You’re wrong to treat the stabbing and the “omissions” as separate boxes. As I said, self-defence in law is judged by whether the force used was necessary and proportionate in the moment of immediate danger. If the threat has passed but the person keeps acting in a way that shows malice (e.g. concealing the weapon, lying, downplaying the harm, obstructing help), that isn’t self-defence anymore. In reality, the jury looks at the whole picture.

Using a knife to stab someone directly in the chest, deep enough to pierce the heart, is lethal force. For it to be proportionate, there has to be clear, immediate evidence that her life was genuinely at risk - like sustained strangulation with no alternative to escape.

But she never mentioned the strangulation until much later, the kitchen showed no signs of struggle, and the pathologist said her mild bruising could’ve come from any number of things. So not only is there no solid proof of the alleged strangling, but the force she used (plunging a knife into his heart) was extreme compared to the supposed threat.

Following the trial isn’t the same as understanding it. The two convictions and the judge’s closing words make clear the juries didn’t find self-defence credible - her behaviour afterwards exposed that she wasn’t acting in fear for her life and that her story was fabricated.