Barbara Coombes, 51, had just been gardening in her father’s backyard, on a street of red-brick terrace homes in their suburb near Manchester, England, when she went inside and spotted a box on the dining room table....
“I could feel a black cloud appearing over me,” Coombes said in court this week, according to the Evening News. “In a haze of disgust and disbelief, I picked up a shovel I had been gardening with and walked into the living room where my father was standing.”
She took the shovel and struck the 87-year-old man, Kenneth Coombes, in the back of the head, Greater Manchester Police said. As he turned toward her, she hit him again. Then, using the shovel’s sharp blade, she cut his throat and watched him bleed to death, the Evening News reported....
When Coombes was younger than 9, her father allegedly took her to a “photography club” and forced her to expose her genitals as men took pictures of her, the Guardian reported. Even as Coombes grew older, into her 40s and 50s, her father continued to molest her, she told authorities.
When her marriage fell apart, and long after her mother had died of cervical cancer, Coombes and her 16-year-old daughter moved back in with her father....
... Coombes “showed absolutely no concern for what she had done and denied everyone the chance to say goodbye, as Kenneth lay buried at the bottom of his own garden, just meters from her own bedroom window,” Senior Investigating Officer Duncan Thorpe of the Greater Manchester police said in a statement.
१३ जुलै, २०१८
"She found her father’s child porn images of herself, then killed him — and kept it secret for 12 years."
Headline at The Washington Post.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
Tough one. I would probably vote justifiable homicide.
Some people need killing
To me, the most disturbing part of the story is the fact that, having been assaulted by this man for decades, she took her 16-year-old daughter to live with him.
I would aquit for murder.
I would throw her in jail for exposing her daughter to her father by moving back in with him.
She committed no crime, rather she deserves a medal. It was clearly self-defense against a vicious sexual predator.
“showed absolutely no concern for what she had done and denied everyone the chance to say goodbye, as Kenneth lay buried at the bottom of his own garden, just meters from her own bedroom window,” Senior Investigating Officer Duncan Thorpe of the Greater Manchester police said in a statement.
Wow. The Brits policing is seriously messed up. Bad form, old Girl. You should have let everyone say good bye, then brutally murdered the sick f*ck.
I get saying, "Regardless of what he may have done, it wasn't her place to render judgement an punishment." But really? Denied others the chance to say goodbye?
It's obvious from Duncan Thorpe's statement that the old man wasn't the only sociopath in this story.
Sean, I beg to disagree. The most disturbing part is clearly the one where she had to expose her genitals while grown men photographed them. The second is the shovel to the throat. What you mention is typical behavior by some long-term abuse victims. It may seem incomprehensible but people forget how pliable minds are. I bet I could abuse you for decades and make you believe you love me if I started early enough.
I'm not buying the story without the photographic evidence or some other evidence. She moved back in with him, kept both her murder of him and his death a secret, so that she could benefit off his pension. It wasn't until someone checked on his welfare that her lies were exposed. He's not here to defend himself, and no actual evidence is presented in the article to back up her hearsay claims. And she is clearly an accomplished liar.
Justice
An honor killing I can support.
A hero, who continues to allow herself to be molested into her 40s and 50s! takes her child to her molester's house to live with him?
Do we have physical evidence or is this just a shrewd murderer, playing on the current emotion?
And on Wednesday, a judge in Manchester sentenced Coombes, now 63, to nine years in prison for manslaughter.
Personally I don't think she should serve any time for this. Maybe some light community service at most.
Give her back her shovel and send her to Rotherham.
Leland - If proof of the child porn photos exist, That would be compelling.
"Michelle Colborne QC said although the story of abuse Coombes had suffered came from herself...". She also fraudulently obtained $200k in welfare bennies after he was dead.
So NO evidence. You'd think she might want to keep that around or show it to authorities...
I'd wager this woman's a psycho who's trying to get away with murder by defaming her own WWII war hero father. Sick.
Get her for welfare farud, but justifiable homicide it was.
Fraud
She got a 9-year sentence.
She didn't kill him in self-defense. He was 87, and she hit him from the back. Why was she living with him at that point in her life? There was an economic side to it but also whatever mental problems she had that he seems to be mostly responsible for.
I don't know what sort of insanity defense was available to her, but the economic benefit taken makes her seem calculating. You can say he wronged her so much that he deserved the sum total of her calculations, but we don't acquit people of murder where they argue that they had really strong reasons to hate the person they killed.
I don't buy any psychological explanation for why people continue to allow themselves to be abused. Recently some NCAA wrestlers have said that they were molested by their coach. An adult male in peak physical condition. As Instapundit said, at some point during the MULTIPLE molestations it becomes consensual.
This woman is claiming she was molested and photographed as a child. OK, if that happened it's awful. But then to claim you were so damaged by that that you moved back in with him and continued to allow him to molest you when you're 40-50yrs old? Even if he's stronger, you can leave. At some point, it's no longer molestation.
This is such a fraud.
"According to police, she fraudulently received more than 180,000 pounds in benefits, the equivalent today of about $236,000."
We need proof of something...though I bet the media won't wait around for it.
If Anita Hill had beat sexual harasser Clarence Thomas over the head with one of his Long Dong Silver porno tapes that he forced her to watch, the country would had been spared a terrible, inhuman Supreme Court Justice who metes out vigilante injustice daily.
She got the 9 years for manslaughter, not for the welfare fraud. But she didn't go to trial. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
"The judge, Timothy King, told Coombes he realized that the years of abuse took a “devastating” toll on her, the Times of London reported. Still, he said, the “history of abuse may explain but not justify the taking of life.”"
As CJ says, where is the evidence? Do these photos exist?
The English justice system is much different than ours - judges have much more leeway in the UK than they do here. In some cases it's good, in some it's bad. Everyone is not meant to be treated equally under the law in the UK.
Not knowing what happened, the sentence here seems reasonable. I doubt she'd have gotten more than 9 years for killing her father and welfare fraud even if there was no story that he had molested her.
"As CJ says, where is the evidence? Do these photos exist?"
Of course not.
Defaming her father who was a WWII hero. If she is lying about the molestation then she is truly evil.
"Coombes “showed absolutely no concern for what she had done and denied everyone the chance to say goodbye"
The policeman wants to stress that she was not just brutal and remorseless, but also inconsiderate.
"Defaming her father who was a WWII hero. If she is lying about the molestation then she is truly evil."
Were you a child molester to defend one, so stupidly? The case has be adjudicated, and the judge said she was molested by her father. STOP defaming the victim!
I read the story in several different publications. There was no evidence of the abuse the woman claimed to have suffered- none except from herself. It is all her testimony alone as far as I could tell. Now, maybe the articles, sourced originally in the UK, were barred from describing the physical evidence of the photographs themselves, but none of them stated that the photographs still existed. Indeed, it seemed rather odd to me that none of the articles I read mentioned the state of the claimed photographic evidence- does it still exist or not seems to be a very pertinent detail that should have been included.
I also note that the WaPo article mentions "prosecutors" detailed this abuse- does this mean prosecutor in the sense an American would use it, or is this the case of it being her defense attorney? I ask this, because when I go to the linked BBC story, it suddenly isn't "prosecutor" any longer, but the lawyer making the argument is a Queen's Counsel, who as I understand the modern definition can argue for the defense.
My gut reaction to this story was that the old bastard had it coming, although I too questioned why she moved in with him and put her daughter in danger.
If the photos actually exist, that's damning evidence. What rings false is that he left them on the dining room table, as if they were a box of snapshots of a family holiday in Brighton.
My old hairdresser worked with a man who turned out to be a pedophile. He babysat for some of his client's children and took pictures of them. He got away with it for many years not only because he bullied the boys into submission, but because he kept the evidence very well hidden. He wasn't leaving photos on the kitchen table.
And, as CJ said:
"But then to claim you were so damaged by that that you moved back in with him and continued to allow him to molest you when you're 40-50yrs old? Even if he's stronger, you can leave. At some point, it's no longer molestation."
"I read the story in several different publications. There was no evidence of the abuse the woman claimed to have suffered- none except from herself."
My, you got around to multiple publications on this sad case to defame the victim. What proof do we have that you've made the in-depth study of this case that you claim you've done. None, except from your foul mouth. Who do I believe? NOT you.
Are you an unrepentant child molester yet to be apprehended and face justice?
Inquiring minds, and mockturtle, wants to know.
whatever mental problems she had that he seems to be mostly responsible for
Crazy girlfriends are everywhere. It's normal.
What kind of evidence is necessary in this #MeToo era?
She did it all wrong.
First, she waited too long to kill him. She should have killed him when she was 16.
Second, you don't want to use a shovel. She lost a good rug on that mistake.
A better plan would have been to take the pictures to the police, and lawyers would have given her all of his possessions. She could have cashed-out and move out of the shit-hole that is Manchester.
If she wasn't abused by him, she did it either for the money or to avoid looking after him.
OTOH, killing her father like that indicates her mind is screwed up somehow, perhaps by early abuse. There should be a history of bad/outlandish behavior.
CJ said...
A hero, who continues to allow herself to be molested into her 40s and 50s! takes her child to her molester's house to live with him?
Do we have physical evidence or is this just a shrewd murderer, playing on the current emotion?
If the photos exist, it is extremely damming evidence. If all we have is her word, then not so much. I've read in England, when someone testifies in court, it's called evidence as if no one ever lied under oath. I don't know if her claims about being molested are true or not? Does anyone? She may be lying and just killed her father to get his pension. It has happened before.
Lenin wholeheartedly approves whenever a shovel is used. "Beet of the Week" at least for her.
She's an orphan now--liar or not.
Have some sympathy for that alone.
Her defense falls into the category of "interesting if true."
"showed absolutely no concern for what she had done and denied everyone the chance to say goodbye"
I find myself unable to judge her negatively for that, in context, assuming her claims are true.
There was no evidence of the abuse the woman claimed to have suffered- none except from herself. It is all her testimony alone as far as I could tell.
I also looked elsewhere but could come up with nothing definitive. Articles cite the court case (or nothing) as the source but they don't distinguish between defendant testimony and other evidence. The fact that they don't make this distinction suggests there was no independent evidence. Chances are high of all the people involved at least one would recognize its importance and report clearly if such independent evidence existed.
Black Bellamy: I bet I could abuse you for decades and make you believe you love me if I started early enough.
And that's not disturbing?
I've read in England, when someone testifies in court, it's called evidence as if no one ever lied under oath
Testimony is evidence everywhere. It just isn't very compelling.
Rick, in this day an age, it is non-PC to question such claims. The press lives and dies by PC rules, so I basically assume there is no other evidence because if there were, the press would not have ignored it, but played it up the maximum.
Rick, in this day an age, it is non-PC to question such claims.
I've been a C fan my entire life.
so, he continued to molest her into her forties and fifties
when she was 51 (and living with him, And her daughter), she came in from gardening; and saw a box of pix on the kitchen table (pix from when she was 9), and lost it.
If it continued into her fifties, and she was 51; when was the last time? That afternoon?
And what set her off was the old pix?
Not that they had sex within the two years? (probably that afternoon)
Not that he'd dumped her for her daughter?
I claim BOGUS!!!
When was the last time Meade (or anyone else on earth),
got done gardening, and walked into the kitchen: STILL CARRYING THEIR SHOVEL?
sorry dining room table; not kitchen table; but then even MORE SO! a shovel in the dining room?
Some say vengeance brings more closure than trying to forget the evil done. Maybe, maybe not.
So what do we do with the pedophiles?
If we assume, as I do, that the childhood abuse did happen, yes, that leads to a heavy weight to bear throughout one’s life. This can be significantly alleviated by lots of therapy but that doesn’t make it go away. I know a number of people with histories of childhood sexual abuse and I am reasonably confident that none of them would ever have done something like this murder.
When you take childhood sexual abuse, and add that on top of what I’m guessing is a very unfortunate genetic heritage of one or more mental illness propensities (which the father probably also had — a genetic load for mental illness struggles), that double hit adds up to a big set of demons duking it out in your heart/mind/soul.
The prosecutor did not contest the claims that Coombes had suffered a lifetime of abuse, according to the article in The Guardian.
Michelle Colborne QC, prosecuting, said the crown accepted the plea and could not contest defence claims that Coombes had suffered “a lifetime of abuse – verbal, physical and potentially sexual, at the hands of the deceased”.
But she questioned whether Coombes was truly remorseful for what she had done. The police officer who met her at Cheadle Heath police station when she confessed was struck by how she showed “little or no emotion”, Colborne said.
The barrister noted that Coombes only began to talk of being sexually abused several months after her arrest, during her fourth interview with a psychiatrist.
About those photos I would imagine that if there were photos of her, she would have destroyed them when she killed her dad(I would have). However, there could be a lifetime of psychiatric visits in which she mentioned this trauma. Apparently her first child may have been her father's; that could be corroborated by hospital records. Her daughter may have also been able to corroborate the abuse. We just aren't being given the salacious details about whether it did or did not occur because the government decided not to contest her claim of abuse. I think that's a good decision by the government--it would only make them look bad if they tried to deny that she had been abused.
Sad case. Are we really to believe the 'victim'? Or is there evidence she was?
I'd throw Clarence Thomas in prison with her. Then, Trump. Then, the trolls on this blog for good measure.
Compound interest on childhood crimes really adds up.......If Woody Allen's daughter invites him to join her gardening club,I'd advise him to pass......Something bad happened to her as a kid. When your kid bashes your head in with a shovel, cuts your throat, and buries you in the garden, that's a sure sign you've been a failure as a parent.
Trumpit said...
I'd throw Clarence Thomas in prison with her. Then, Trump. Then, the trolls on this blog for good measure.
It works better when you are less obvious.
You people need to at least make him change handles. This schtick is obvious stop being dumb and responding.
Trumpit revels his inner leftwing totalitarian.
You people need to at least make him change handles.
He did, he used to go by A Reasonable Man.
"I also note that the WaPo article mentions "prosecutors" detailed this abuse- does this mean prosecutor in the sense an American would use it, or is this the case of it being her defense attorney? I ask this, because when I go to the linked BBC story, it suddenly isn't "prosecutor" any longer, but the lawyer making the argument is a Queen's Counsel, who as I understand the modern definition can argue for the defense."
No, this is confused. In England prosecutor meana prosecutor and defence means defense. QC is just a rank - important lawyer rather than bog standard lawyer. A QC can be on either side.
The Guardian article makes it clear that the prosecution did not contest the evidence of abuse by her father. But it is not clear whether they had seem the evidence and agreed with it, or whether they hadn't seen any evidence. There is reference to psychiatric reports, so no doubt the prosecuton saw thoe reports. Place on psychiatric reports whatever weight you will. (Zero ounces, for me.) The odds are that the prosecution had not seen any evidence of abuse besides the woman's own story and the psychiatric reports (ie the woman's own story signed off by a couple of shrinks) or else they's have probably said that they accepted the evidence of abuse rather than that they didn't contest it. But I could be wrong.
She pled guilty so this is obviously a plea deal, and part of the plea may have been the prosecution not attempting to dispute the abuse story.
Either way it leaves a nasty taste. Either she was indeed horribly abused, which makes her Dad a real scumbag. Or she has made up this disgusting tale to get a lighter sentence, which makes her a real scumbag. If I had to bet it'd be on the latter because we already know she's scumbag enough to defraud welfare out of a couple of hundred thousands dollars, quite apart from her handiwork with a shovel.
"About those photos I would imagine that if there were photos of her, she would have destroyed them when she killed her dad(I would have). However, there could be a lifetime of psychiatric visits in which she mentioned this trauma. Apparently her first child may have been her father's; that could be corroborated by hospital records. Her daughter may have also been able to corroborate the abus"
"I would imagine" "there could be" "may have been"
Now there's solid legal reasoning.
A woman killing her father with a shovel with an OJ Coup de grâce. Just imagine for yourself what level of absolute rage that required. It's not something you would stage for effect nor plan. Rage like that comes from very few places, even fewer with women.
I don't care if daddy won the MoO, all pedophiles should die
You people defending Dad are a half step from ISIS honor killers. Praise Jesus!
I am suspicious of the story she tells. It reads too screenplayish. Like others, I'd like evidence, actual evidence.
Monty Python could have a time with this, Dead Parrot Sketch style,
"We'd like to schedule a Winter Wellness Visit. When would be convenient for your father?"
"Well, 'e's resting."
"We didn't mean right this moment. Perhaps in a day or two."
"At that time 'e'll be tending 'is Norwegian Blue."
"Norwegian Blue?"
"Tis a parrot, Beautiful plumage, don't ya know?"
"No, I don't know. But he won't be doing tending all the time."
"Could be."
etc.
Ann Althouse said...
I don't know what sort of insanity defense was available to her, but the economic benefit taken makes her seem calculating.
Interestingly, one of the seminal cases on the defense of Provocation is a British case, DPP v Camplin. There, a young boy use a chapati pan to kill a Pakistani man in the immediate aftermath of his anal rape (buggery) while the man was laughing at him.
The defendant at trial, Camplin, was 15 years old at the time of the offence. He killed Mohammed Lal Khan, a Pakistani man, by hitting him on the head with a chapati pan following Khan having sex with him non-consensually (then referred to as buggery) and then laughing at him. (The House of Lords judgement note that the account given by Camplin to the Police during questioning and the account given at trial differed substantially.)
The issue at the heart of the Camplin case is whether the "reasonable man" test laid out for the defence of provocation was one which matched the characteristics of the defendant or whether it ought to be confined to the characteristics of the "adult male". Lord Diplock noted that the "reasonable man" was:
"an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self-control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today."
Lord Diplock noted that in the facts before the court, the age of the defendant was "a characteristic which may have its effects on temperament as well as physique". The House of Lords agreed with a previous Court of Appeal judgement which found that it was wrong for the trial judge to have instructed the jury to not consider the defendant's age (or sex) when deciding whether he had been provoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPP_v_Camplin
Greed did her in. If she didn't continue cashing his pension payments no winter visit would have scheduled.
Then click on “provocation “:
“In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence alleging a total loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence. It was abolished on 4 October 2010[1] by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009,[2] but replaced by a relatively similar defence of loss of control.”
She was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter and avoided trial for murder.
Sifting through the box, she was repulsed by what she saw: a trove of pornographic photos — of children. Among them were explicit photographs of herself as a child, according to a court hearing reported by the Manchester Evening News.
Could she argue that opening the box was a sudden and immediate trigger that would allow the defense of provocation, although much delayed following the offense?
Provocation may be a defense by excuse or exculpation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control (a permanent loss of control is in the realm of insanity) as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge.
Or is that exactly the legal defense she intended to contrive?
Howard said...
You people defending Dad are a half step from ISIS honor killers. Praise Jesus!
Saying the matter is unproven is not "defending Dad". It's a shame people are so interested in putting others down they can't think straight.
If you wanted to be judged innocent, you would have reported the homicide immediately and presented the evidence of molestation, rather than burying the body and stealing the pension.
Let's consider what evidence we do have. Someone came and checked on the welfare of the father, since nobody had seen him and his pension checks were still being cashed. The first thing they will have discovered is he was indeed dead (or missing), and she fraudulently cashed his checks. I suspect at that point she was arrested.
At some point, which we don't know from these post sentencing stories, she confessed to the murder of her father. I think when she confessed would go a long way into whether or not I believed anything she said next. If she confessed immediately, then she is ready to relieve herself of this burden of lying about her father's murder. That's what victims do. If she confessed after learning she was going to jail anyway for fraud, then I'm not sure what to make of it. Fraud isn't as bad as murder, but if going to jail anyway, might as well unburden the conscious. If she confessed after presented evidence that she was the murderer, such as his dead body planted in the backyard (like how could she have missed the new pile of dirt while cashing his checks), then I'm not buying anything at full price that comes out of her mouth.
I think 9 years is about right. Without her confession, the Prosecutors would struggle to prove her the murderer. The welfare fraud would be easy and likely a similar sentence, but its not important as the manslaughter charge. There's no reason to contest the abuse claim, because she'll be locked away long enough.
I do accept completely that if the photos ever existed, it is completely reasonable she would destroy them immediately. Probably in the same method she disposed off the shovel. But that to me is the problem, many are buying the story the photos existed without any evidence. Tell me she buried the photos with the body, and when he was exhumed, they had the evidence. Do that, and I'll see a reason for leniency. (and yeah, the "she didn't let anyone say goodbye" is silly Brit stuff).
Come on people, how can you watch Strzok lie his ass of yesterday, and then so easily fall for a positive media portrayal of a murdering fraud? She confessed to murder, and then she cashed his pension checks for 12 years after.
Howard, yeah, questioning the story and asking for evidence is just exactly the same as being an ISIS honor killer. Sheesh. I used to think you were somewhat intelligent.
As many have already said on this thread, if those photos exist, that is damning and conclusive. I'm inclined to believe she was abused, but there are puzzles here that are not answered by the story and the facts we have been given. Why did she permit the abuse to continue long into adulthood? Why did she move in with him? Why would she want her daughter to be in close contact with a pedophile? Why would the man leave disgusting and criminal photos lying around the kitchen?
"Just imagine for yourself what level of absolute rage that required. It's not something you would stage for effect nor plan."
No, no psychopath in the history of the world has ever planned out a murder and then sought to cast him or herself in a sympathetic light.
Her dad might have indeed been a pedophile. It's also possible he was not.
You're awfully cavalier about tiny insignificant details like evidence. The people who went after and wrongly sentenced innocent people to jail on fake child abuse claims in the 1990's also had little regard for evidence.
Was the plea manslaughter deal offered because she had a colorable claim of "loss of self-control"? But was her "discovery" of the box of photos on the dining room table a contrivance of hers? It doesn't seem to be a bar to the "qualifying trigger" of a "loss of control" defense, unless the state can prove it was pure revenge.
There is no requirement that the loss of self-control be sudden. This represents a change from the law of provocation which required the loss of control to be sudden and temporary which was a seen as a significant barrier to victims of domestic violence.
By virtue of s. 54(4), if D acted in a considered desire for revenge they can not rely on the defence.
Under the old law of provocation, almost any act was capable of being used as evidence of provocation. This was considered problematic in that it was too wide. The provocative action did not have to be deliberate or aimed at the victim. Even a baby crying was accepted as a provocative act. The introduction of qualifying triggers have narrowed the field of the new defence quite significantly.
The “qualifying triggers” can be found in s. 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A qualifying trigger may only relate to:
- Where the Defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to his/her fear of serious violence from the Victim against the Defendant or another identified person; or
- Where D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which—
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
https://www.ebrattridge.com/articles/loss-of-self-control-defence-to-murder
Common.
Spouse dead. Woman claims prior mental abuse during decades of marriage.
Sure thing.
Or, woman scorned, she accuses him of abusing her or the children. Ask Chuck or any other divorce lawyer.
If no pics available, she is lying.
It was well into the 70's that France still allowed "Honor Killings".
It is sanctioned in the Bible, and very Christian. But most western countries no longer allow it. Sad. It cleaned-up a lot of tribes. (There would be no Democrats today, if people still respected honor.)
Specifically, it is that teaching where "murder" is not synonymous with "killing".
You can kill members of your family or other tribes (for Honor), but you can't murder them (for no reason).
For example, murdering your father for his money, is bad, but killing him for raping you is holy.
I suspect she murdered him for his money, since there is no proof he ever raped her.
If Anita Hill had beat sexual harasser Clarence Thomas over the head with one of his Long Dong Silver porno tapes that he forced her to watch, the country would had been spared a terrible, inhuman Supreme Court Justice who metes out vigilante injustice daily.
Somewhere, a seagull is missing its cheeseburger.
Fraud should properly sink a “she said” case with no rebuttal.
The extremely personal, violent and crude method of the murder is very significant. The court allowed a manslaughter plea given the abuse. You ersatz Matlock's want to re-investigate the case, please, by all means, take the pedefile's side.
My, you got around to multiple publications on this sad case to defame the victim. What proof do we have that you've made the in-depth study of this case that you claim you've done. None, except from your foul mouth. Who do I believe? NOT you.
Are you an unrepentant child molester yet to be apprehended and face justice?
Inquiring minds, and mockturtle, wants to know. - Trumpit
And some of you claim Trumpit is performance art. A parody in the mold of Laslo.
Nope. She's real. And she's a sick, deranged individual.
People. If she were truly molested in her childhood up until her 40s and 50s! Why would she have moved back in with her torturer? A single woman with a child in England (and America) can live quite well in council estate. There’s noreason for her to be forced to live with her abuser.
Unless, one supposes, she’s lying.
Murderer-for-profit makes bare assertion that the murder was motivated by something awful the victim did. News media reports salacious details of unsupported self-justification.
If only she'd killed Trumpit, we could be assured that, in fact, her actions were justified, rather than a post-facto attempt to get leniency.
I don't profess to have an opinion on the case. But the mordant commentary is always worth additional irreverent commentary.
It was well into the 70's that France still allowed "Honor Killings".
Divorce, Italian Style.
The extremely personal, violent and crude method of the murder is very significant.
Very English, the gardening implement. If she had killed the old man with a kitchen knife, she would have been hanged. Seriously, the scene set by "she came in from gardening" has a strong pull toward sympathy. It's like an English Ballad where everyone murders each other and fate is to blame.
“You people need to at least make him change handles.
He did, he used to go by A Reasonable Man”
Made me laugh out loud. Thanks. And Trumpit is totally a parody act. The Left is crazy, but they’re not that crazy.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks...."
“You people need to at least make him change handles.
He did, he used to go by A Reasonable Man”
Ah! Well, it's a big improvement.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा