Just watched this. Agree with your points. So he committed a long-term crime against her first (a crime that didn’t legally exist at the time). And she was a victim for all those years. Then she committed a separate crime as a result of this. At which point he is the victim of the second crime.
some other thoughts/observations from watching:
- Bringing a hammer to the house, appears to show premeditation.
- The order of events according to sally is a little contradictory:
she says after returning from the shops with food, cooked a meal for him, then discovered the phone call to another woman - and discovering the phone call made her ‘snap’. but she had already brought a hammer with her, in her handbag, before any of this had happened.
- Her ‘if I can’t have him, no-one can’ comment.
- She had managed to leave him. They were living in separate houses. there is only her version of what happened. The two boys were not living at the family home in August 2010.
- If she had just cooked a meal for him, why were there pink gloves next to the hammer? (1:00:09) (1:00:29)
- was it the years of control that had an effect on Sally’s mental health, and something that happened in August to make her ‘snap’ was actually a moment of clarity, that allowed her to break free from the control? Almost the opposite of diminished responsibility.
This podcast says they were packing up the house to rent it out. And were going on a six month holiday to Australia together - how does this fit in? No mention of it in the documentary.
Episode 65 - Sally & Richard Challen
