Caroline Flack documentary

[Finto1111]

Is anyone watching the new Caroline Flack documentary on Disney plus.

Her mother is trying to stand up for her. Its very sad. And interesting . Her mother looked up a lot of information about the assualt case.

It was a night where both of them were very drunk. Caroline found texts from another woman on her partner's phone. She hit him with the phone on his head to wake him up. She shouldn't have done that.

I am just recounting the facts of what happened

Caroline's partner threatened to ring the police. He rang the police and said he wasn't sure what he had been hit with, maybe a lamp or something. (He later agreed that it was a phone).

After he rang the police, Caroline was so distraught that she cut her wrists.

Her mother said that media reported that the room looked like a horror movie. But they made it seem like the blood was her partners. The blood was Carolines.

Her partner was not injured. And he did not want to press charges.

In the documentary it shows that the police initiallly decided not to press charges on Caroline.
Due to
Her having no previous history of violence
Her partner was not injured
Her partner did not want to press charges.

They decided to give Caroline a caution.

However a Detective came on duty later that night and decided to overturn the decision. She decided to charge Caroline with assault.

The documentary also shows notes the police made. They refer a lot to Caroline as a celebrity and a high profile case. Her mother thinks Caroline was charged unfairly as the police had attention on them over this case.

It then shows Carolines texts to friends . She writes "I have lost it all. I don't see any way out".

Its very sad. Has anyone watched it

She should have kept her hands to herself, she struck him, whilst he was asleep so should have been charged/prosecuted.
She was clearly unwell but just because she was on TV is irrelevant. Her mum is trying to create a narrative that she was blameless and the police were wrong.
It’s been investigated, no wrongdoing on behalf of the police.

They should just leave it alone.

People were saying she was made an example of because she was famous. However , had the police done nothing, then people would say she was excused, because she was famous. You could use the same argument both ways.

It’s easy to be wise after the event, and no one knew that that terrible incident would end in such a tragic way. Similarly, the police in America pursuing a young NfL (?) player recently, who caused a road accident, weren’t to know he would then take his own life.

I agree with the people above who caution about believing everything said the documentary. It was driven by her mother and producers who were following a certain narrative.

The documentary puts together the grieving mother’s POV at best.

Again, it’s sad that she’s died, but no one would be questioning anything if this was a man instead. She was struggling, couldn’t cope with the consequences and it ended in tragedy.

No one can say if her behaviour would have been a one off or not because she died.

By the time an abused person calls the police it's normal that they will already have been assaulted dozens of times. This is why DV is routinely dealt with by prosecution.

I imagine the footage will find its way onto the internet eventually

My mum was assaulted many many times, over 12 years, before she finally called the police. To her abuser’s relatives it was ‘calling the police after a row that got out of hand? What an overreaction’. To us it was a relatively minor criminal charge after over a decade of abuse.

In my experience, anything related to domestic abuse would automatically go to the CPS for decision as it is by nature more risky / serious than a standard common assault.

There are also certain conditions she would need to satisfy to receive a caution. For example to admit to the offence in full, not have any recent similar previous history and agree to complete certain actions, maybe an alcohol awareness course or similar so presumably she was not able to meet such conditions and this is why she was deemed not suitable for a caution.

Not reporting something doesn’t alter what it’s classified as under law.

I had a wallet stolen at a fireworks event last week with a bout £8 cash in it. That’s theft. That’s against the law.

I didn’t report it was it was literally an old cloth wallet and minimal cash.

Doesn’t stop me being a victim of theft nor the action being theft.

I've just finished watching it. I really do feel for Caroline, her family and friends. Obviously her mum blames the investigator for making the decision to challenge the CPS.

She can't see it was Caroline’s own decisions that played the biggest part: her decision to go out that night and get drunk, her decision to look through the phone, her decision to assault her boyfriend, her decision to self-harm, and her decision to plead guilty and go to court. Ultimately, it was her decision to take her own life. This was all glossed over.

I get how her friends were trying to support her and doing what they thought was best but I think after the suicide attempt with the pills they should have said "this is too big for us to manage" and tried to get her help as an inpatient in the Priory. That being said hindsight is 20/20

What’s Spencer Matthews got to to with anything and who is Christine?

Christine is Caroline’s mum and Spencer Matthews has a podcast on which she appeared.

It’s not ok what she done, but it didn’t happen more than once and it was drunk fuelled and drink makes people do things they wouldn’t already do. I don’t think the punishment fitted the crime.

Ah so that's why my ex thought he could get away with it. Because it didn't leave a mark.

So it was okay for him to strangle me because it didn't leave a mark. Okay for him to hit me because it didn't leave a mark.

Abuse only matters when it leaves a mark right?.

My ex took an overdose and sent me a suicide video, absolute manipulation of the highest degree. Funny how it was after the police had come round and had seen the vile messages and the knife on the table as a threat to me.

As I say, she was in the wrong but it was one time so a caution would have been the better option under the circumstances

And quite right to get shot of him if he hit you, but that’s not the point. It was a one off in the case so a caution would have been suffice

It has not been proven it was a one off - it was the first reported incident.

I’m not saying he was wrong to call the police but it seems that type of thing wouldn’t go so far as it did ordinarily. Even a prosecutor solicitor said it should have been a caution.

So why the did the solicitor who read the files at the end and agreed to be on camera say he was very surprised she was going to be prosecuted under the circumstances?

This man is notorious for ‘giving his opinion’ publicly. As with any profession you can always find a person who disagrees with the action taken and would’ve done things differently themselves but I would be very wary of assuming what he says is strongly representative of what crime lawyers as a whole would think or do. And remember they probably wouldn’t interview him if his opinion was different.

I’m not minimising abuse, because it’s obvious a small cut isn’t the same as knocking ten bells out of someone. She was in the wrong and should have been cautioned, but it didn’t justify the witch hunt that followed by the press and all
and sundry.

Get a grip 🤣🤣🤣

of course lawyers and those working in CPS are going to have more information about this and the law than others. And why shouldn’t they correct misinformation when their actual qualifications and knowledge mean they are literally employed by the state in the case of the CPS to do so?

Hearmeoutt and bunny thankyou for your professional inputs and guiding us through this discussion with truthful facts to fan the flames of emotional opinions.

It’s an interesting thread.

His opinion was shared as it aligned with the filmmakers’ narrative.

No, drink doesn't. It may remove inhibitions but it doesn't 'make people do' anything.

ETA I was drunk quite a few times in my youth. I never went into an anti Semitic rant ala Mel Gibson or thumped a sleeping person over the head with anything.

I'll say again, you wouldn't be making these excuses for a man.

That’s the point her Mum was getting at though, you’re right, had she been given a caution some people would have said “Oh it’s just becase she’s famous” so there potentially was an element of not being able to do right from wrong, therefore making an example of her.

I think the main question would be - is what would happen in those exact circumstances if it was Jo public, ie, a small cut, no medical assistance required, first offence, whether the victim
want to pursue legal action etc…. If the majority of people would be prosecuted then fair enough, but from why I took from the documentary, that’s not the case and that’s the crux of it.

She was a celebrity and it was a high profile case.

fact.

that doesn’t mean that recognising and documenting that had any bearing on their decision to re refer.

You seem to find biased meanings within fact. Luckiky the CJS doesn’t work like that.