A mother found dead in her Launceston home. A son who admitted killing her. And a murder case in which the central question wasn’t who was responsible — but whether he could legally be held responsible for what he had done.
Content Warning: This episode discusses homicide, strangulation, smothering, schizophrenia and acute psychosis. Listener discretion is advised.
In April 2012, 77-year-old Margaret Nicol Foran was found dead inside her home on Alanvale Road in Newnham, a suburb of Launceston in northern Tasmania. Her son, William John Christopher McFardzean Foran, had been staying with her in the weeks before her death. There was little mystery about who had caused Margaret’s death. William admitted killing his mother, and the medical evidence established that Margaret had died from asphyxia caused by manual strangulation and smothering. But this would become a very different kind of murder case. Rather than focusing primarily on the identity of Margaret’s killer, the Supreme Court proceedings centred on William’s mental state and whether he could be held criminally responsible for what he had done.
Margaret Nicol Foran was born on 5 January 1935. She was a retired widow, a mother of seven and had lived in her unit on Alanvale Road for approximately 18 years. On the evening of Sunday, 22 April 2012, Margaret spoke by telephone with one of her daughters. It was the last known contact with her before her death. Sometime between that evening and the following morning, Margaret was attacked inside her home. The next morning, after family members were unable to contact her, Margaret was discovered partially covered by bedding and not breathing. Police were called to the unit complex, where they encountered William.
William was 52 years old at the time of his mother’s death and had been staying at Margaret’s home for approximately two weeks. Contemporary reporting described him as a former Microsoft executive, but by 2012 William was experiencing serious mental illness. Evidence subsequently presented to the court included a diagnosis of schizophrenia and evidence that William was experiencing psychosis. Psychosis can involve a profound loss of contact with reality, including delusions or hallucinations. Importantly, serious mental illness does not in itself make someone violent, and the circumstances of this case should not be considered representative of people living with schizophrenia or other psychiatric illnesses.
The subsequent coronial findings established that Margaret died from asphyxia caused by manual strangulation and smothering. William was arrested and appeared in the Magistrates Court in Launceston on 23 April 2012 charged with murdering his mother. During a police interview, William admitted killing Margaret. But one of the most significant aspects of that interview was his explanation. Evidence subsequently presented in court revealed that William had described his mother as “pure evil”. That statement would become important evidence of the profoundly distorted state of mind William was experiencing around the time of Margaret’s death.
William’s case eventually came before the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Launceston in March 2013. Unlike many homicide trials, there was little dispute over who had physically caused the death. William had admitted killing Margaret. The forensic evidence supported the conclusion that she had been deliberately strangled and smothered. The central question instead concerned William’s state of mind. Was his psychiatric condition so severe at the time of the killing that he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions?
On 22 March 2013, the case was given to the jury. After deliberating for approximately an hour and a half, the jury found that William had committed the act that caused Margaret’s death. But they found him not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
An important distinction: The verdict did not mean the jury believed William had not killed Margaret. The jury accepted that he committed the act causing her death but found that, because of his mental condition at the time, he was not criminally responsible for murder.
Following the verdict, William was to be admitted to the Wilfred Lopes Centre, Tasmania’s secure mental health facility, where his circumstances could be assessed and reviewed.
The circumstances of Margaret’s death were subsequently formally examined by the Tasmanian Coroner. Coroner Olivia McTaggart found that Margaret Nicol Foran died as a result of manual strangulation and smothering by her son William. Her cause of death was recorded as asphyxia. The finding also recorded that William was suffering from an acute psychotic episode at the time. Margaret died sometime between the evening of Sunday, 22 April and the morning of Monday, 23 April 2012 at her home on Alanvale Road in Newnham.
The Margaret Foran case illustrates an important distinction within criminal law. There is factual responsibility: who physically caused another person’s death? And there is criminal responsibility: did that person possess the necessary mental capacity to be held legally responsible for their actions? In this case, William’s factual responsibility for Margaret’s death was established. But the jury accepted psychiatric evidence that his mental condition meant he was not criminally responsible for murder. That distinction is why terms such as “killer”, “murderer”, “guilty” and “innocent” need to be used carefully when discussing cases involving mental impairment.
Behind the unusual legal circumstances was a woman who lost her life.
Margaret Nicol Foran was 77 years old.
She was a widow and the mother of seven children. She had lived in her Newnham home for nearly two decades. One of those seven children caused her death. For Margaret’s other children, the circumstances created an extraordinarily difficult reality: they had lost their mother violently, while the person responsible was their own brother — a man whom the court accepted was profoundly mentally unwell at the time. Understanding the role William’s illness played in Margaret’s death does not diminish the harm that was done to her or the grief experienced by her family.
Join Hamish and Emily as they examine one of Tasmania’s most confronting and legally unusual homicide cases — a case where there was little doubt about who caused the death, but a much more difficult question about whether the person responsible could legally be convicted of murder. Follow True Crime Tasmania wherever you listen to podcasts, and visit www.truecrimetasmania.com for more Tasmanian true crime stories, episode notes and additional information about the cases featured on the podcast.
This episode is based on publicly available court reporting and formal coronial findings concerning the death of Margaret Nicol Foran. The Supreme Court jury found that William Foran committed the act causing his mother’s death but found him not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
True Crime Tasmania discusses real criminal cases and may include descriptions of violence, death and other distressing events. The program is produced from publicly available information, including court records, coronial findings and contemporary reporting. Where allegations are discussed, they should not be interpreted as findings of guilt unless determined by a court. Commentary and discussion are provided for informational and entertainment purposes and should not be taken as legal conclusions. True Crime Tasmania acknowledges that behind every case are real people, families and communities. We aim to discuss these events accurately and respectfully.
A note about mental illness: People living with schizophrenia, psychosis and other serious mental illnesses are overwhelmingly not violent. This episode concerns the circumstances of one individual who was found to have been experiencing an acute psychotic episode and should not be interpreted as representative of people living with mental illness generally.