GUILTY UK - Ashley Wadsworth, 19, Canadian, murdered 1st Feb 2022, Chelmsford, Essex *Arrest*

[Jealoushe]

It is good to hear other arguments.
That is why forums exist

Well except its not really true, so its an opinion entirely based not on facts.

Some people who have those traits have tattoos, just like those who have those traits could be tall, small, blonde, brunette, etc. Its just their appearance, you can't really read any more into tattoos unless they are confirmed gang or similar related IMO

This guy just happens to have tattoos, like many many others these days

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Well except its not really true, so its an opinion entirely based not on facts.

Some people who have those traits have tattoos, just like those who have those traits could be tall, small, blonde, brunette, etc. Its just their appearance, you can't really read any more into tattoos unless they are confirmed gang or similar related IMO

This guy just happens to have tattoos, like many many others these days

I linked to a scientific study by psychologists, where the conclusion was if you have more than a quarter of your body tattooed, you’re more likely to have a personality disorder. Not guaranteed to, just statistically more likely.

 

[Smkd]

I linked to a scientific study by psychologists, where the conclusion was if you have more than a quarter of your body tattooed, you’re more likely to have a personality disorder. Not guaranteed to, just statistically more likely.

Mate, this is going to look like I’m trying to on you because it seems like I always have something to say, but I’m honestly not lol. But there’s a ton of red flags in that study. First, peertechz is a predatory publication that is not a legitimate scientific journal. You can read a little more here, but yeah it can be hard to tell. Second that article is very very dodgy. I'm not sure how used you are to reading academic articles, but I will just point out some red flags that jump out:
1-Bad English and poor referencing

2-The way the article is written is highly irregular and does not follow the format or rules of research papers. There's no info about how participants were recruited or how the data was analysed or what statistical tests were done in order to imply a correlation ( I don't believe there was any done to be honest). Basically this "study" has not run the statistical tests necessary to compare two populations (tattoo vs no tattoo) and has not provided the results of any tests. It talks about "significant results" but doesn't actually provide any p values. Honestly if I presented this in uni they'd tell me to go back to year 1.

3-Papers usually talk about the various limitations and caveats that there may be in any given study, his only limitation is "The main limitations of the research is one: the PICI-1 is not yet standardised psychometric instruments but are proposed, despite the excellent results obtained ". Using a non-standardised test to diagnose is silly, first off. But upon further research, I realised he is actually the author of the instrument too (actually PICI stands for Perrotta Integrative Clinical Interview, Perrota being himself) and it was published in the same dodgy journal. Of which as it turns out, he is Editor-In-Chief.

4- Of the 49 references in the article, 38 are articles he himself has authored, and some of them are not relevant at all. I suspect this is so it appears that they have been cited more often than they actually have.

5- Our boy Giulio is extremely prolific, he has published 97 books, papers, and psychometric instruments since 2019 about honestly all sorts of things. I don't need to explain why that is impossible and just crazy. This includes articles about clinical evidence in alien abductions and demonic possession, a psychopathological profile of the biblical god Yahwe, every psychopathology under the sun, cuckolding, epilepsy, spleen trauma, and his own protocol to improve your gut flora.

6-He claims to be working as a PhD student in a university but the department he is in doesn't actually exist as far as I can tell.

Honestly I'm losing my mind. I just wanted to mention a few pointers about how to tell if a paper is likely to be legit and I've been down this rabbit hole for I kid you not, 2 hours. I'm so sorry. I don't even know if this guy is real.

We need a thread for Giulio

 

[Dotta]

Mate, this is going to look like I’m trying to **** on you because it seems like I always have something to say, but I’m honestly not lol. But there’s a ton of red flags in that study. First, peertechz is a predatory publication that is not a legitimate scientific journal. You can read a little more here, but yeah it can be hard to tell. Second that article is very very dodgy. I'm not sure how used you are to reading academic articles, but I will just point out some red flags that jump out:
1-Bad English and poor referencing
2-The way the article is written is highly irregular and does not follow the format or rules of research papers. There's no info about how participants were recruited or how the data was analysed or what statistical tests were done in order to imply a correlation ( I don't believe there was any done to be honest). Basically this "study" has not run the statistical tests necessary to compare two populations (tattoo vs no tattoo) and has not provided the results of any tests. It talks about "significant results" but doesn't actually provide any p values. Honestly if I presented this in uni they'd tell me to go back to year 1.
3-Papers usually talk about the various limitations and caveats that there may be in any given study, his only limitation is "The main limitations of the research is one: the PICI-1 is not yet standardised psychometric instruments but are proposed, despite the excellent results obtained ". Using a non-standardised test to diagnose is silly, first off. But upon further research, I realised he is actually the author of the instrument too (actually PICI stands for Perrotta Integrative Clinical Interview, Perrota being himself) and it was published in the same dodgy journal. Of which as it turns out, he is Editor-In-Chief.

4- Of the 49 references in the article, 38 are articles he himself has authored, and some of them are not relevant at all. I suspect this is so it appears that they have been cited more often than they actually have.

5- Our boy Giulio is extremely prolific, he has published 97 books, papers, and psychometric instruments since 2019 about honestly all sorts of things. I don't need to explain why that is impossible and just crazy. This includes articles about clinical evidence in alien abductions and demonic possession, a psychopathological profile of the biblical god Yahwe, every psychopathology under the sun, cuckolding, epilepsy, spleen trauma, and his own protocol to improve your gut flora.

6-He claims to be working as a PhD student in a university but the department he is in doesn't actually exist as far as I can tell.

Honestly I'm losing my mind. I just wanted to mention a few pointers about how to tell if a paper is likely to be legit and I've been down this rabbit hole for I kid you not, 2 hours. I'm so sorry. I don't even know if this guy is real.

We need a thread for Giulio

Hahaha
You made me laugh really hard

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Mate, this is going to look like I’m trying to **** on you because it seems like I always have something to say, but I’m honestly not lol. But there’s a ton of red flags in that study. First, peertechz is a predatory publication that is not a legitimate scientific journal. You can read a little more here, but yeah it can be hard to tell. Second that article is very very dodgy. I'm not sure how used you are to reading academic articles, but I will just point out some red flags that jump out:
1-Bad English and poor referencing
2-The way the article is written is highly irregular and does not follow the format or rules of research papers. There's no info about how participants were recruited or how the data was analysed or what statistical tests were done in order to imply a correlation ( I don't believe there was any done to be honest). Basically this "study" has not run the statistical tests necessary to compare two populations (tattoo vs no tattoo) and has not provided the results of any tests. It talks about "significant results" but doesn't actually provide any p values. Honestly if I presented this in uni they'd tell me to go back to year 1.
3-Papers usually talk about the various limitations and caveats that there may be in any given study, his only limitation is "The main limitations of the research is one: the PICI-1 is not yet standardised psychometric instruments but are proposed, despite the excellent results obtained ". Using a non-standardised test to diagnose is silly, first off. But upon further research, I realised he is actually the author of the instrument too (actually PICI stands for Perrotta Integrative Clinical Interview, Perrota being himself) and it was published in the same dodgy journal. Of which as it turns out, he is Editor-In-Chief.

4- Of the 49 references in the article, 38 are articles he himself has authored, and some of them are not relevant at all. I suspect this is so it appears that they have been cited more often than they actually have.

5- Our boy Giulio is extremely prolific, he has published 97 books, papers, and psychometric instruments since 2019 about honestly all sorts of things. I don't need to explain why that is impossible and just crazy. This includes articles about clinical evidence in alien abductions and demonic possession, a psychopathological profile of the biblical god Yahwe, every psychopathology under the sun, cuckolding, epilepsy, spleen trauma, and his own protocol to improve your gut flora.

6-He claims to be working as a PhD student in a university but the department he is in doesn't actually exist as far as I can tell.

Honestly I'm losing my mind. I just wanted to mention a few pointers about how to tell if a paper is likely to be legit and I've been down this rabbit hole for I kid you not, 2 hours. I'm so sorry. I don't even know if this guy is real.

We need a thread for Giulio

That’s an epic post, thank you. I think we do need a thread for Giulio, poor Giulio

It is what it is. Honestly I don’t have the mental energy to go back to researching that particular topic; I chose the first study I found on PubMed that looked legitimate. Which is normally an okay approach.

You remind me of me when my ADHD meds kick in. Perhaps when they do tomorrow I’ll go back to the subject

 

[Satchie]

A lot of misconceptions about why people get tattoos here. Some of us just like the artwork.

Sure. Kind of like how guys tell their buddies/potential dates "I just happen to like the design on this skirt I'm wearing, that's all."

IMO, no one in their twenties does anything because they just personally, happen to like it. IMO, it's always about the perception of what is, in whatever circle you want to belong to, the cool, hip thing.

I think the main point is, Ashley must have thought his tattoos made him attractive. And maybe that was the point of them, to attract girls.

MOO

 

[Dotta]

The term "Crime of passion" is absolutely jarring.

I think it was used in the past, indicating some kind of psychosis, attack of rage.

But it is not used any more, right?

 

[Dotta]

Crime of Passion

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

If an article is sub judice and violates the law in the UK, we don't post it at Websleuths.

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

Daily Beast - owned by the very mainstream Newsweek - has an interview with a friend of Ashley’s. This isn’t barred in the UK afaik:

Mormon Teen Dead After Flying to U.K. to Visit Guy She Met Online

“She started using secret social media accounts to contact her friends, because “her boyfriend didn’t want her to talk with us a lot of the time,” Seaman said. “She just said that she needed help.””

 

[Dotta]

In my opinion, it is a good idea to stay in a hotel when travelling to visit people met online.
This way you are safe and independent.
You can cut free from troublesome relationship.
There are some cheap hostels for students.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE RE SUB JUDICE:

As Jack Sepple has been charged with the murder of Ashley Wadsworth, the law of sub judice now applies. This means that his case is under judicial consideration from the time of arrest, throughout trial, and possibly through to the conclusion of the appeal process. Trashing him and posting about any prior convictions or derogatory information about him is off limits and any mention of them will be deleted.

As presumption of innocence must be maintained through the entire judicial process, do not post anything here that could be detrimental to the prosecution of the case, that may prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial, or has the potential to influence the trier of fact in regarding guilt or innocence.

This means:

Anything at all that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestions or direct accusations that the accused is either guilty or innocent (i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer", it has to be "the accused", the "alleged killer" or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences or any negative information about the accused
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges/lawyers, any officer of the Court)
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence.
Any non compliance with an Order of the court

Note regarding Appeals:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.

ETA for reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981

 

[Webbie2021]

The term "Crime of passion" is absolutely jarring.

I think it was used in the past, indicating some kind of psychosis, attack of rage.

But it is not used any more, right?

A lot of people took issue with this term in the Gabby Petito case. For younger people not familiar with the term, the assumption seemed to be that it was equivalent calling it a "romantic crime."

"Passion" in this context doesn't necessarily connote love or romantic or sexual passion, and a crime of passion is not necessarily a crime committed by a romantic partner. It's just a crime committed in the heat of the moment. Think of it as the opposite of a premediated crime.

"Passion," until recently, referred to any overpowering emotion, often anger. For example in Jane Eyre the child protagonist says "a passion of resentment fomented now within me" and her aunt tells her "you are passionate, Jane, that you must allow." Later in the book Rochester admits to a "grande passion" for a French woman called Céline in his youth and says "this passion Céline had professed to return with even superior ardour."

So "passion" was used quite comfortably in both contexts. Currently "passionate" either refers to romantic passion or a love of something, e.g. "I'm passionate about music." We would never describe an angry child as "passionate," and calling something a "crime of passion" sounds jarring because it seems like we're saying "this [hypothetical] man killed his wife because he loved her so much."

The definition is further complicated by the fact that, historically, men who harm or kill their wives because their wives have been suspected of adultery have often been looked on leniently, their rage being looked on as pretty understandable. Attitudes to domestic violence against women have been very slow to change.

TL;DR: A crime of passion is a sudden, impulsive crime committed under any overpowering emotion. The relationship doesn't have to be a romantic one. If you kill your brother in a blind rage because he wins a game of Monopoly, that's a crime of passion.

 

[Dotta]

A lot of people took issue with this term in the Gabby Petito case. For younger people not familiar with the term, the assumption seemed to be that it was equivalent calling it a "romantic crime."

"Passion" in this context doesn't necessarily connote love or romantic or sexual passion, and a crime of passion is not necessarily a crime committed by a romantic partner. It's just a crime committed in the heat of the moment. Think of it as the opposite of a premediated crime.

"Passion," until recently, referred to any overpowering emotion, often anger. For example in Jane Eyre the child protagonist says "a passion of resentment fomented now within me" and her aunt tells her "you are passionate, Jane, that you must allow." Later in the book Rochester admits to a "grande passion" for a French woman called Céline in his youth and says "this passion Céline had professed to return with even superior ardour."

So "passion" was used quite comfortably in both contexts. Currently "passionate" either refers to romantic passion or a love of something, e.g. "I'm passionate about music." We would never describe an angry child as "passionate," and calling something a "crime of passion" sounds jarring because it seems like we're saying "this [hypothetical] man killed his wife because he loved her so much."

The definition is further complicated by the fact that, historically, men who harm or kill their wives because their wives have been suspected of adultery have often been looked on leniently, their rage being looked on as pretty understandable. Attitudes to domestic violence against women have been very slow to change.

TL;DR: A crime of passion is a sudden, impulsive crime committed under any overpowering emotion. The relationship doesn't have to be a romantic one. If you kill your brother in a blind rage because he wins a game of Monopoly, that's a crime of passion.

Thanks!

For me passion is positive emotion.
It is connected with heartfelt feeling, love.
It seems intriguing, exciting and unusual.

The expression "Crime of Passion" romanticizes crime.
That is why it should be dropped.

But, of course, I understand your point of view.

"Crime of Frenzy" is more appropriate.

 

[LietKynes]

Thanks!

For me passion is positive emotion.
It is connected with heartfelt feeling, love.
It seems intriguing, exciting and unusual.

The expression "Crime of Passion" romanticizes crime.
That is why it should be dropped.

But, of course, I understand your point of view.

"Crime of Frenzy" is more appropriate.

bbm
I never considered that, interesting point !

Wonder if Ashley had tried to leave him ?
How sad that she was fairly isolated from everyone ... and in a different country.
I wish she could have been able to escape.
Rest in peace, Ashley.

 

[Satchie]

A lot of people took issue with this term in the Gabby Petito case. For younger people not familiar with the term, the assumption seemed to be that it was equivalent calling it a "romantic crime."

"Passion" in this context doesn't necessarily connote love or romantic or sexual passion, and a crime of passion is not necessarily a crime committed by a romantic partner. It's just a crime committed in the heat of the moment. Think of it as the opposite of a premediated crime.

"Passion," until recently, referred to any overpowering emotion, often anger. For example in Jane Eyre the child protagonist says "a passion of resentment fomented now within me" and her aunt tells her "you are passionate, Jane, that you must allow." Later in the book Rochester admits to a "grande passion" for a French woman called Céline in his youth and says "this passion Céline had professed to return with even superior ardour."

So "passion" was used quite comfortably in both contexts. Currently "passionate" either refers to romantic passion or a love of something, e.g. "I'm passionate about music." We would never describe an angry child as "passionate," and calling something a "crime of passion" sounds jarring because it seems like we're saying "this [hypothetical] man killed his wife because he loved her so much."

The definition is further complicated by fact that, historically, men who harm or kill their wives because their wives have been suspected of adultery have often been looked on leniently, their rage being looked on as pretty understandable. Attitudes to domestic violence against women have been very slow to change.

TL;DR: A crime of passion is a sudden, impulsive crime committed under any overpowering emotion. The relationship doesn't have to be a romantic one. If you kill your brother in a blind rage because he wins a game of Monopoly, that's a crime of passion.

I think, regardless of how people want to define it, it should be noted that the term is not significant as an abstract concept: it's vital only because it's used as a defense in a court of law. The defendant claims they're not guilty and shouldn't be convicted of murder, because of this supposed state of mind they were supposedly in.

Whether or not there really is such a state of mind, whether or not a person really can't help themselves, they absolutely had to kill their brother who won that monopoly game (or, in the old days, his wife and the man he caught in bed with her): that's just a matter of opinion which each legal system, in a particular place and time, either accepts or rejects. IMO, it shouldn't be seen as some kind of universal, inherent condition of being human, since most people seem to be able to resist killing other people, under all sorts of provoking circumstances.

JMO

 

[Webbie2021]

it's vital only because it's used as a defense in a court of law...Whether or not there really is such a state of mind, whether or not a person really can't help themselves...

I don't think in calling something a "crime of passion" there's any implication that the person couldn't help themselves. When used as a defense, all it means is that the crime wasn't premeditated.

It's not true that a defendant who uses this defense "claims they're not guilty and shouldn't be convicted of murder, because of this supposed state of mind they were supposedly in." I think you're confusing "crime of passion" with "temporary insanity" or "irresistible impulse:"

Insanity defense - Wikipedia

Irresistible impulse - Wikipedia

In some jurisdictions a lack of malice aforethought means the defendant can't be tried for murder - only manslaughter. In other jurisdictions it may simply mean that the sentence is less severe, since premeditated or "cold-blooded" murder is regarded as morally somewhat more grave than killing someone on the spur of the moment. They had time to think it through calmly and still did it.

That said, most 21st lawyers would not use the term "crime of passion" in a court of law - they'd simply say the crime was not premeditated. "Crime of passion" is now a term used more in the media than in legal proceedings.

So just to be absolutely clear, I'm not suggesting it would be excusable for anyone's brother to kill them in a blind rage after losing a game of Monopoly. That was just a hypothetical example of a "crime of passion," i.e. a crime that is committed suddenly in a rush of anger and is not premeditated.

it shouldn't be seen as some kind of universal, inherent condition of being human.

It shouldn't and it isn't. If it was, it would be used as a defense in literally every domestic violence case. There is no understanding in the legal system or in society at large that it's acceptable to commit murder or assault if you're influenced by very strong emotions. The only state of mind that may result in a verdict of not guilty when murder is otherwise proven is serious psychiatric disease.

 

[badgersmythe]

Grandfather of murdered teen said they thought 'UK was a safe place'


Canadian Mormon teenager, 19, 'murdered' after flying to meet English boyfriend in Essex | Daily Mail Online

 

[Satchie]

I don't think in calling something a "crime of passion" there's any implication that the person couldn't help themselves. When used as a defense, all it means is that the crime wasn't premeditated.

Yes, exactly. It's used as a defense to get more lenient charges or punishment for the crime. The defendant says something along the lines of 'I don't know what came over me, I just snapped'. Thereby implying that they're really a good guy, everyone should like them, they shouldn't be seen as some kind of morally wrong person.

IMO, just because there's no evidence of pre-planning, does not mean they haven't thought about it, contemplated it, justified it to themselves, considered what method they'd like to use, threatened the person under their breath, etc, etc. So that when the actual event arrives, they finally choose to take the action they've been working themselves up to for a long time.

IMO there's potentially a lot of fiction/rationalization behind this whole idea that the perp never, ever considered murdering anyone until a particular situation created that 'heat of the moment' when they suddenly 'snapped'. I kind of say BS to the heat of the moment/snapping idea. If there was heat, the person themselves had turned the temperature up long before that moment. If they snapped, it was because they'd spent a long time erasing the idea that killing people is wrong.

But of course, we can't enter into someone's mind to know their thoughts, so we base the legal cases on the kind of evidence that can be presented to court.

JMO

 

[Luwin]

Ashley Wadsworth died of stab wounds to chest


A Canadian woman whose boyfriend is charged with her murder died of stab wounds to the chest, an inquest heard.

The body of Ashley Wadsworth, 19, was discovered in Tennyson Road, Chelmsford, on 1 February.

The hearing was told paramedics found her unresponsive and she was pronounced dead at 16:38 GMT.