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.

I think people are still missing the point .the abuse was not proven and even IF she was having a breakdown at the time she has shown no remorse since the event either .

She intended to kill him so legally it was murder .

Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes she should have left or gone to the police but we are talking about an elderly couple it not easy to just get up and go.

I have no time for domestic abusers. They tend to do it over and over to every partner. They don't change.

We do not know if he was abusive. And your last bit is disgusting if what his daughter said was true and she was in fact the abuser.

She is a scumbag. Those on here cheerleading her...
Get a grip

but we are talking about an elderly couple it not easy to just get up and go.

I agree. It's easier to kill.

Even supposing she was abused, having understandable reasons for wanting someone dead isn't the same as not being guilty of murder when you stab them.

*Jackson previously broke down in tears in court, telling the jury: "I don't know what happened. I didn't want to kill him. I did it, I am sorry. I didn't want him to die. He loved me, and I loved him, and it's awful about what happened."

In order to convict of murder, the jury need to be sure that this was not true.

I think she'll have good grounds for an appeal.*

The state will have a decent enough rebuttal tbf

"But later, Mr Jackson called the emergency services after he had been wounded, and his wife stabbed him again while he was on

He was heard screaming in pain as she drove the knife into him for the final time.

Jackson then took over the call, saying: "I've killed my husband, or tried to, because I've had enough."

She then told a call handler her husband of 24 years was "bleeding to death with any luck".

And in bodyworn footage, released by the police when they went to the couple's home on 13 February, she told officers "I stabbed him, I've had enough" and that she "should have stabbed him a bit more"."

The judge is a man then? Typical.

The judge did not decide to find her guilty of murder. That was the jury. The jury had the option to find her not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. All the judge will have done is explain the law to the jury and set the sentence.

Manslaughter is only a defence if she didnt mean to kill him

That's not actually correct. She could have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter on the basis that she intended to kill him but had suffered an extreme loss of control. That is one of three circumstances when you can be convicted of manslaughter even though you intended to kill the victim.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution. They met the threshold. Beyond all reasonable doubt. She can appeal.

@PurpleOkapi

Even supposing she was abused, having understandable reasons for wanting someone dead isn't the same as not being guilty of murder when you stab them.

I think this is the point a lot of people miss. It's not a get out of jail card to say you were abused.

So the daughter said he had held a knife to her mums throat and given her a bloody nose in the past, but because it was years ago, was discounted, because apparently they were getting on now, what a joke

You don't kill someone years later in cold blood and cite the reason being that they held a knife to your throat years ago. Then expect an 'Oh well. That'll show him! It's alright then'.

What the hell sort of reasoning is happening here?

If she'd done it at the time when he held the knife to her throat, it would be a different matter. It would be self defence.

Their daughter:

"observed three violent incidents, one in which he held a knife to Jackson’s throat."

"In December the couple’s toxic relationship is said to have worsened when a row over a remote control resulted in her calling the police after she locked her husband in the conservatory, where he was brandishing a poker. Her computer’s search history showed she researched domestic violence refuges later that evening."

How is this not proof of an abusive marriage - witnesses, proof of police complaint and her search history from years ago?

All she's guilty of is appearing 'lucid'.

@Dojacatpaws

So the daughter said he had held a knife to her mums throat and given her a bloody nose in the past, but because it was years ago, was discounted, because apparently they were getting on now, what a joke

Exactly.

I mean - her search history from December was about DV refuges, just months before the killing.

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

Agree with h this 100%

@OverTheRubicon

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.

Yep, once violent, always violent.

Clearly, by her own admission, she intended to kill him, and she killed him. That’s murder.

That aside, there is not “little evidence” that he abused her. Their daughter, as a small child, witnessed him hold a knife to her throat. How inured to violence do you have to be to think that is minor? (And I’m talking about both the daughter and the posters on this thread.) I don’t believe that you go from that to being harmless.

But we also know that women more likely to falsely confess to crimes than men.

Yes, she killed him, but if she was a man, she would be guilty of manslaughter.

Well she reapetedly stabbed him and said she wanted to kill him so if had survived ,she was also violent ,once violent always violent according to your rules @mountbattebergcake

@Dojacatpaws

So the daughter said he had held a knife to her mums throat and given her a bloody nose in the past, but because it was years ago, was discounted, because apparently they were getting on now, what a joke

It's discounted because someone threatening your life years ago isn't a justification for killing them now.

@mountbattenbergcake

But we also know that women more likely to falsely confess to crimes than men.

Yes, she killed him, but if she was a man, she would be guilty of manslaughter.

In all honesty, I doubt it. I think any defendant would have had difficulty running the defence of loss of control given the evidence. But it is, of course, possible that a different jury would have come up with a different verdict. After all, the verdict in this case was not unanimous.

I think she was guilty of murder. Reading her history too I think the police body camera caught the real Penny Jackson.

@mountbattenbergcake

Their daughter:

"observed three violent incidents, one in which he held a knife to Jackson’s throat."

"In December the couple’s toxic relationship is said to have worsened when a row over a remote control resulted in her calling the police after she locked her husband in the conservatory, where he was brandishing a poker. Her computer’s search history showed she researched domestic violence refuges later that evening."

How is this not proof of an abusive marriage - witnesses, proof of police complaint and her search history from years ago?

All she's guilty of is appearing 'lucid'.

If my husband locked me in the conservatory, I'd "brandish" whatever was at hand trying to get out, too. Her search history doesn't establish that she believed she was abused, just that she was looking for a place to leave. Even if it did, her subjective belief that she was abused doesn't prove that it was true.

More importantly, this was all several years ago. There's a big difference between killing someone because you're angry that they abused you in the past, and killing them because you reasonably perceive a threat to your life in the moment. The former is murder. The latter generally isn't.