I think that they deemed him competent based on the manner of killing. The first one was spontaneous reaction to unexpected trigger in the moment vulnerability, indeed manslaughter can be kinda sorta argued, the second one is carefully planned torture session, premeditated, deliberate, one could use term "cold-blooded murder" (really surprised they didn't charge him with it). He seems much more in control and like he has clear mind, not psyhotic episode. Presence of another person spuring him on could be perhaps used to build a case of not being in full command of one's faculties, but well, investigation could uncover the other guy didn't need to do much persuading and played only second fiddle so...
To me the weirdest part is not charging murder. Wonder if there were systemic reasons like murder getting different terms and treatment than manslaughter and someone feeling those manslaughter conditions are more convenient/tailor-made than those for murder.
I agree, it is strange. Some consistency would be nice. If he is competent, he should stand trial, if not, he should be remanded to treatment for the duration of his potential danger to himself and others.
Murder trials are truly expensive though. And they get publicity.
Maybe the hospital just didn't need the grief, particularly if they had to explain why they didn't do everything they could (break or destroy the door, call the fire department, gas him, etc) to save the guy in NINE hours?
BTW: I'm not just saying this: I am not a fan of chesters. But the hospital sounds liable to me, especially since they are in the top tier, housing the very worst.
Where is the contingency plan for something like this happen?
Do I sound like I would have sat there with my thumbs up my arse like they did?
Hahaha. Have a great week while we all wait on part 3!!!
The first line of your post is great: They deemed him competent based on the manner of killing
Do you react to this?
It seems really far out to me.
We seem ourselves quite highly at our ability to slice justice into such neat and tidy slivers.
"Yes, his manner of killing leads one to the difficult but highly logical determination of his competency on the entire affair.
After the victim died a cruel and brutal murder but he did die despite the inherent risks of prolonged torture outside the safety of state born torture."
Afterall, the same state, having made that determination, in its infinite wisdom then proceeds to hold him in a glass box for an indeterminate sentence, limited only to the life of its victim.
The State is more cruel in slow and painstaking torture that must be experienced until all hope is gone.
At least that is how I see it: Is the state competent to pass moral judgement on its citizens while reserving piety as its merit without reserve?
Yet, you said the torture had a debilitative affect upon him.
He is likely a shadow of himself, physically.
However, it is not a binary choice: Continue to torture him or gen pop.
Gang members for example are put into protective custody. In CA, they "pc up". More often, it is an administrative decision due to documented enemies the individual has on that yard.
PC is not the best, has limited privileges and less good time credits, etc: However, it is not torture. And he isn't getting out anyway.
Pardon me, for hijacking or high jinxing your thread with my reactions. I helped other people with prison issues before: If it can be done practically and move on. The years long struggles I can't do. For this guy, there is a legal shot, in English common law to end his torture. I tried to say that. If I lived there, I would go do it.
BTW, that is how I helped before. No one else would do it for all the reasons. (there were also several times people concluded they did not want my help.)
Another interesting observation. I do not think that a succesfully restrained formerly predatory pedophile (difference from one containing the urge and not touching any kid) that can no longer hurt anyone needs to be killed (though I can understand taxpayers resenting keeping him fed and clothed). The fact that it is a victim of sexual and other abuse who is plagued by suicidality, substance abuse and hallucinations that is venting this way makes it feel like... Yeah, well, almost like rooting for Robert. It is not helping him, not really, therapy might, whereas this is a downward spiral. But it has something like semblance of natural progression (that those crimes create people who avenge themselves brutally, you step into a river full of crocodiles and you get attacked). I cannot blame avalanche for falling, or a cornered animal for fighting and I cannot blame such a victim. Those nine hours are a lot (he likely felt it was a mere drop in sea of hours he himself suffered) as opposed to the first swift kill. But the dominant perspective of Robert coming into his own has certainly strong pull.
Also... Nickname "Spoons" is height of black comedy. The innocuos randomly-sounding word, the way it rolls of tongue so smoothly and then the explanation, utensils lodged in a crushed skull + cannibalistic tall tale. Perfect in a way. I'd expect that one in a fiction.
And this is the reason to explore this particular case. It is a challenging one. The person that he killed was incarcerated at the moment, but his sentence was not one of life. He would have returned to the world. There will be more information that will be lent to this case in the next post. It should be interesting.
So he gets a ticket to Broadmoor because he's insane kills an inmate cuts a plea to manslaughter and get sent to prison. He no longer has a quasi "life sentence" and has an actual release date. Not sure about his mental capacity but it's actually pretty sharp way to beat the system.
In USA, the jury often selects the actual charge if found guilty (as in: We find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter) as they consider the various aspects of the crimes. Perhaps proving premeditation was difficult at trial?
Again. Idk English criminal law from the 70s. But in USA, determinate sentencing is considered "modern" and novel and a reform of the old system.
The old system required approval by a board to parole to the outside. But that is not an end to the sentence.
Outside, a felon remains subject to the state and continues for years to report to a Parole Officer of some sort. It doesn't take new crimes to be returned to prison. In most USA states, the word of the Parole Officer is sufficient to return a prisoner to custody.
In CA, that situation is so common, they provide a system to appeal it with a "form 602"! I hope you find this part amusing!
I do agree with your basic idea though: Likely he was just plain tired of the hospital routine and wanted some change: some excitement in his life perhaps.
Unlike Maudsley, who was later transferred to HMP Wakefield after the killing, Cheeseman’s immediate legal fate following the Francis murder isn’t as well-documented in public sources. Since both were already under indefinite detention at Broadmoor as psychiatric patients, the incident didn’t lead to a public trial in the traditional sense. However, historical records indicate that Cheeseman was eventually convicted of murder for his role in Francis’s death. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, though the exact date of this conviction isn’t clear from available information. Given the timeline, it’s likely this sentencing occurred shortly after the 1977 killing, possibly in 1978, as part of the administrative and legal review that followed the incident.
Cheeseman, now sometimes referred to as David Lant (a name change that appears in later records), remained in the secure hospital system for years. By the early 2000s, he was serving his life sentence at Hollesley Bay, an open prison in Suffolk, as part of a pre-release scheme. This suggests that, despite his violent history, authorities eventually deemed him stable enough for a less restrictive environment—though still under strict supervision. While at Hollesley Bay, he was allowed day release, working at a Salvation Army hostel in Ipswich and returning to the prison each night.
In October 2004, while on day release, Cheeseman (then known as David Lant) was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl at a caravan he owned with his French wife in Thurston, near Bury St. Edmunds. The girl claimed he subjected her to a five-hour assault after luring her with a promise of £50 he owed her boyfriend. Cheeseman denied the charges—attempted rape and five counts of sexual assault. In July 2006, at Ipswich Crown Court, a jury of eight women and four men acquitted him of all charges. The trial revealed his past, including the 1977 Broadmoor murder, but the jury found insufficient evidence for the sexual assault allegations
Oh you terrible girl! You end on a high note, yes. But next week for more? that is a lot to ask!
In NINE hours? Though the staff watches, they can't call someone to open the door?
My instincts says those appearing liable among the staff, for gross indifference and negligence, sure winners in a civil case, sought to get the charges up and out with the least possible obstacle.
Imagine you are the staff seeing this. You do nothing? for nine hours? And think that is okay?
People who came to work in the morning leave while this is happening? And say nothing in the community?
"How was work dear?" she asked while serving the evening meal. "I heard from Jenny next door there was some commotion going on".
"Oh, some nut cakes got in the changing room. Looks like they might kill him too. I'm sure it will be a hellavua cleanup in the morning. It was still going on when I left." he said after sitting in place
"Dinner looks wonderful honey. How were the kids today?"
I am writing like crazy person myself!! haha. I did these writs for Indian Rights Groups in CA. They paid me in soap. Bars of Soap!! It was the most proud moment of my life!!
If there's going to be window, it's gonna have bars too or some other safety measure that keeps inmates inside and as it happens also people outside on the outside. Getting through them would take way longer, but I am unsure how much longer. Bonus points if the window is barricated too, only a view too small for anyone to crawl through is left for the onlookers. Or like part of the barricade is removed after the killing to allow people on the other side to see the body, but not before.
I think that they deemed him competent based on the manner of killing. The first one was spontaneous reaction to unexpected trigger in the moment vulnerability, indeed manslaughter can be kinda sorta argued, the second one is carefully planned torture session, premeditated, deliberate, one could use term "cold-blooded murder" (really surprised they didn't charge him with it). He seems much more in control and like he has clear mind, not psyhotic episode. Presence of another person spuring him on could be perhaps used to build a case of not being in full command of one's faculties, but well, investigation could uncover the other guy didn't need to do much persuading and played only second fiddle so...
To me the weirdest part is not charging murder. Wonder if there were systemic reasons like murder getting different terms and treatment than manslaughter and someone feeling those manslaughter conditions are more convenient/tailor-made than those for murder.
I agree, it is strange. Some consistency would be nice. If he is competent, he should stand trial, if not, he should be remanded to treatment for the duration of his potential danger to himself and others.
Maybe they charge murder. It went to trial.
Murder trials are truly expensive though. And they get publicity.
Maybe the hospital just didn't need the grief, particularly if they had to explain why they didn't do everything they could (break or destroy the door, call the fire department, gas him, etc) to save the guy in NINE hours?
BTW: I'm not just saying this: I am not a fan of chesters. But the hospital sounds liable to me, especially since they are in the top tier, housing the very worst.
Where is the contingency plan for something like this happen?
Do I sound like I would have sat there with my thumbs up my arse like they did?
Hahaha. Have a great week while we all wait on part 3!!!
I wonder if the security used to keep the patients in, were exploited to keep the staff out...
Very likely and it does make me smile they (two men) thought ahead and prepared. They really wanted to dump this chester.
Yes, yes they did
Good points.
thanks! Good you to say!
The first line of your post is great: They deemed him competent based on the manner of killing
Do you react to this?
It seems really far out to me.
We seem ourselves quite highly at our ability to slice justice into such neat and tidy slivers.
"Yes, his manner of killing leads one to the difficult but highly logical determination of his competency on the entire affair.
After the victim died a cruel and brutal murder but he did die despite the inherent risks of prolonged torture outside the safety of state born torture."
Afterall, the same state, having made that determination, in its infinite wisdom then proceeds to hold him in a glass box for an indeterminate sentence, limited only to the life of its victim.
The State is more cruel in slow and painstaking torture that must be experienced until all hope is gone.
At least that is how I see it: Is the state competent to pass moral judgement on its citizens while reserving piety as its merit without reserve?
Athena, anyone living in this man's jurisdiction can ask any judge (court of equity in England) for writ of HC.
IN Ca, the court must reply within 30 days. They can't blow you off.
What if, a judge there, ordered him to be free of the state sponsored torture he is currently under?
They tell us and psychopaths we feel no empathy for others.
Yet, look how they treat this man.
Four at time walk with him every day.
None of them take action to free him.
Or feel for him.
They are the cruel ones my dear. Not us.
When we can feel, we do.
It is certain we can not feel all their shit. That is true.
But look at them closely.
None of us shy away. None of us refuse to feel. None of us refuse to use our brains to help others.
What ever they are, it is for me to say. But these NTs and LEO are so much more cruel and evil that any of us.
I please ask your permission to post here if he was in my district, I myself, would write the writ and present it to the court for a ruling.
I have guts Athena. I don't know if other people do or not.
Here is an idea: Let us together: Those here with us: Lets legally end the torture of this man, if we can.
Of course, first step is jurisdiction.... Any thoughts?
???
I think that if he is assimilated back into the general population, he has no reason to not continue on with his mission.
Yes, of course.
Yes!! Continue the Misson!!
Yet, you said the torture had a debilitative affect upon him.
He is likely a shadow of himself, physically.
However, it is not a binary choice: Continue to torture him or gen pop.
Gang members for example are put into protective custody. In CA, they "pc up". More often, it is an administrative decision due to documented enemies the individual has on that yard.
PC is not the best, has limited privileges and less good time credits, etc: However, it is not torture. And he isn't getting out anyway.
Pardon me, for hijacking or high jinxing your thread with my reactions. I helped other people with prison issues before: If it can be done practically and move on. The years long struggles I can't do. For this guy, there is a legal shot, in English common law to end his torture. I tried to say that. If I lived there, I would go do it.
BTW, that is how I helped before. No one else would do it for all the reasons. (there were also several times people concluded they did not want my help.)
Another interesting observation. I do not think that a succesfully restrained formerly predatory pedophile (difference from one containing the urge and not touching any kid) that can no longer hurt anyone needs to be killed (though I can understand taxpayers resenting keeping him fed and clothed). The fact that it is a victim of sexual and other abuse who is plagued by suicidality, substance abuse and hallucinations that is venting this way makes it feel like... Yeah, well, almost like rooting for Robert. It is not helping him, not really, therapy might, whereas this is a downward spiral. But it has something like semblance of natural progression (that those crimes create people who avenge themselves brutally, you step into a river full of crocodiles and you get attacked). I cannot blame avalanche for falling, or a cornered animal for fighting and I cannot blame such a victim. Those nine hours are a lot (he likely felt it was a mere drop in sea of hours he himself suffered) as opposed to the first swift kill. But the dominant perspective of Robert coming into his own has certainly strong pull.
Also... Nickname "Spoons" is height of black comedy. The innocuos randomly-sounding word, the way it rolls of tongue so smoothly and then the explanation, utensils lodged in a crushed skull + cannibalistic tall tale. Perfect in a way. I'd expect that one in a fiction.
And this is the reason to explore this particular case. It is a challenging one. The person that he killed was incarcerated at the moment, but his sentence was not one of life. He would have returned to the world. There will be more information that will be lent to this case in the next post. It should be interesting.
I liked "Spoons" too!!
So he gets a ticket to Broadmoor because he's insane kills an inmate cuts a plea to manslaughter and get sent to prison. He no longer has a quasi "life sentence" and has an actual release date. Not sure about his mental capacity but it's actually pretty sharp way to beat the system.
He likely isn't ever getting out
Well the best laid plans of mice and men.
Not quite.
He did not cut a deal or plea. He went to trial.
In USA, the jury often selects the actual charge if found guilty (as in: We find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter) as they consider the various aspects of the crimes. Perhaps proving premeditation was difficult at trial?
Again. Idk English criminal law from the 70s. But in USA, determinate sentencing is considered "modern" and novel and a reform of the old system.
The old system required approval by a board to parole to the outside. But that is not an end to the sentence.
Outside, a felon remains subject to the state and continues for years to report to a Parole Officer of some sort. It doesn't take new crimes to be returned to prison. In most USA states, the word of the Parole Officer is sufficient to return a prisoner to custody.
In CA, that situation is so common, they provide a system to appeal it with a "form 602"! I hope you find this part amusing!
I do agree with your basic idea though: Likely he was just plain tired of the hospital routine and wanted some change: some excitement in his life perhaps.
Perhaps
Whatever happened to Cheeseman?
Unlike Maudsley, who was later transferred to HMP Wakefield after the killing, Cheeseman’s immediate legal fate following the Francis murder isn’t as well-documented in public sources. Since both were already under indefinite detention at Broadmoor as psychiatric patients, the incident didn’t lead to a public trial in the traditional sense. However, historical records indicate that Cheeseman was eventually convicted of murder for his role in Francis’s death. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, though the exact date of this conviction isn’t clear from available information. Given the timeline, it’s likely this sentencing occurred shortly after the 1977 killing, possibly in 1978, as part of the administrative and legal review that followed the incident.
Cheeseman, now sometimes referred to as David Lant (a name change that appears in later records), remained in the secure hospital system for years. By the early 2000s, he was serving his life sentence at Hollesley Bay, an open prison in Suffolk, as part of a pre-release scheme. This suggests that, despite his violent history, authorities eventually deemed him stable enough for a less restrictive environment—though still under strict supervision. While at Hollesley Bay, he was allowed day release, working at a Salvation Army hostel in Ipswich and returning to the prison each night.
In October 2004, while on day release, Cheeseman (then known as David Lant) was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl at a caravan he owned with his French wife in Thurston, near Bury St. Edmunds. The girl claimed he subjected her to a five-hour assault after luring her with a promise of £50 he owed her boyfriend. Cheeseman denied the charges—attempted rape and five counts of sexual assault. In July 2006, at Ipswich Crown Court, a jury of eight women and four men acquitted him of all charges. The trial revealed his past, including the 1977 Broadmoor murder, but the jury found insufficient evidence for the sexual assault allegations
After that, there isn't any further information.
Oh you terrible girl! You end on a high note, yes. But next week for more? that is a lot to ask!
In NINE hours? Though the staff watches, they can't call someone to open the door?
My instincts says those appearing liable among the staff, for gross indifference and negligence, sure winners in a civil case, sought to get the charges up and out with the least possible obstacle.
Imagine you are the staff seeing this. You do nothing? for nine hours? And think that is okay?
People who came to work in the morning leave while this is happening? And say nothing in the community?
"How was work dear?" she asked while serving the evening meal. "I heard from Jenny next door there was some commotion going on".
"Oh, some nut cakes got in the changing room. Looks like they might kill him too. I'm sure it will be a hellavua cleanup in the morning. It was still going on when I left." he said after sitting in place
"Dinner looks wonderful honey. How were the kids today?"
Even if they could unlock it, they couldn't open it. It was completely barricaded from the inside.
I am writing like crazy person myself!! haha. I did these writs for Indian Rights Groups in CA. They paid me in soap. Bars of Soap!! It was the most proud moment of my life!!
Very cool
but you said they could look through?
Glass or clear window or something?
Likely reinforced glass, yes. Remember, they had to pick his body up to show it to the people outside the door.
If there's going to be window, it's gonna have bars too or some other safety measure that keeps inmates inside and as it happens also people outside on the outside. Getting through them would take way longer, but I am unsure how much longer. Bonus points if the window is barricated too, only a view too small for anyone to crawl through is left for the onlookers. Or like part of the barricade is removed after the killing to allow people on the other side to see the body, but not before.