Woman killed by train: Manslaughter: wtf

theCzar

Can somebody enlighten me here why the boyfriend of Kelly Mack (the woman who died when her boot was trapped in a cattle grill on a railway crossing) is now facing manslaughter charges?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3681794.ece
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=kelly-29-is-named-as-ugg-boot-rail-victim&method=full&objectid=20367204&siteid=93463-name_page.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=556920&in_page_id=1770
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/04/ukcrime

Her and boyfriend try and cross railway after level crossing closed. Her foot was trapped. People at the scene tried to free her. They didn't! She was killed. Where is the part where her boyfriend killed her?

Rb

Quite confusing alright.

Feel sorry for the 18 year old guy who was still holding her hand when the train hit her though, talk about a traumatic experience.

Unpossible

had got free of the track but was hit when trying to retrieve her boot.

why not just wait until after the train passes to go for the boot?

How are they pinning her death on the boyfriend? because she was walking over to him?

Sherifu

The different links have different stories, one says she was freed, one says she wasn't. Strange they went after the boyfriend.

Bendihorse

My understanding of it was that there was a struggle to free the girl by a third party, he managed to free her but went to pull her across the track away from the side the boyfriend was standing. Her boyfriend in turn shouted at her that the approaching train was 'his train' and that she needed to be on the side he was on, the girl then pulled to go back across the track to reach him and got hit... Hard to believe but this all happened in rapid succession, the bystander held on to her to try and drag her off track towards him but she was trying to get back to the BF on other side... Something like that anyway. I guess they are accusing him of involuntary manslaughter.

Rb

If she did infact go back for the boot whilst the train was coming then society has now benefited tbvfh.

balkieb2002

I think its was because he coaxed her into following him illeagily across the track

The defendant proceeded onto the track via the public entrance and trespassed across the railway track whilst on the other side of the lines the defendant beckoned the deceased to join him.

I presume this is the reason for the charge!

Wazdakka

Madness..

Scene: Busy road

Me to person on other side: Oi, You C'mere.

Person: SPLAT!!!

Manslaughter???

Mossy Monk

Manslaughter? There has to be something that we are not being told.

Sherifu

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Manslaughter? There has to be something that we are not being told.

That's my guess too.

Silent Partner

Wazdakka wrote: »

Madness..

Scene: Busy road

Me to person on other side: Oi, You C'mere.

Person: SPLAT!!!

Manslaughter???

Surely these are the judges closing remarks?

theCzar

There is a lot of conflicting stories. I just cannot believe she went back for her shoe. Also, I don't buy the line that she was "beckoned" across and she walked in front of the train.

I think the most plausible story, is that she tried to go one way to safety, and was pulled the other way and she ended up in the middle.

But where the BF comes in, time will tell I guess. Perhaps he was pulling on her and ended up prevented her from get off the other side.

Its possible that they are blaming him for inciting her to cross illegally, but she presumably had some sort of free will. In this case, the worst I could accuse him of is trespassing on the tracks. It would obviously be different if the victim was a child but she was a fully grown woman.

It strikes me as death by misadventure unless there's some more evidence that has yet to come to light. I would have expected one of the witnesses to have said something if the BF did something untoward, but maybe CCTV spotted something they couldn't see.

connundrum

rb_ie wrote: »

If she did infact go back for the boot whilst the train was coming then society has now benefited tbvfh.

Cull the herd imo.

Pity the bf is caught up in it now though.

Maximilian

There must be something else to it. Doesn't sound like manslaughter to me.

humanji

IT also sounds like the boyfriend did nothing to try and free her. I'm sure the full story will come out once the case is over. Until then it'll all be guess work.

Mr. Incognito

Hmmm strange one

Prosecutor Fiona Harman revealed some of the background to the case but details of exactly what happened to Miss Mack moments before she died could not be reported for legal reasons

It's not proved- merely charged.

Trevor Linn, defending Palmer , said he considered the incident "a tragic accident," adding: "In our respectful submission this was a tragic accident as reported in the press by Inspector Pearce of British Transport police."

ScumLord

Maybe it's another case of Scooby Doo making up evidence to hide the fact he's a washed up has been.

seamus

One story says; "Last week one of those who helped to free Miss Mack claimed that after she had been freed she had been told to run across the tracks by her boyfriend."
So as others have said, it sounds like she got stuck on on side of the tracks, while her boyfriend walked across to the other side. When she was freed by bystanders, her boyfriend then told her to hurry up and run before the train came, which she duly did.

Perhaps as she crossed, she didn't realise how close the train was, then she looked up, saw it less than 50m away and froze in sheer terror. Assuming that the train was travelling at 100km/h it would take just over a second to reach her, so any hesitation would have killed her.

Sangre

he isn't under any obligation to help her. the uk dont have any good samaritan laws as far as in aware.

Corkgirl21

Not two of those articles have the same story. One says she was curled up in a ball, one says he was still holding her hand, one says she was safe and tried to run again!

And if the train was a non stop train it wouldn't have been the boyfriend's train so why would he have shouted that.

It all sounds very odd!

If anything this story just shows how you really can't believe anything you read in the papers anymore!!

truecrippler

Only read some of the articles, but why do the news reporters who wrote all that don't seem to question why he was charged? Its as if its normal.

microgirl

theCzar wrote: »

There is a lot of conflicting stories. I just cannot believe she went back for her shoe. Also, I don't buy the line that she was "beckoned" across and she walked in front of the train.

I think the most plausible story, is that she tried to go one way to safety, and was pulled the other way and she ended up in the middle.

But where the BF comes in, time will tell I guess. Perhaps he was pulling on her and ended up prevented her from get off the other side.

I think this is very possible. The most detailed news report linked to says information came to light about the situation moments before her death that lead to th charge being levelled, information that can't be revealed for legal reasons. Another report says the boyf sustained a broken leg in the incident, which if he just crossed the track cleanly and was safely waiting on the other side, beckoning her, is an unlikely situation. Him pulling her is a decidedly plausible scenario.

Basically though, none of us were there, none of us were witnesses, so we have no right to judge the rightness or wrongness of the manslaughter charge. Regardless of what some people might think, the authorities generall don't charge people willy-nilly without some good reason. Decision on whether the charge is warranted or true then depends on judge and jury, neither of which category we fall in to.

A Dub in Glasgo

theCzar wrote: »

Can somebody enlighten me here why the boyfriend of Kelly Mack (the woman who died when her boot was trapped in a cattle grill on a railway crossing) is now facing manslaughter charges?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3681794.ece
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=kelly-29-is-named-as-ugg-boot-rail-victim&method=full&objectid=20367204&siteid=93463-name_page.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=556920&in_page_id=1770
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/04/ukcrime

Her and boyfriend try and cross railway after level crossing closed. Her foot was trapped. People at the scene tried to free her. They didn't! She was killed. Where is the part where her boyfriend killed her?

He clearly encouraged her to carry out an illegal act resulting in her death therefore he is being charged with manslaughter

Thrill

timesonline...
Jonathan Smith says:“I saw the train coming. I just thought, I’ve got to save her. “I went through and saw she had her foot stuck at first and I grabbed her hand and got her foot out.
“I was still holding her hand when the train came.”




Daily mail
Jonathan Smith says:
"I had her in my arms, she was safe. "But her boyfriend screamed at her to get to the other side. I said : 'Stay on this side.'
"But he said: 'This is my train. I've got to be on this side of the track,' and so she tried to cross."




The People
Jonathan Smith says: "I told her to forget about her boot. She fell between the rails and just curled up in a ball, I think she was in shock because she knew the train was coming."


Jonathan smith seems to be telling different accounts of what happened to different papers. He is either suffering from shock or telling porkies. If he tried to stop her from crossing the tracks to her bf and slowed her down in any way then surely he could be charged with manslaughter as well.

Lirange

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

He clearly encouraged her to carry out an illegal act resulting in her death therefore he is being charged with manslaughter

She is (was) an adult. Not a child.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe so although I would imagine the law is interested in looking at people who encourage law breaking

Lirange

Shall they go after Judas Priest then?

Charge him for breaking the law. Makes more sense.

bizmark

The law's going nuts :rolleyes: Shes an adult i know for a fact if someone told me to run across a train track with a train comeing i would tell them to feck off its not his fault she was a fool.

Overheal

To be Just and Fair: I think everyone at that scene will probably have a lot to reflect on for a long time to come without the Law stepping in. I dont see how there was any ill intent on anyone's part.

Manic Moran

Anything other than terminal stupidity or actual murder (Pushed, tied to tracks, etc) when getting hit by a train is going to be fairly hard to prove, I would have thought.

We had a spate of 'pedestrian hit by train' incidents in my neck of the woods recently. Cue public outcry about safety measures, fences, warning signs, flashing lights, and so on.

From my perspective, it takes active idiocy to get his by a train. It's not as if they come from nowhere, there are usually pretty good indicators of where trains are liable to pop up. The big shiny steel things lying on wood or concrete and lots of small rocks are generally a good giveaway that "Trains might pass this way." One would have thought that with the relative sizes of "person" vs "train", the "person" would be cautious about crossing onto the tracks, but no. They walk onto the tracks anyway, in utter oblivion to the thousand tons of train a few hundred meters away and closing fast.

NTM

leninbenjamin

Overheal wrote: »

To be Just and Fair: I think everyone at that scene will probably have a lot to reflect on for a long time to come without the Law stepping in. I dont see how there was any ill intent on anyone's part.

qft