Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Sockmonster

Spontaneous Human Combustion

14 posts in this topic

Hi there!!!

Just wondering if anyone knew anything about the carol Compton spontaneous combustion case. I have read it in one book (Jane Goldman's X files Book of the Unexplained) but have not been able to find any further information on the web such as wheter she is out of jail and whether there have been any more fires.

Just in case you dont know her story is as follows.....

Carol Compton was Scottish but in 1982 started work in Livorno Italy as a nanny.

She lost her first job after 3 fires had broken out (one destroyed her employers living room) although there was no evidence she had started the fires - she was blamed.

She then found a new job looking after a 3 yr old girl on 1 august 1982 the girls grandfather's bed was found burning and the next morning the child's cot mattress burst into flames. Although Carol had been sitting downstairs when both fires started, she was arrested, charged with attempted murder and arson and imprisoned pending trial.

The lack of solid evidence gave rise to talk of pyrokinesis and the trial (according to Goldman) turned into a media circus ( so why isn't it ANYWHERE on the web???)

A proffessor Vitolo Nicolo of Pisa University was questioned during the trial and told the court " In all my 45 years of this kind of investigation I have never seen fires like this before they were created by an intense source of heat but not a naked flame". A fire officer of 35 years experience deemed the fire unusually hot and appearing to have burned downwards.

At the close of the case a verdict was returned of not proven (an option in Italian law) and Carol was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Carol was the only common denominator in the fires but there was no evidence that she started them.

Quite strange story - but I thought I would be able to get at least some info off the Net.

Also feel fre to theorise with me !!!!

wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no theories for you Sockie! But I love the Italian Government!!!!

At the close of the case a verdict was returned of not proven (an option in Italian law) and Carol was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Whimsical isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too true vox!!!!!!!

i felt it was a tad harsh myself

lol

eyecrazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how did she get 7 years if the verdict was not proven

in scotland a not proven verdict would me you would go free but you could be tried for the same crime if new evidence was found,,,,,people say the not proven verdict should be scrapped,,,,,,but would they say the same if the person was found not guilty,,,at least with the not proven verdict you get another bite at the cherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is the "not proven" verdict is a cop out, it lacks backbone. With that said I would add that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. In legalese its called circumstantial evidence, I believe she belongs in prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - i know about the not proven verdict here - that's just what It said in the book?!?!?!?!?!

Possibly witch oir Victim that's the main question????

wacko.gifblink.gifwacko.gifblink.gifwacko.gifblink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this sounds like the fortean ablility of fire starting, it accompanies the cases in the subject of electric people, those people that can move objects by being near them, and also light bubls by holding them, these people generate such a high static electric charge that it needs to escape somehow, and it does it in different ways, in this case evidently by fire. Possibly caused by sparks or intense heat.

As she said she was nowhere near the fire at the time, she would have possibly generated the spark at a location away from her body, that is if it is like what I described above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool - thank you alll

mmm I wonder if it was deliberate oir accidental (like teenagers being the source of poltergiest phenoms

tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all the cases i have read of fire starting, the phenomenon has been accidental and the people involved have not wanted to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j6p...you seem to be forgetting something here abuot the not proven verdict

if you think he/she is guilty beyond all reasnoble doulbt you will find them guilty

but if there is a shred off doulbt then there are not guilty

since she was downstairs at the time and the fires were

quote....

A proffessor Vitolo Nicolo of Pisa University was questioned during the trial and told the court " In all my 45 years of this kind of investigation I have never seen fires like this before they were created by an intense source of heat but not a naked flame". A fire officer of 35 years experience deemed the fire unusually hot and appearing to have burned downwards.

then there seems to be some doulbt as to her being the guilty party to the crime,,therefore she would be found not guilty....and set FREE of this crime.

but in scotland you have the option of being found not proven...therefore you might think you are free but at anytime you can be apprehented and tried for the same crime at anytime....

cop out to some......but not all.....

quick example case 1

fred has a sister called wilma ,who is murdered,,,barney is put on trial for the murder,,,(he cannot be placed at the scene of the crime) so he might not be the killer,,,therefore there is doulbt,,,he must be found not guilty...he is freed,,,but he was the killer but because of the doulbt he is free,,,,,

same case only instead of being found not guilty he is found not proven,,freed ,. still is the killer but can still be put on trial for the same crime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigsteff, in the States we have a double jeopardy rule that says you can't be tried for the same offense twice therefore the not proven verdict would be worthless here. For instance if a person were taken to trial and not convicted they couldn't be tried again for that crime even if they admitted their guilt after the trial. That would apply to any offense from a misdemeanor to a capital crime. If O.J. Simpson came out tomorrow and said he killed those people he would still be free, he couldn't be tried again. That's why the not proven would not work here.

We also allow circumstantial evidence to be admitted in a murder case, it's called the smoking gun. It goes like this: if you walk into a room and there is a dead body on the floor as the result of a gunshot wound and a person is in the room holding a smoking gun then that person can be found guilty of murder even though there are no witnesses to the shooting.

Now that's an extreme example but on a lesser scale if the authorities can place a person at the scene of the crime and give a motive for the person to commit that crime this can get a conviction. But if there isn't enough evidence for a jury to convict, that suspect goes free then if they later find evidence to convict even get a confession they can't try them again. With the "not proven" they would be able to try again if I am understanding it right.

My personal observation on the law, at least here in the States, is that it's whatever the legal system and politicians wants to happen will happen, we are just pawns in their game. I try to stay off the board and out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your right,,,,,the not proven verdict means you can get tried for the same crime twice,,,,,

jp6

if the oj trial was hear and he was found not proven then came out a year later and confessed to the killings ,he would be brought back to trial,,,,

but you ask the parents of the people who oj killed,and i think they now would like something like the not proven verdict,,second bite at the cherry,,

there was a case here where someone was found not proven,,,,,and the parents of the victim said it should be scrapped......understand their point at the time,,,,but if we didn't have it,,,he would have been found not guilty..not enough evidence,,,therefore in some cases it's an option that is better than not guilty...it's not an option in england...they just have the 2 options,,,,a compination of scots law and some states in usa would be a good idea....

like boot camp for one,,,,,also they should bring back national service,,,would keep the young idiots/neds/hooligans off the street smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with ya on getting the hooligans off the street, Bigsteff. I think the next sales clerk that calls me "dude" I'm gonna walk out of the store. I'm too old for "dude". laugh.gif

Have a great day big guy cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laugh.gif never been called dude....a usa saying i thing....

on the street by the hooligans is awright big man...(all right big man)

in the shops it's can i help you

something about my size,,,and tattoos i thing....never had to fight anyone either ...best of it is i'm a softy laugh.gif love my boys and cry at sad movies do the dishes and the ironing BUT IF YOU SAY HEY SOFTY i'd kick your *%$£^ &%"£

in laugh.gif

oh and what is it,,oh i got it........missing you already laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.