Penelope jackson guilty of murder

[Thomasina79]

I’ve been following this news item with interest. She is the woman who stabbed her violent and coercive and bullying husband to death after 20 years of torment. She denied murder, but admitted manslaughter.

Am I being unreasonable in thinking the jury should have not found her guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Murder carries a life sentence in prison and I cannot see that that there is anything to gain by locking her away.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I’m actually glad the verdict was murder.

It’s obvious that she intended to kill him and he was no threat to her when she went back, snatched the phone out of his hand after he’d called 999 for help, told the police not to send an ambulance and calmly stabbed him some more. She stated to police that she was fully aware of what she’d done and if she’d done it right, it would be murder instead of attempted murder. Etc etc.

There was more evidence that she was coercive and bullying than he was according to character witnesses. So I think that whole angle of the defence was poorly thought out.

This.

It is quite wrong that a woman can use the 'excuse' of domestic violence when there are women out there who genuinely have no choice but to stay. She had that choice. This was cold-blooded, premeditated murder.

It reminds me of a case we studied where a person stabbed their victim 150 times. Now, that takes a significant amount of time and energy. But what really clinched it was that when the first knife broke (not really having been made for that particular job), they went and got another one and kept on stabbing.

There was a point at which she could have, arguably should have, said 'holy shit, I've stabbed the bastard, and he might be dying'.

There are a number of legal defences to murder, which would reduce the crime to manslaughter.

Provocation is one of the defences. Sounds like she was massively abused over so many years to constitute provocation?

her call to 999, and when they arrived, were chilling in their matter of fact brutality.
seems like a psychopath.
no remorse whatsoever.

@ScienceSensibility

There are a number of legal defences to murder, which would reduce the crime to manslaughter.

Provocation is one of the defences. Sounds like she was massively abused over so many years to constitute provocation?

According to whom?

I don't think they could have done anything else, really. She was adamant that she intended to kill him and, if he wasn't dead, she hadn't done the job well enough. I mean, there's not a whole heap to work with there.

I think sentencing will be interesting though.

Provocation was abolished as a partial defence to murder in 2010, apparently, in England and Wales. A new partial defence of Loss of Control was implemented. The Judge and Jury didn't feel that loss of control was established.

@ScienceSensibility My understanding is that provocation used to be a partial defence to murder (in that it lessens the offence to manslaughter) but it has been changed now and replaced with the partial defence of loss of control, which is similar but slightly different.

The ‘ingredients’ of the loss of control defence are:

1. there was a loss of control
2. there was a qualifying trigger (something done or said by the victim which constituted circumstances of a grave character AND caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged, OR the defendant feared serious violence by the victim) and 3) and
3. someone of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way.

So based on the verdict, the jury clearly did not find that all of the ‘ingredients’ were evident.

It’s been a while since I studied criminal law, but I still find it really interesting!

Correct verdict imo. She meant to kill him, she's not remorseful.

@FourTeaFallOut She’s already been sentenced - the Guardian are reporting she has been sentenced life with a minimum of 18 years in prison (which is slightly in excess of the starting point of 15 years.)

Vile woman.

It’s because of women like her that so many women find it hard to be believed when they really are victims of domestic violence.

Throw away the key. At least the grandchild won’t have to have the awful woman in their life, and the daughter will hopefully have the chance of living a normal life now.

@mbosnz

Provocation was abolished as a partial defence to murder in 2010, apparently, in England and Wales. A new partial defence of Loss of Control was implemented. The Judge and Jury didn't feel that loss of control was established.

Thank you - shows how out of date I am since I switched careers! 🙄

@mbosnz

[quote Kimonolady]@ScienceSensibility My understanding is that provocation used to be a partial defence to murder (in that it lessens the offence to manslaughter) but it has been changed now and replaced with the partial defence of loss of control, which is similar but slightly different.

The ‘ingredients’ of the loss of control defence are:

1. there was a loss of control
2. there was a qualifying trigger (something done or said by the victim which constituted circumstances of a grave character AND caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged, OR the defendant feared serious violence by the victim) and 3) and
3. someone of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way.

So based on the verdict, the jury clearly did not find that all of the ‘ingredients’ were evident.

It’s been a while since I studied criminal law, but I still find it really interesting![/quote]
Ditto @kimonolady

Thank you 👍🏻

@ScienceSensibility

There are a number of legal defences to murder, which would reduce the crime to manslaughter.

Provocation is one of the defences. Sounds like she was massively abused over so many years to constitute provocation?

There was only one witness attesting David ever abused Penelope, her daughter and even she said there had been no abuse of her mother for over 20yrs.

But there were other witnesses, David’s daughter, Penelope’s third husbands brother, David’s ex wife all recounting how Penelope threatened and bullied David.

Anyone who came on here to say that their husband was once violently abusive - keeping in mind that he had held a knife to her throat - would be told that (a) a tragic child loss is still not an excuse and (b) that men are not likely to be violent just 3 times and never again.

She may still be a nasty person. But I am horrified by the headlines in the Times and elsewhere saying that sure he'd been violently abusive but only a long time ago, and that because her daughter hadn't seen it since, it must not have happened. Surely more likely that it always happened, it was just that his son's suicide had made him stressed enough to forget to hide it.

it’s quite concerning that all a woman has to do is cry domestic violence and other women will believe her regardless of the evidence of that person’s character.

There was a post on here the other day from a woman who was annoyed with her partner so she claimed he’d assaulted her to get him removed from the home. This resulted in SS putting her child on a child protection plan and telling her that if she stayed with him she would lose the child.

It’s disgraceful behaviour and is an insult to genuine victims.

This woman was clearly a violent person. No-one who is a downtrodden victim would behave in the way she did, positively gloating over his death. In fact it was he who was the victim, but of course no-one will ever believe that, because he’s a man. Even when he was brutally murdered there will be people who will say he deserved it.

YABU purely for thinking you know better than the people on the jury who sat through however long in a court room, rather than watching edited highlights in a TV bulletin or reported in the press.

No-one who is a downtrodden victim would behave in the way she did, positively gloating over his death.

The murder charge is the right one, and I don't doubt she was as violent as him, but I disagree with this statement.

I do think that a woman who genuinely had been abused for decades who had lost control and murderer her abuser may 'gloat' in this way while still running on adrenaline. I think some abused women would be hysterical (in the mentally unwell, not misogynistic way) about the fact he could never hurt her again.

We don't know for sure who was previously abusive. What is obvious is that she murdered him, it was calculated and she showed absolutely no remorse, even joked (saying he didn't have a heart). Of course she deserved to be found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly.

A high percentage of women prisoners are there for resorting to violence to deal with abusive men

There was a post on here the other day from a woman who was annoyed with her partner so she claimed he’d assaulted her to get him removed from the home. This resulted in SS putting her child on a child protection plan and telling her that if she stayed with him she would lose the child.

I read that too, and both parties sounded awful. However there was more context to it, in that there were multiple arguments with police called in advance, and the OP's partner had threatened to make she and her newborn child homeless - which is why she made the allegation, to have him removed.

She may well have been a nasty bully and shouldn't be able to claim self defence. However nasty bullies can also be victims of domestic violence. The reality is that there are few 'perfect victims' in any crime.

[quote bonfireheart]@midsomermurdress agree totally and people would be well to remember that.[/quote]

@bonfireheart @midsomermurderess agreed

Seriously. This thread wouldn't be here if the otherway round. The double standard is shocking. This woman was psycho who stabbed her husband whilst he was on the phone to 999 and showed no remorse, and has years worth of people saying she bullied him.

@Zwellers

Seriously. This thread wouldn't be here if the otherway round. The double standard is shocking. This woman was psycho who stabbed her husband whilst he was on the phone to 999 and showed no remorse, and has years worth of people saying she bullied him.

Absolutely agree .

@midsomermurderess

I don't think there is much merit in second guessing the jury's verdict. They had all the relevant evidence in front of them, they saw daily the accused's demeanour, they were given guidance by the judge as to what would justify either verdict. There is nothing to suggest that they didn't properly apply themselves to their duty. It doesn't really matter what outcome you would have chosen.

I can't really put it any better.

It's an incredibly sad case all round.

I struggle to see how she could have been convicted for something other than murder. The tests for manslaughter weren't met, as far as I know, but those for murder were.

The life term with a minimum of 18 years is on the lighter side, as far as murder sentences go. The minimum starting point for those over 21 is 15 years. So it's not the longest sentence which is possible by quite some way.