The 36-year-old former bikini model was sentenced to kill the ex-husband after ambushing with the new lover

 

A “white witch” was convicted of manslaughter because her ex-husband was tricked into a Sydney townhouse and attacked him with his fiance at the time.

The 40-year-old Raquel Gaelle Hutchison and Paul Andrew Wilkinson denied murder of the unidentifiable person – his body was found dumped on the Wisemans Ferry road in October 2014.

On Friday, New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Peter Hamill found that they had not committed murder but had committed a minor offence of manslaughter.

He said that the diversity of injuries indicates that this is a sustained and cruel attack.

In a separate judge trial, Hutchison Whampoa deceived the man in early October 2014 to leave his job and return home, where he was ambushed and seriously injured.

Then, she and Wilkinson put him in the trunk of a car, and finally drove them to their isolation section a few hours later.

Hutchison admits that she has some roles in the death of her ex-husband, but she does not plead guilty because of mental illness and says she wants to confess to him, claiming that he is child abuse.

The judge said on Friday that she also expressed concern that he would expose children to extraordinary activities such as exorcism, ghosts and demon hunting.

Justice Hamill found that her child abuse problem was real – whether or not any abuse actually occurred – and not just a trick to justify her actions.

There is no doubt that the victims are exposed to strange things through their interest in “esoteric supernatural activities”.

But the judge also noticed that there was evidence that Hwang thought he was a white witch, and she formed a spell and made a voodoo doll for her ex-husband and a child.

He found that Hutchison and Wilkinson did not intend to go to the victim’s home, intended to kill or cause serious harm, but after losing her predecessor, she “lost control of herself.”

The judge stated that the loss of control was related to her mental condition and that the authorities did not eliminate the possibility that she believed her conduct was necessary to protect the child.

However, Justice Hamill is still satisfied that her actions did not respond reasonably to this situation as she thought, and she and Wilkinson have other options.

Reply