On 29 Nov 2010 at 3:25pm Colleague wrote:
I too worked wtih Rose and can only presume that she was pushed too far by certain colleagues. This should looked deeper into and work out what is going on there behind the scenes. This is so out of character and yes I feel so desperately sorry for the two people stabbed and it is wrong but WHAT tipped Rose over the edge?
On 29 Nov 2010 at 4:03pm Tango wrote:
Is this Rose West we're talking about as the post seems to be so random ???
On 29 Nov 2010 at 5:05pm Judge John Deed wrote:
It's amazing. Two seemingly dodgy convictions for manslaughter because of an accident at a firework factory, and everyone on here wants them to throw away the keys. An old lady tries to murder her neighbours and everyone is looking for excuses for the poor dear!
On 29 Nov 2010 at 5:28pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence that she tried to murder them.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 6:25pm badger wrote:
Erm, except that she tried to stab them both.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 6:44pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
That doesn't constitute attempted murder. Unless she went round with the intention of killing them or seriously harming them, you can't say she tried to murder them, and afaik nothing has been published regarding her intentions or state of mind.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 7:05pm Leaf wrote:
So what do you think she was trying to do? considering she went to them carrying a knife?
On 29 Nov 2010 at 7:08pm Neighbour wrote:
Are there similarities with the firework factory? I don't know the Winters. Was misleading the firemen to save further problem out of character? This was certainly out of character for Rose who I do know.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 7:43pm Snoopy wrote:
Annettee, going to a house with the intention to stab the occupiers clearly shows that there was intention to cause serious harm which therefore may constitute attempted murder depending on the rest of the facts of the case and what the court finds.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 7:50pm Deelite wrote:
She might have been of unsound mind.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 8:09pm jrsussex wrote:
I at times have seen, what I judge, to be ridiculous threads on this forum but the very idea that some-one approaching another person and stabbing them doesn't necessarily mean they meant to commit murder or serious harm is beyond belief. I hold the view that anyone stabbing another person should be charged with murder if they die, manslaughter if they survive. There is no in between, what does any sensible person think may happen if you stick a knife into some-one?
Back in the 50's and 60's a failrly common East End "punishment" was to stab a person in the a*** if they had stepped out of line, which would normally only require some stitches. One time the victim died and the assailant received a long sentence courtesy of HM Prison Service. The practice of a*** stabbing very quickly fell out of fashion.
On 29 Nov 2010 at 9:15pm jonnyboy wrote:
JRS (if that is you posting) how can you charge someone with manslaughter if the victim survives? That's attempted murder. Also there's nothing wrong with a*** stabbing if it's consensual and you use plenty of lube!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:30am Mr Forks wrote:
The reason some poeple seem to think theres no problem with the attempted murder is because the culprit was middle class, middle aged and white. If the culprit was a young chav type the same people would be calling for the return of the death penalty. It's a class thing. Welcome to middle class prejudice!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:43am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Is that you smudger?
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:46am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
She mihgt have happened to have been carving the roast when she had reason to go next door and omitted to put it down, and later lost control, she might have just wanted to frighten them. She may well have been suffering an episode of mental illness, in which case she's not guilty of anything.
Unless she took the knife next door with the intention of killing or seriously harming them, it is NOT attempted murder. If any stabbing was attempted murder, there wouldn't be cases where the charge for a stabbing is malicious wounding or GBH, would there?
We cannot know what her intention was at this stage. Of course, if they#'d had a barney and she'd shouted "I'll kill the pair of you" across the hedge, and then went and done, that's a different matter.
I don't think it's helpful to jump to conclusions.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:55am Not again wrote:
ACT - the news report said:
"A former Rotary Club treasurer has been accused of wearing a balaclava and arming herself with a butterfly knife before stabbing two pensioners.
Rose Spanswick, 59, of Hawkenbury Way, Lewes, appeared in court yesterday charged with forcing her way into her neighbour's home, then stabbing the pair.
Lewes Magistrates' Court was told that Spanswick tried to steal from James and Sheila Patmore's home, which is less than a hundred metres from her own."
Ok, so I don't live on the Neville and I don't know what goes on up there, but over my side of Lewes it's not often that people carve a roast with a butterfly knife whilst wearing a balaclava.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 9:37am Mr Forks wrote:
SOunds premeditated to me. No doubt ACT will disagree!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 9:47am jrsussex wrote:
Jonnyboy - Sorry, should have read my post before posting it. I meant charge with murder if the victim dies. Attempted murder if they survive in, which I believe should happen in every case. Thanks for the other advice but I think I'll leave the lube matter to others.
AC-T - Where on earth does your reasoning come from? Do you truly believe that you can stick a knife in a person without the the risk of causing serious harm or death?
I think the last paragraph of Not Again's answer is just about right. I particularly like to tonue in cheek aspect of it.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 10:10am Judge John Deed wrote:
I suppose after the balaclava accidentally fell on her head she probably stumbled and had to grab hold of something to steady herself. Unfortunately this happened to be a butterfly knife that had earlier been left lying around. Then, on calling on her neighbours for a nice cup of tea, having forgotten to put the knife down again, or even close it, she yet again slipped and accidentally fell against their door, forcing it open. In the ensuing confusion, she unwittingly stabbed both of them, several times. As for trying to steal their property, well that was obviously just done in the heat of the moment. So yes, Annette, of course there is entirely plausible and innocent explanation for all this - silly me! Just one thing though, have a look at what a butterfly knife is, and then try and think of any reasonable excuse for anyone to have one of these weapons in their home, let alone carry one in the street whilst wearing a balaclava. I like to try and see the best in people, but I am really struggling with this one.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 10:45am Not again wrote:
It's clearly a personal tragedy of some sort, and it isn't really appropriate for the situation to be discussed on an internet forum in this way, but I just can't get past the League of Gentlemen weirdness of it all.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 10:54am Deelite wrote:
Indeed, this thread is just a little bit sick.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 11:38am Judge John Deed wrote:
That may be the case, but as someone said earlier, if this had been done by a spotty youth wearing a hoody, the reaction would have been completely different. There would have been unanimous cries of guilty.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 12:38pm Deelite wrote:
Not necessarily true and even if it is it's not at all surprising. Can't see why it's an issue for you.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 12:47pm Bella Carver wrote:
Concerned that ACT believes that people with mental illness are "not guilty of anything".
On 30 Nov 2010 at 2:51pm Judge John Deed wrote:
Its not an issue for me whether it was an old lady or a teenage hoodie. What is an issue is that there was someone living a stones throw away from me and my family, going out stealing from and stabbing elderly neighbours. Yet there are people on here trying to excuse her behaviour on the grounds that she was a sweet old lady and used to be in the Rotary club. The fact that it was out of character is no defence either. Do you have to have spent your whole life stabbing people for it to be crime? Surely the first time is as bad as any.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 5:33pm Deelite wrote:
It's probably best to retain an open mind till the trial. Ignorant condemnation can lead to dangerous things.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 8:09pm Mr Forks wrote:
Shame none of you lot did that with the Winters! It's amiddle class thing isn't it??!!
On 30 Nov 2010 at 9:49pm Deelite wrote:
I suspect it'd be the same people who jump to condemn either of them. Nothing to do with class (at least not in the way you mean it anyway).
On 1 Dec 2010 at 2:02pm Neighbour wrote:
Are the Winters as business owners not middle class?
Have they not now been found guilty so have in fact been condemned?
I assure you i reserved judgement until after the trial and as it happens have some sympathy for them now in that i am sure (hope) they did not intend the consequences.
I appreciate your effort in trying to highlight what you probably consider was a miscarriage of justice but i see no parallels with the stabbing at all
On 1 Dec 2010 at 8:33pm Petal wrote:
Everyone seems sympathetic to Rose even though she obviously had intent. Most of you would have the Winters rot, even though it was an accident. And before you say it, a lot of you condemned them even before the court case.
On 1 Dec 2010 at 10:02pm Neighbour wrote:
I disagree.Many people on here seem very unsympathetic towards Rose. several people who know her in some personal capacity have described it as out of character. Aside from the fact that we can learn that some people condemn in advance and some don't (often not the same every time and influenced by personal knowledge of the individuals) I see little in common between the 2 cases.