You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Nice to see that we're serious about preventing violence against women...🙄
The trial of man accused of murdering his wealthy wife after taking out seven insurance policies on her life has collapsed.
Donald McPherson, 47, stood to gain £3.5m on the death of Paula Leeson
Leeson, described as an otherwise healthy mother of one, drowned in a 4ft-deep swimming pool
Pathologists found 13 separate injuries on Leeson’s body, which jurors heard may have been sustained while being restrained
The day after her death, McPherson transferred £27,000 from his joint account with his wife to his personal accounts to help clear his £67,000 debts. Seven days later he joined a group, Widowed and Young, he described as “Like Tinder for widows”, jurors were told.
In the four years before her death, McPherson had taken out the seven life insurance policies and by 2016 was paying £464.47 a month on premiums
I'm sure there are good legal reasons why the judge discarded it, but it still stinks...
To put it into sharp focus, 118 women and girls have been killed since the start of the year. The year is 77 days old!
(Along with the de facto legalisation of rape by the new CPS guidelines)
The country has a problem.
Along with the de facto legalisation of rape by the new CPS guidelines
I will go and try and find the new guidelines myself, but any head start you can provide would be appreciated.
To put it into sharp focus, 118 women and girls have been killed since the start of the year. The year is 77 days old!
That’s a shocking statistic. To put it into the context your talking about though I need to know how many men have died. How many men have died by the same measure?
I’m sure there are good legal reasons why the judge discarded it, but it still stinks…
I’ve read the article. Sounds like the judge basically said it stinks, agreeing with you. But no ones given him any evidence that the guy actually killed her. That’s the good legal reason why he had to discard the case.
To be clear, I completely agree, as the great ape put it “the country has a problem”, but we are gonna have to dig deeper to prove it and deal with it.
In this specific case, why isn’t there evidence that he killed her? Was the investigation following her death insufficient? Is that because of some bias in the investigators?
Going Deeper, if (big if) it’s the case this man did intend to obtain money by killing this woman (his wife), what the @&£ lead to that mindset?
That number of murdered women this year is on the other thread, but a quick google didn't throw up any obvious official stats for 2021? I'd be interested to see the number, and the number for men. I think generally the male murder rate is twice that for women?
As said above, blindingly obvious motive alone isn't enough to convict someone of murder. Which does raise questions around the investigation, but surely if he was prime suspect the Police would have thrown everything at it?
And also worth remembering that most women are in, or were in, some sort of relationship with their killer. That's truly terrifying as a dad with a teenage daughter.
I'd be more inclined to wonder how the prosecution got this to trial with evidence that was so insufficient the judge had to throw the case out, there is more to this than the newspaper is reporting, as even with flimsy evidence, you expect it to make it to a jury's decision.
If i was a betting man i'd guess that there was not much in the way of actual evidence, or issues occurred between Denmark and the UK in terms of collection and transfer, unfortunately for a prosecution at this level, hearsay and conjecture aren't going to be enough to go to trial.
I googled it for myself. I also can’t find stats for this year, but the ONS has a detailed report for 2019
Sex
As in previous years, the majority of homicide victims in the year ending March 2019 were male. Just under two-thirds were male victims (64%) and just over a third were female (36%).
The number of female victims in the year ending March 2019 was the highest since the year ending March 2006 (also 241) and represented the second consecutive annual increase.1 For more information on homicide trends by sex, see section 3 “What do trends in homicide look like?”.
And I really really must be clear: I am the father of a young girl. I believe we, as a society, have a serious problem to address with how we treat women. 118 women dead this year is appalling. But my point, I suppose, is that one must be careful with quoting statistics to make a point. Lies, damn lies etc
Same goes for legal cases, the problem isn’t with the judge.
some interesting statistics here
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/femicide-census-reveals-half-of-uk-women-killed-by-men-die-at-hands-of-partner-or-ex/
To put it into sharp focus, 118 women and girls have been killed since the start of the year. The year is 77 days old!
I feel shitty having to say this, but that figure was since March 11, 2020, so a year, not 77 days. Doesn't help any, I know.
Doesn’t help any, I know.
Yes, I felt bad checking it, but seemed to be wrong.
Hmmm. That case is an odd one, why was it brought to trial on just circumstantial evidence?
Yes he had a motive, but not a strong one. He just took out a load of life insurance. Easily explainable. No evidence of her or him having an affair, no evidence of arguments, a struggle, previous attacks?
Physical evidence - yes she drowned. Could be an accident. Marks on her body - could they have been proved to be done by the husband? Is it 100% connected to the drowning?
It’s a shame that someone hasn’t been brought to justice, and it does seem to the onlooker from the news report that he was expecting her to die, but thankfully we don’t convict people on public opinions or gut feelings.
You're correct @vinnyeh, I took my daughter at her word without fact-checking. Turns out that is the list that Jess Philips read out in parliament, kids eh!
Wouldn't the family or insurance companies be able to bring a civil case where the bar for proof is much lower?
Presumably the life insurance companies will have some interest in helping to gather evidence that he was planning to do her in? He's bound to have made a mistake at some point. Internet searches etc. What benign explanation could there be for the injuries she had sustained?
There was a case in Scotland ten years ago where a murderer was convicted without a body and basically on circumstantial evidence. The woman's body still hasn't been found as the murderer is the only one who knows where it is and he isn't saying.
There was a murder case in Swindon where the body was never found (she may have just gone off to live elsewhere) but the husband was convicted. However, normally the evidence should be "beyond all reasonable doubt"...........
Hmmm. That case is an odd one, why was it brought to trial on just circumstantial evidence?
Probably because that's the best they had and they were pretty sure he did it and hoped they could convince a Jury likewise.
If they hadn't brought it to trial, there would probably be another thread saying 'why didn't they even prosecute'. Dammed if you do, damned if you don't.
Be interesting to see if the insurers pay out.
What benign explanation could there be for the injuries she had sustained?
Rescue from the water and attempts at resuscitation, as outlined by the judge according to most of the reporting on the matter, would be my guess.
except, there was no evidence, so the jury didn’t even get to consider it... something the prosecution must have realised, surely? And now he probably can’t be tried again even if new evidence does emerge at a later date.Probably because that’s the best they had and they were pretty sure he did it and hoped they could convince a Jury likewise.
I'd guess a civil case would be just as hard to push through, the complete lack of evidence means there is very little the defendant would need to argue against to prove there is no liability, same with the insurance companies, unless they can find some new evidence.
I think it’s the case that Insurers can withhold payouts where there’s a suspected fraud - the bar for that is far lower than a criminal fraud.
On a side note Jess Philips was on QT last night and made some really good points.
The Govt are just going to have more committees and inquests and do nothing anyway
The insurance policy thing is very strange and my gut says nobody does that without a reason but there has to be evidence to convict somebody. Can you imagine a situation where your wife gets killed and you get wrongly convicted of her murder?
The article in the OP reminded me of something too. It talks about him transferring money from their joint account to his own after her death, I presume to show his guilt?
Not sure how many people know this but when a person dies the bank freeze all their accounts until probate is sorted out and this can take months or even years. If that money was needed to pay bills then the smartest thing to do is to transfer it out. There is an audit trail and it can be repaid or balanced out in the estate/probate but it avoids leaving him without any money to live off.
Seven days later he joined a group, Widowed and Young...
Sounds exactly like the actions of someone struggling with having been widowed.
...he described as “Like Tinder for widows”, jurors were told.
That may be true, but a) we don't know when he said that (two years later?) and b) I very much doubt that's the reason he initially signed up.
Life insurance on a £3.5M heiress doesn't sound ridiculous either.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of motive here. But the article has been written in a way that's designed to make us think the guy is guilty when there appears to be no proof at all?
Not sure how many people know this but when a person dies the bank freeze all their accounts until probate is sorted
Unless the bank have proof that all the money in the "joint" account is the deceased, then no they wouldn't freeze a joint account.
Genuine question, why would one take out multiple life insurance policies instead of just one policy for the larger sum?
What benign explanation could there be for the injuries she had sustained?
It's the prosecution's responsibility to provide evidence that the defendant is guilty. It's not the defendant's responsibility to prove innocence. He doesn't have to provide any explanation of the injuries.
Stats on homicide to March 2020
From the link:
"There were 695 victims of homicide in the year ending March 2020, 47 more (7%) than the previous year; this figure includes the Grays lorry incident with 39 homicide victims – if this incident is excluded, homicide showed a 1% increase overall.
The homicide rate was 11.7 per million population, with the rate for males (17 per million population) almost three times that for females (6 per million population); this is a higher difference than previous years because of a 20% increase in the number of male victims, from 422 to 506, and a 16% decrease in the number of female victims, from 225 to 188."
So they were very well off so £3.5m doesn't seem unfeasible amount of life insurance to have.
Injuries caused by restraint, come on, stop being prudish.
Genuine question, why would one take out multiple life insurance policies instead of just one policy for the larger sum?
They get more expensive as you get older, so it's generally cheaper to buy new policies to top up the amount and keep the ones that were based on your lower risk when you were younger.
They get more expensive as you get older, so it’s generally cheaper to buy new policies to top up the amount and keep the ones that were based on your lower risk when you were younger.
That makes sense, apart from in this instance they'd only been married 3yrs and together 5yrs before she died?
That makes sense, apart from in this instance they’d only been married 3yrs and together 5yrs before she died?
Top it up when they bought a house. And again when they had a kid?
Don't know about the other 5, but it could be simple journalistic licence, e.g. my last job came with 2 policies, a pension, a bank account might come with it, or a car loan or credit card might have some sort of PPI type insurance attached. It might not mean he actually rang up Loyds 7 times and added £500k each time.
I mean, he might be guilty, but that is a very biased presentation of a motive as circumstantial evidence.
Genuine question, why would one take out multiple life insurance policies instead of just one policy for the larger sum?
If you were incredibly niaive and stupid, you might do it in the mistaken belief that the insurance companies would be less likely to notice the individual smaller payments.
Multiple insurance policies is not that unusual. Life insurance companies sell all sorts of different products, which often brokers will sell a pick and mix style combination of to get the best compromise of coverage. (I used to work for a life insurance company).
However, 7 taken out in 3-5 years does seem a bit odd. If it was say 3 or 4 that wouldn’t be such a red flag.
The OP sounds like a Netflix documentary in the making
I think generally the male murder rate is twice that for women?
I think the relevant stats for this situation are for murder by someone you know, particularly partners or ex-partners. AFAIK women are far more likely to be killed by someone they know than men.