An interesting little discussion on Digital Spy this morning concerns the forum members funcat650 and Jamesthethird. You can view the thread here. Don't be put off by the title ("Ian and Jean To Get It On").
Anyway, the discussion touches upon what Ian and Jean seem to have in common, and the fact that both are related to murderers raises its head - Ben and Stacey.
funcat650 is one of many who worship at the altar of Saint Stacey, apologising for and excusing every inappropriate action as justifiable. So, for the funcat650's of this world, Stacey was perfectly justified in killing Archie Mitchell because he raped her; besides, she wasn't responsible for her actions because she suffers from bi-polar condition.
The mildest thing I can say to all that is ... poppycock.
Let's get one thing straight. Stacey Slater and Ben Mitchell are both, by definition, murderers. They killed people. They had no right to do so. But is one worse than the other? Most definitely, but it will surprise you who is.
Because by the definition of murder, Stacey is far worse than Ben. Why?
Because Stacey's actions were premeditated.
Let's look at Stacey's murder. First of all, we need to get something straight about bi-polar condition. It's a medical condition which, when under pharmaceutical control, allows the sufferer to live a normal life. Besides, even the man who created the Murder of Archie Mitchell, Diederick Santer, has confirmed that Stacey killing Archie had nothing to do with her bi-polar condition. In fact, he went to great pains to show that she was lucid. If you don't believe me, here are the words of the man, himself, in an interview he gave to Walfordkindergarten Web shortly before the storyline was broadcast.
Stacey intended to do this. That's why she wore gloves. The murder was effected in revenge for Archie's treatment of Danielle, Ronnie's daughter and Stacey's five-minute friend, and because she thought Archie was the father of her child, as a result of her rape and that this would cause her relationship with Bradley to implode. I suppose she thought Archie would suss that the child she was carrying was his - and in the end, we know it wasn't - but more likely, Stacey would, at some point, have got pissed with Bradley and blurted the fact out to Archie. But her killing him had less to do with her rape (and absolutely nothing to do with Ronnie's as some have tried to reason) than it did her convoluted, self-obsessed and quirky reasoning - and that had nothing to do with her bi-polar condition and everything to do with her arrogance and stupidity.
Ben, on the other hand, actually didn't mean to kill Heather. Sure, he was angry with her. Like Stacey, he was prone to jump to conclusions and overreact, which is exactly what he did. He thought Heather had grassed him to the police, so he went to see her, with a view to having the matter out in an argument. During the course of his visit, he went beserk, looking for money to aid in his attempted escape from Walford, and he attempted to enter Heather's bedroom, where George was sleeping. When Heather blocked his way, he grabbed the first thing to hand - the pictureframe - and whacked her one. She fell, hitting her head on the kitchen sink. The rest, as they say, is history.
Of course, Ben compounded upon his guilt by enlisting Phil to cover up the deed and then proceeded to act as if nothing happened. In point of fact, Stacey did the same. And the important unifying fact for both their cases is that neither one has ever expressed remorse nor accepted responsibility for their actions.
Through an unbelieveable set of mitigating circumstances, including receiving the blessing of one of Archie's daughters, Stacey walked free from murder without even being arrested, judged and tried. The question remaining is, will Ben?
Anyway, the discussion touches upon what Ian and Jean seem to have in common, and the fact that both are related to murderers raises its head - Ben and Stacey.
funcat650 is one of many who worship at the altar of Saint Stacey, apologising for and excusing every inappropriate action as justifiable. So, for the funcat650's of this world, Stacey was perfectly justified in killing Archie Mitchell because he raped her; besides, she wasn't responsible for her actions because she suffers from bi-polar condition.
The mildest thing I can say to all that is ... poppycock.
Let's get one thing straight. Stacey Slater and Ben Mitchell are both, by definition, murderers. They killed people. They had no right to do so. But is one worse than the other? Most definitely, but it will surprise you who is.
Because by the definition of murder, Stacey is far worse than Ben. Why?
Because Stacey's actions were premeditated.
Let's look at Stacey's murder. First of all, we need to get something straight about bi-polar condition. It's a medical condition which, when under pharmaceutical control, allows the sufferer to live a normal life. Besides, even the man who created the Murder of Archie Mitchell, Diederick Santer, has confirmed that Stacey killing Archie had nothing to do with her bi-polar condition. In fact, he went to great pains to show that she was lucid. If you don't believe me, here are the words of the man, himself, in an interview he gave to Walford
Stacey intended to do this. That's why she wore gloves. The murder was effected in revenge for Archie's treatment of Danielle, Ronnie's daughter and Stacey's five-minute friend, and because she thought Archie was the father of her child, as a result of her rape and that this would cause her relationship with Bradley to implode. I suppose she thought Archie would suss that the child she was carrying was his - and in the end, we know it wasn't - but more likely, Stacey would, at some point, have got pissed with Bradley and blurted the fact out to Archie. But her killing him had less to do with her rape (and absolutely nothing to do with Ronnie's as some have tried to reason) than it did her convoluted, self-obsessed and quirky reasoning - and that had nothing to do with her bi-polar condition and everything to do with her arrogance and stupidity.
Ben, on the other hand, actually didn't mean to kill Heather. Sure, he was angry with her. Like Stacey, he was prone to jump to conclusions and overreact, which is exactly what he did. He thought Heather had grassed him to the police, so he went to see her, with a view to having the matter out in an argument. During the course of his visit, he went beserk, looking for money to aid in his attempted escape from Walford, and he attempted to enter Heather's bedroom, where George was sleeping. When Heather blocked his way, he grabbed the first thing to hand - the pictureframe - and whacked her one. She fell, hitting her head on the kitchen sink. The rest, as they say, is history.
Of course, Ben compounded upon his guilt by enlisting Phil to cover up the deed and then proceeded to act as if nothing happened. In point of fact, Stacey did the same. And the important unifying fact for both their cases is that neither one has ever expressed remorse nor accepted responsibility for their actions.
Through an unbelieveable set of mitigating circumstances, including receiving the blessing of one of Archie's daughters, Stacey walked free from murder without even being arrested, judged and tried. The question remaining is, will Ben?
No comments:
Post a Comment