Chip shop death: Geoffrey Bran cleared of murdering wife

[RoyalCorgi]

This is quite unbelievable.

'Mrs Bran called a friend, Caroline Morgan, telling her: "Geoff has thrown boiling oil over me, help me, help me, get here now. I am burnt to hell."'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50474374

Just sickening. Juries will swallow any old guff nowadays.

Bloody hell

Even if the jury believed his version, how could they explain why he didn’t call an ambulance?

I suppose EverardDigby it'll be connected to her being able to leave the chip shop and go home, and calling a friend (not an ambulance)

Pattern of injury matched her husband's account of events, which may well have been persuasive

I was going to say the same thing - anyone with a shred of human decency would have called an ambulance. She must have been in agony 😥

okay.

so not only has rape been effectively legalised

but all the evidence indicates that sadistically murdering women is legal now too in this country, at least for men.

I'm going to bed now.

The man's been tried by jury and found not guilty. We don't know what was said in the trial (and Weren't on the jury) should we just have a lynching instead?

This shocking, no adequate words really.

There was a case in Jersey last year where a man was cleared of murdering his wife on the basis that it was theoretically possible she’d strangled herself with her own leggings.

I thought it was ominous when the women was described as “ always nagging him”.

Am sadly getting less and less shocked by these verdicts. I'd like to have seen it reported by a decent newspaper, but yes, the 'nagging' reference speaks volumes.

Wow. When they assign us female at birth, do they put a neon sign, visible only to men, that says 'Do whatever the fuck you like, nobody gives a shit' over our heads too?

I just saw this on FB and came here to see if there was a thread. I am so fucking sick of all of this. And angry. So fucking angry.

I can only assume that there must have been something else shown to the jury that's not been released to the press, because with the information we have available he looks very very guilty.
The alternative is.... just bloody depressing.

The man's been tried by jury and found not guilty.

And the great thing is that in this country, miscarriages of justice never happen. Juries are always right.

Oh, and could I interest you in this bridge I've got for sale?

I'm gonna guess her being an alcoholic is why he got away with it. Her being drunk would have made it being and accident seem plausible and her misinterpreting it as his throwing it at her seem believable.

Only he knows if he threw it or if she fell. But doesn't sound like a safe working environment if it was an accident.

Jesus. Mavis Bran, rest in peace.

I think the problem in this country is the beyond all reasonable doubt. And innocent until proven guilty.

By introducing the story of the table leg and the consultant coroborating its possibility, they introduced reasonable doubt. It was a reasonable doubt (albeit completely unlike) so a jury cant convict whether they think he did it or not.

This in addition to the fact the defence dont have to prove his innocence, means the defence can completely ignore any element that suggests his guilt. They dont have to provide testemony why he didnt call an ambulance.

Thats why youve got this ridiculous case where its bloody obvious hes giilty but he cant be convicted

There is an argument that some crime we should change the judicial system from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent.

Or alternatively introduce a not proven verdict, this would keep the burden on the prosecution to prove the case but also place burden on the defence to prove innocent. sentencing could then be at the discretion of the judge.

Both of these options would reduce the likelihood of a guilty man being declared innocent. But they would also probably raise the likelihood of an unfair conviction. The question is have we got the stage that its become so hard to convict its a justifiable risk

I wasnt just her being drunk that supported it. Apparantly the medical evidence supported it. Also the evidence of the damage in the shop all so supported.

Men do get away with harming women far to often. But on this one, theres was a poor of evidence supporting him. As did the family. So not sure how I feel about it, u told I hear how he justified not calling an ambulance

I dont think we can blame the jury. The blood alcohol levels being high renders his story plausible. Drunk people are clumsy, drunk people do stupid things, Drunk peoples perception of others can be wildly off. Ergo reasonable doubt.

But also i think if we had not proven or guilty until proven innocent, you might get more positive outcomes physically.

If, just if, it did happen as he said but actually your so callous you dont really care if the woman you're with lives or dies, why call an ambulance? You can just let them die. However If you know you are going to have to fight for your innocence you're more likely to call that ambulance quickly to support your case. Might save a few lives

Isn't failure to call an ambulance itself a crime?

Despite the drunkenness and so on, I'd have thought the fact that the victim told her friend that her husband had thrown boiling oil over her fairly compelling. Along with the history of domestic violence.

This at the same time the police are harassing people for "hate incidents" like saying 'women aren't men' because they're a potential precursor to a crime of violence against the precious holy trans. I am livid. You can beat and rape and kill women and get away with it and society just doesn't care.

If you stick something online theres easy evidence. Easy conviction, good for crime conviction figures. Im bot saying its right but its easy lazy policework

DV/rape convictions will always struggle with reasonable doubt. Is too easy to introduce doubt.

Isn't failure to call an ambulance itself a crime?

From what i can google no unless you have a duty of care for the other person eg parent teacher police officer. You dont actually have a duty of care to a spouse.

the victim told her friend that her husband had thrown boiling oil over her fairly compelling. Along with the history of domestic violence.

It isnt sufficient for the proscution to introduce doubt as to his guilt, they have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence only have to introduce reasonable doubt, they dont have to prove innocence.

Why its worth thinking about shifting the burden of evidence in these cases

The fact that she'd mentioned he was violent and that he just carried on without calling an ambulance is truly sickening.
He also had a family and children supporting his story while she had no children or family to bat on her behalf.

there's another thread on this full of posters justifying the verdict. Twitter is full of men making jokes about it.

It's horrifying that domestic violence and this poor woman's struggle and untimely death/murder has been so trivialised.