12 Dec 05
Originally posted by wucky3I know this case reasonably well. As you see, it is just a horrible and very sad story all round.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4350153.stm
Just wondering what other people thought about this story. The mother is clearly in disagreement with the outcome of the trial.
SORRY..THE TITLE SHOULD READ 'FATHER CLEARED OF MURDERING SON 😳
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellWhat do they mean by the wife's 'complicit knowledge'?
I know this case reasonably well. As you see, it is just a horrible and very sad story all round.
What does whatever the wife knew have to do with the fact the
father killed the son?
Are they implying she took the younger son away because she
already knew the father was going to kill the older boy?
Also, what is a 'lay-by', not familar with that term. I think they were
talking about the mother going to a shop that opened for a late
night sale but the term Lay-by must be a british thing.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by sonhouseThat she left the house knowing what he was going to do, and agreed with it.
What do they mean by the wife's 'complicit knowledge'?
What does whatever the wife knew have to do with the fact the
father killed the son?
Are they implying she took the younger son away because she
already knew the father was going to kill the older boy?
Also, what is a 'lay-by', not familar with that term. I think they were
talking about the ...[text shortened]... going to a shop that opened for a late
night sale but the term Lay-by must be a british thing.
Refer Q2 to a lawyer (e.g. No1 Marauder).
Yes.
Lay-by is the bit on the side of a motorway where you can pull off and park.
12 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI'm as puzzled as sonhouse; I fail to see why the mother's "complicit knowledge" should be a mitigating factor. At best, it's irrelevant; at worst, it shows calculation and premeditation. It's England and I practice in the US so there can be statutory differences, but I find it hard to believe that someone convicted here of voluntary manslaughter under the same facts would get a two year, suspended sentence.
That she left the house knowing what he was going to do, and agreed with it.
Refer Q2 to a lawyer (e.g. No1 Marauder).
Yes.
Lay-by is the bit on the side of a motorway where you can pull off and park.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderless?
I'm as puzzled as sonhouse; I fail to see why the mother's "complicit knowledge" should be a mitigating factor. At best, it's irrelevant; at worst, it shows calculation and premeditation. It's England and I practice in the US so there can be statutory differences, but I find it hard to believe that someone convicted here of voluntary manslaughter under the same facts would get a two year, suspended sentence.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI know his defence was that it was a mercy killing; I guess this is more plausable if the mother is complicit than if she claims (as she did) that it was not.
I'm as puzzled as sonhouse; I fail to see why the mother's "complicit knowledge" should be a mitigating factor. At best, it's irrelevant; at worst, it shows calculation and premeditation. It's England and I practice in the US so there can be statutory differences, but I find it hard to believe that someone convicted here of voluntary manslaughter under the same facts would get a two year, suspended sentence.
How this translates into law, however, is a mystery to me.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellYou said you know the case reasonably well: was the verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter found by a jury or the judge?
I know his defence was that it was a mercy killing; I guess this is more plausable if the mother is complicit than if she claims (as she did) that it was not.
How this translates into law, however, is a mystery to me.
In NY state where I practice, the law allows a conviction of 1st degree Manslaughter in place of Murder if the killer acts "under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be". I am quite leery of judging the work product of fact finders at a trial where they have heard all the evidence and I have only news stories. Be that as it may, in NY even a conviction of Manslaughter in the first degree carries a possible 25 year prison sentence; I find it hard to believe that a conviction under the same circumstances here would result in no prison time at all.
12 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"Reasonably" in that a journalist friend of mine has been covering it. I have no legal expertise.
You said you know the case reasonably well: was the verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter found by a jury or the judge?
In NY state where I practice, the law allows a conviction of 1st degree Manslaughter in place of Murder if the killer acts "under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reaso ...[text shortened]... lieve that a conviction under the same circumstances here would result in no prison time at all.
By a jury - he had admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The jury cleared him of murder.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellThank you. I was looking at some of the linked articles and the prosecutor in his summation gave the legal test to the jurors which was:
"Reasonably" in that a journalist friend of mine has been covering it. I have no legal expertise.
By a jury - he had admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The jury cleared him of murder.
He said the test for jurors would be whether Mr Wragg had an abnormality of mind that would substantially impair responsibility for his actions.
That sounds equivalent to "extreme emotional disturbance" in NY law. The jury heard all the evidence (there was some testimony regarding the father's combat experience in Iraq as well) and concluded he acted with "diminished responsibility". That verdict doesn't seem to me totally shocking; his state of mind seems to be something that reasonable minds might differ on based on the snippets of evidence in the articles. I'm still a bit surprised at the leniency of the sentence, however: voluntary manslaughter is still a serious crime and "diminished responsibility" is supposed to mitigate, not totally excuse, a killing.
13 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOne of the mitigating factors in the judge's decision (based on what I've been reading) was that the father called 999 right after he did it and said quite bluntly that he killed his son and then waited for the police to come to his house.
Thank you. I was looking at some of the linked articles and the prosecutor in his summation gave the legal test to the jurors which was:
He said the test for jurors would be whether Mr Wragg had an abnormality of mind that would substantially impair responsibility for his actions.
That sounds equivalent to "extreme emotional disturb ...[text shortened]... crime and "diminished responsibility" is supposed to mitigate, not totally excuse, a killing.
I don't know whether the judge should have considered it or not, I have no law background, so I can't offer any opinion either way.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Prosecutors here argue that if you call the police you are showing that you knew what you did was wrong. If you don't call the police, then you're trying to conceal it and thus know the act was wrong. So either way, they insist it's probative of guilt and an aggravating factor.
One of the mitigating factors in the judge's decision (based on what I've been reading) was that the father called 999 right after he did it and said quite bluntly that he killed his son and then waited for the police to come to his house.
I don't know whether the judge should have considered it or not, I have no law background, so I can't offer any opinion either way.