsibility defence.’ - you can yes but that didn’t happen here because there would not have been evidence to even support a diminished responsibility defence. Even on the evidence of the defendant’s own psychiatrist having CPTSD would no let be sufficient to meet the criteria for a diminished responsibility defence.
‘You can have a Justice known for bias against such defences, so the legal team attempts a different one.’ - diminished responsibility is a very high bar to get over. The defendant’s own evidence is not sufficient to even allow the possibility of seriously attempting to mount such a defence.
‘So yes it is irrelevant’ - it remains completely relevant.
The reality is the defendant denied perverting the course of justice despite there being overwhelming evidence that she did. The psychiatric evidence does not support that mental illness is the reason that she did pervert the course of justice.