May 2, 1996: In Banbury, Norman Harvey is murdered by Susan Shickle.

This is a straightforward case of murder, albeit in bizarre circumstances, but it has been totally rewritten by feminist liars, especially Harriet Wistrich, and the female perpetrator has once against been presented to the world as a victim. While Guardian readers may fall for feminist flim-flam, appellate judges are made of sterner stuff.

If you don’t want to read my analysis, you can find Harriet Wistrich’s verbal diarrhoea here, and the Court Of Appeal’s reasoned judgment here.

Drug addict Shickle murdered the much older diabetic Harvey with a massive overdose of insulin. Her crime was witnessed by her young son who testified against her. In 1992, Mr Harvey had been accused of indecently assaulting one of Shickle’s daughters. The circumstances of this are unclear, but no prosecution was brought. It was claimed later that she had also been raped by Harvey, an act for which she bore him no malice. Indeed. According to Wistrich, this happened the previous year; Shickle reported him to the police, but went back to live with him. As any rape victim would.

As diabetes aside, the victim was clearly not a well man at the time of the murder, and was around 67 years old in 1995, it remains to be seen if he would have been physically capable of raping a woman thirty years and more his junior, even Shickle who had a history of violence.

The above transcript is of Shickle’s second appeal, her case having been referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. At trial she had denied murdering Harvey, later she admitted killing him, but was after a second bite of the cherry. In this connection, check out the case of Zoora Shah, who tried to pull the same trick. I think the fact that Shickle’s son testified against her speaks volumes. I think we can also assume the allegation of indecent assault was false too.

According to Wistrich, all Shickle’s problems in life were due to men, and it was only after she received counselling in prison that she realised how abusive was her relationship with Harvey.

This is a classic case of feminist revisionism.

Wistrich’s article was filed by the Guardian under Gender instead of Crime. Interestingly, she adds it was her work on the Emma Humphreys appeal that led to her training as a solicitor. She neglects to mention the fact that eventually both she and her lesbian lover Julie Bindel grew tired of Humphreys and turned her away, but that was undoudtedly the fault of a man too.

File Susan Shickle under PRETEXT FOR MURDER and HEAD CASE.

Back To False Rape Timeline