This puzzles me reading media reports (unless there it's hard to get a real picture). Her behaviour seems to have been very strange indeed. Whatever his behaviour hers appears bizarre (wanting a reconciliation). Now her conviction has been quashed but not replaced by manslaughter (which would mean her release at 65) but faces a retrial - surely the worst and most akin to torture. Either the woman is innocent or guilty of manslaughter or guilty of murder but a retrial doesn't seem to satisfy any common sense.

Incidentally I note with interest the three Appeal Court judges included one who sat at my (failed) appeal in 2003 and another who was, at the time, my defence QC and is now a Judge.

If the law has changed since the conviction, perhaps a retrial is necessary for legal reasons.

This is what puzzles me Jo. They say they can alter verdicts if the law changes but then say the case must be judged by the law as it then was.

It seems to be - was she out of her mind when she murdered her husband? Answer is clearly YES but aren't all murderers mad? She cooked him bacon and eggs, removed a hammer from her handbag and hit him 20 times. Mad? Certainly. Why mad? Why is anyone mad? She's still murdered him, hasn't she?

JK2006 wrote:
It seems to be - was she out of her mind when she murdered her husband? Answer is clearly YES but aren't all murderers mad? She cooked him bacon and eggs, removed a hammer from her handbag and hit him 20 times. Mad? Certainly. Why mad? Why is anyone mad? She's still murdered him, hasn't she?

It strikes me as victim blaming.
Once again, a woman commits a horrible crime and it is turned into "all the man's fault".