Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Here's the same situation in reverse. I just watched Steve's killing of Saskia from 1999.I recommend people who are justifying Ronnie's killing of Carl as self-defense. This was totally a killing done initially in self-defense. Saskia had walloped Steve over the head with - what else? - a champagne bottle. It was Saskia who initiated physical violence and took advantage of Steve's weakened state to try to strangle him with his tie. Why? Because he had split with her and moved on, and she refused to let go. When Matthew Rose entered the room and pulled her off Steve, she attacked Matthew with a metal kettle. Steve grabbed the first thing to hand - a marble ashtray - and whacked her. Did he mean to kill her? No.
Had he called the police then, there would have been enough witnesses and forensic evidence to prove self-defense. But he didn't. He put her body in a bin bag and coerced Matthew into helping him dispose of the body. At that point, the deed transcends into something else.
Well both events are largely the same then. The actual killings were in self defence. Steve was acting to preserve the life of both himself and Matthew, and Ronnie acted to defend herself. The way they both disposed of the bodies is where the offence they will be deemed to have committed becomes lost to me. My legal knowledge does not stretch that far.
I do think Ronnie commited a crime but murder wasn't it. She could have ran from Carl but this is a woman who holds so much anger over her incredibly shit life that she reacted to his sexual advances by smashing him with a car boot lid. It was quick. Afterwards she sobbed and then shat herself and got rid of the body. She then planted evidence on Phil. So I do agree that she is a coward but she is not a murderer. As I've always said her guilt lies in disposing the body instead of calling the police.
But people cannot go through their lives doing what they please and reacting precipitously, even breaking the law, and blame it on their "shit life."
If you cannot move on from your past, seek professional help; but if you break the law, you break the law.
BTW, this is what killing someone in self-defence looks like:-
If Steve had phoned the police, there would have been witnesses to Saskia's behaviour leading up to this, as well as witnesses on the night, and forensic evidence (the bruising on Steve's neck and the blow to his head) which would prove self-defence as well. It went wrong when Steve decided to dispose of her body; but this is what killing someone in self-defence looks like.
I do think Ronnie commited a crime but murder wasn't it. She could have ran from Carl but this is a woman who holds so much anger over her incredibly shit life that she reacted to his sexual advances by smashing him with a car boot lid. It was quick. Afterwards she sobbed and then shat herself and got rid of the body. She then planted evidence on Phil. So I do agree that she is a coward but she is not a murderer. As I've always said her guilt lies in disposing the body instead of calling the police.
But people cannot go through their lives doing what they please and reacting precipitously, even breaking the law, and blame it on their "shit life."
If you cannot move on from your past, seek professional help; but if you break the law, you break the law.
BTW, this is what killing someone in self-defence looks like:-
If Steve had phoned the police, there would have been witnesses to Saskia's behaviour leading up to this, as well as witnesses on the night, and forensic evidence (the bruising on Steve's neck and the blow to his head) which would prove self-defence as well. It went wrong when Steve decided to dispose of her body; but this is what killing someone in self-defence looks like.
I've seen Saskia's death before. I don't need a lesson in self defence. Carl was going to rape Ronnie. I've seen that scene too. And it was self defence.
Here's the same situation in reverse. I just watched Steve's killing of Saskia from 1999.I recommend people who are justifying Ronnie's killing of Carl as self-defense. This was totally a killing done initially in self-defense. Saskia had walloped Steve over the head with - what else? - a champagne bottle. It was Saskia who initiated physical violence and took advantage of Steve's weakened state to try to strangle him with his tie. Why? Because he had split with her and moved on, and she refused to let go. When Matthew Rose entered the room and pulled her off Steve, she attacked Matthew with a metal kettle. Steve grabbed the first thing to hand - a marble ashtray - and whacked her. Did he mean to kill her? No.
Had he called the police then, there would have been enough witnesses and forensic evidence to prove self-defense. But he didn't. He put her body in a bin bag and coerced Matthew into helping him dispose of the body. At that point, the deed transcends into something else.
Yes it does but it's not murder.
It might not be murder, but it looks worse when you try to dispose of a body or conceal your guilt after having killed a person. That, alone, implies malice aforethought.
There was a case in the real world about a decade ago, where a couple were in a volatile relationship. They went out to the pub one night and were returning home, when the man simply told the woman they were quits. She went beserk. He carried a knife in his car, which she knew about, grabbed and began stabbing him - like 52 times. She then rang the police and gave them a shaggy dog story about a road rage incident with another car and that driver killing the man.
I daresay she didn't plan to kill him. Like Ben, she got angry and attacked him, but because of her actions, subsequent to the kiling, she was tried for murder.
It might not be murder, but it looks worse when you try to dispose of a body or conceal your guilt after having killed a person. That, alone, implies malice aforethought.
There was a case in the real world about a decade ago, where a couple were in a volatile relationship. They went out to the pub one night and were returning home, when the man simply told the woman they were quits. She went beserk. He carried a knife in his car, which she knew about, grabbed and began stabbing him - like 52 times. She then rang the police and gave them a shaggy dog story about a road rage incident with another car and that driver killing the man.
I daresay she didn't plan to kill him. Like Ben, she got angry and attacked him, but because of her actions, subsequent to the kiling, she was tried for murder.
I don't see why I should have to discuss a real life murder case when discussing a British soap but heregoes: The real life murder was not self defence. Carl attacked Ronnie sexually: Carl was killed in self defence.
The way they both disposed of the bodies is where the offence they will be deemed to have committed becomes lost to me. My legal knowledge does not stretch that far.
That's exactly right, and the investigating authorities and the law would not look kindly on anyone who kills in self-defence (Steve and ... let's say Ronnie) and who disposes of the body of the victim, or anyone who kills in the heat of the moment (Ben) and then hides their guilt.
These people may not have planned to kill someone, but they then planned to either dispose of the body or hide their guilt, and that's when you get into murder territory.
Quoting limited to 2 levels deepthis is what killing someone in self-defence looks like:-
If Steve had phoned the police, there would have been witnesses to Saskia's behaviour leading up to this, as well as witnesses on the night, and forensic evidence (the bruising on Steve's neck and the blow to his head) which would prove self-defence as well. It went wrong when Steve decided to dispose of her body; but this is what killing someone in self-defence looks like.
I've seen Saskia's death before. I don't need a lesson in self defence. Carl was going to rape Ronnie. I've seen that scene too. And it was self defence.
The self-defence went out the window when Saskia went under the ground in a bin bag in Epping Forest and Carl went under the grinder.
Quoting limited to 2 levels deepplan to kill him. Like Ben, she got angry and attacked him, but because of her actions, subsequent to the kiling, she was tried for murder.
I don't see why I should have to discuss a real life murder case when discussing a British soap but heregoes: The real life murder was not self defence. Carl attacked Ronnie sexually: Carl was killed in self defence.
First, an answer to your question: Because a great deal of fiction is based on reality. Second, the actual killing was much like Ben's loss of control and lashing out at Heather in anger. This woman didn't intend to hurt her partner until he dumped her and she let her anger take over.
However, I do agree with Ross - Ronnie acted in self-defence in Carl's flat the night before; she did not act in self-defence in the garage. But we will have to agree to disagree.
Quoting limited to 2 levels deepthis is what killing someone in self-defence looks like:-
that scene too. And it was self defence.
The self-defence went out the window when Saskia went under the ground in a bin bag in Epping Forest and Carl went under the grinder.
The murder itself was in self defence in both cases, the disposing of both bodies was calculated because of fear of consequence. I've always said this.
Quoting limited to 2 levels deepplanmurder case when discussing a British soap but heregoes: The real life murder was not self defence. Carl attacked Ronnie sexually: Carl was killed in self defence.
First, an answer to your question: Because a great deal of fiction is based on reality. Second, the actual killing was much like Ben's loss of control and lashing out at Heather in anger. This woman didn't intend to hurt her partner until he dumped her and she let her anger take over.
However, I do agree with Ross - Ronnie acted in self-defence in Carl's flat the night before; she did not act in self-defence in the garage. But we will have to agree to disagree.
The example you provided shared little simularity with the fictional case being discussed.
Ben's killing of Heather wasn't in self defence. Ronnie's dealings with Carl in the flat and the garage were both self defence.