The patriarchy in action!

Either way, he's spent 17 years in prison, so clearly hasn't escaped unpunished.

".....no reasonable jury could be sure that the prosecution had proved this very special causal link to the high standard of proof required. For that reason the issue of causation could not, as a matter of law, be left to the jury to decide, and so Mr Walker had to be acquitted of both murder and manslaughter..."

The offence on trial here was murder - and there was insufficient to prove this. I can't see why this is linked in any way to a patriarchy?

He might have been cleared now but he's served 17 years in prison so he's been rightfully punished. Not sure where the patriarchy comes into it

Interesting.

When due to be released? Been 17 years. In all honesty I would have tried for s while, few years? 5, 7? Dunno.But I think mainly the expense, of investigator, lawyer? And the stress of hoping for years, nothing happened. I'd have given up.

Adjust just an observation.

Been in prison ages.
Fresh evidence/ legal argument presented presumably.
Was murder/ manslaughter prospection. Charge with assault or similar?
Even if convicted, would be less than already done.

Pragmatic.

For family. Shit.

And was there evidence to suggest it wasn't self defence?
Did he have injuries on him consistent to being attacked with a potato peeler?

There are lots about this case that hasn't been printed, so we can only speculate - and I'm sure all of these scenarios were argued at court.

I'm still not sure how its patriarchal though?

Person A was alleged to have murdered person B, however the conviction was ruled unsafe and a re-trial was done. As a result of the re-trial it was ruled that there was no case to answer for the murder.

Why don't you Google Felix? Rather than asking others to provide evidence.

I mean if you're interested.

Originally min 12 and a bit years.

Done 17, released because of this.

Interesting.

Felix125

And was there evidence to suggest it wasn't self defence?
Did he have injuries on him consistent to being attacked with a potato peeler?

If you don't think any need to dig out evidence to support your views, then don't ask others to.

This is a conversation, a chat. About OPs POV.

You don't agree with OP. AOK. This isn't a court, it's one thread on one board on one site on the whole internet. A handful of posters. And it's about OP discussing her thoughts. Nothing more.

Your posts challenging op/ others to prove / give evidence to support their musings/ thoughts.

Is to misread the point of the thread.

You say evidence detail proof analysis that anything patriarchal.
Equally, I could say give evidence/ proof definitely zero indicating that at all.

Stalemate.

Posters have said what they are iffy about. Responding to argue why not iffy is more productive. Likely to result in a more interesting conversation.

Imo anyway.

OP just an observation.

Pregnant gf died. So no one knows what she would have said. This happens a lot.

Then usual procedure in media is to report his defence content with bold headline. Man murdered women because affairs/ bonkers/ violent/ !!!!!!

Her side? She's dead.

Over and over.
Media is awful on this stuff.

And this in the end is v unusual situation.
After all those years seemingly keeping at it, paying lawyers etc.

Found thing that said. Ok death could have been due to paramedic actions. New evidence.

Murder/ manslaughter means your actions resulted death.
New evidence means maybe if paramedic acted different not dead.

Therefore, murder/ manslaughter just don't apply.

That's it.

Not exoneration of any wrongdoing.
Zero point in charging him with assault etc.

Only legal decision to exonerate of original crimes prosecuted.

Obv does not mean no part in get death.
Gbh/ abh/ etc.

The idea this means he is exonerated of any and all wrongdoing, is essentially a failure in understanding the situation.

Imo...

"Mr Justice Holgate QC told the jury the only way the prosecution could establish that Mr Walker had caused her death was by making sure the injuries from the alleged assault had made a significant contribution to her reduced state of consciousness by the time the paramedic started to treat her'.

"He said: 'I came to the firm conclusion that no reasonable jury could be sure that the prosecution had proved this very special causal link to the high standard of proof required'."

But from the other link

"This attack, the prosecution alleged, included punches and manual strangulation and resulted in fatal injuries to her head and brain. At trial Mr Walker maintained that the head injury must have been caused by a fall earlier that night, when he was not with her. He agreed that there had been a violent incident at their home, which may have accounted for the signs of strangulation, but said that Mrs Bancroft had been the aggressor,

I think any kind of attempted strangulation, is so dangerous, it might as well be attempted murder. I'm not sure that the fact he knew he'd gone too far, and tried to save her, should count in his favour really. Was he thinking of her, or the long, long years he'd spend in jail?

Tragic if she would have lived, had the paramedic not moved her.

Do we know what was happening when paramedic turned up?
Why did such a dangerous thing. Why so long till further medical help arrived?

I mean don't go searching. But how that came about..
Can only speculate..
I mean she was pregnant.
Surely would expect pretty high priority?
Unless something else going on meant needed to be dealt with first...

Do paramedics come alone? No idea. Back then in their location...

Hmmmmmm.