I’m sorry to hear the writer married an actual psychopath. There’s more of them around than one would imagine.
I’m confused about the lack of charges though - in the UK this seems like it could come under Actual Bodily Harm or even attempted murder. Certainly a crime of that kind has been committed and the intent is there, even if the method wasn’t particularly effective. I realise the system of public law in Nordic countries is quite different to the UK though - there was enough evidence for it to go to court so it shouldn’t be up to the public prosecutor to decide. Putting this to a judge and jury would be sufficient for the jury to join the dots and pass a guilty verdict. Circumstantial evidence isn’t worthless if there’s enough of it.
You'd charge administering a poison, s23 or s24 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, if there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a) the wife administered it and b) intended to cause harm or did cause harm.
Thanks for the info. What if the poison was exactly a poison like in this case? I realise “the dose maketh the poison” but it wasn’t exactly strychnine or cyanide.
I’m confused about the lack of charges though - in the UK this seems like it could come under Actual Bodily Harm or even attempted murder. Certainly a crime of that kind has been committed and the intent is there, even if the method wasn’t particularly effective. I realise the system of public law in Nordic countries is quite different to the UK though - there was enough evidence for it to go to court so it shouldn’t be up to the public prosecutor to decide. Putting this to a judge and jury would be sufficient for the jury to join the dots and pass a guilty verdict. Circumstantial evidence isn’t worthless if there’s enough of it.