This Judge is unbelievable. The case is horrific but he also blames her? Murder of Carmen Miron Buchacra

(167 Posts)
vivizone Fri 22-Mar-13 22:50:12

I am so angry. How is this possible?

7 years for killing your partner with a 7 week baby because as Judge said:

'I accept what caused you to lose self control was the cumulative effect of emotional abuse by Gaby over a significant period.

Because they had been arguing by text all day. So clearly she abused him.

What planet are these Judges from?

AgentZigzag Fri 22-Mar-13 23:01:18

I've read this article on the 'this is bath' website rather than the mail, but you have to wonder at what was said to the jury for them to accept that the violent attack was due to an acceptable loss of self-control.

AmberLeaf Fri 22-Mar-13 23:01:26

Another case where it was clearly murder, yet is deemed manslaughter.

Im still reeling over the 3 yr 6 month sentence a man got for burning an autistic lad to death, so this doesn't surprise me.

Disgusting and so sad.

Einsty Fri 22-Mar-13 23:05:53

Seven years? Jesus wept. The recording is horrific ...

AmberLeaf Fri 22-Mar-13 23:10:13

Mother-of-one Gaby can be heard pleading for her life as Keene punches her, telling her to shut up or 'you will be dead'.

He can be heard snarling: 'Why are you crying?

'What the f* is your problem? What have I done to you today? Carry on like this and I'm going to end up in prison because you will be dead.

'I may kill you because you are a f**** t***.'

During the trial Michael Fitton, QC, prosecuting, told how Keene first tried to strangle Gaby using a dressing gown cord before switching to an electrical cable to ensure her death.

He told the jury: 'Her last words were, 'please don't', then silence.

'When he took hold of the dressing gown cord and wrapped it around her neck he was clearly trying to kill her.

'When he failed in that attempt and reached for the electrical cable he was showing a persistence to kill her that is at odds with his defence.'


How the hell is that not murder?

His defence was that she psychologically abused him

Yeah, sounds like it. hmm

LondonNinja Fri 22-Mar-13 23:11:25

It's just insane.

Poor woman. And that poor baby.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 23:20:42

Yes they had a child together, but he wasn't a SAHP financially dependent in her. He could have walked out and left her sandy time.

EA indeed, he must have had a fucking good lawyer.

edam Fri 22-Mar-13 23:27:56

Oh good lord, that is horrific. WTF is the judge on, claiming she abused him, ffs? Yeah, right, sounds like it when he's pissing off for an all day drinking bout and coming home to yell all that abuse at her. It beggars belief. HIS abuse of her is there on voicemail, yet he gets to throw all this shit at her and blame her for provoking him?!

AudrinaAdare Fri 22-Mar-13 23:32:41

Emotional abuse via text while he was out drinking and she was caring for the baby? I thought there was some protection in law for post-partum women.

It can't be manslaughter when he abandoned one choking method for a more lethal one, surely?

He has had all the justice that money can buy, hasn't he? Even with it all recorded.

Machli Fri 22-Mar-13 23:34:38

I was going to post about this earlier but couldn't work out where to put it. That fucker will be out in under four years with good behaviour and time already served, no doubt he will then get custody of the child whose mother he killed in front of her if recent cases are anything to go by.

I feel utterly despairing tonight after reading about this.

TheCrackFox Fri 22-Mar-13 23:36:29

I'm really fucking angry about this.

7 yrs?! He will only bloody serve half of this.

edam Fri 22-Mar-13 23:38:25

I think it's appalling that the judge was party to blackening the name of this poor woman, horrifically murdered in front of her baby. I can see why defence lawyers attack the victim - horrible but a tactic they use. But the judge should have made it very clear it was ridiculous. The facts are, he was out drinking all day, the facts are he came home and attacked her, the facts are his horrible abusive tirade is recorded for everyone to hear, the facts are it wasn't a moment of madness, it was a sustained attack where he had time to change the weapon he was using because she wasn't dying fast enough for him... and still the judge blames the victim?!

WafflyVersatile Fri 22-Mar-13 23:42:00

Well the jury would have had more info that the newspapers give us. Women can be abusive too and tip their partners over the edge the same as vice versa.

However it would be foolish to think that the outcome of court cases are not affected by jury bias, different quality of representation, judge bias etc.

It's unfair to say because he was not financially dependent on her he could have walked out at any time. Any victim of abuse can do that theoretically but the nature of abusive relationships keeps people there. That works for men as well as women.

She had apparently threatened several times to leave with the baby and go back to her home country. And this justifies him murdering her? angry

Machli Fri 22-Mar-13 23:48:00

I've had some horrendous text battles with my ex, terrible things said on both sides.

I don't feel that anything I ever said has been deserving enough to tip ex over edge into strangling me, using two different "tools" when the first did not prove to be effective.

It's all on tape. He was NOT tipped over the edge to a moment of madness it was a prolonged and purposeful attack.

It CANNOT be defended.

Machli Fri 22-Mar-13 23:52:20

I've just read the other excerpt linked too as well. Apparently the detective inspector who led the case expressed frustration with the verdict last year. So the police who would have done all the investigating and I presume read the text messages were frustrated with a verdict of manslaughter and said so publicly.

TheCrackFox Fri 22-Mar-13 23:54:47

I think most new mums would threaten to leave their partner if they were left at home all day with a new born whilst he spent all day getting pissed in the pub. Threatening to leave is not emotional abuse, merely stating a fact.

The judge should be ashamed of his comments. Imagine how get family felt after hearing that summing up?

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 22-Mar-13 23:57:52

We all need to write to [ the attorney general's office]

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 22-Mar-13 23:59:14
FastidiaBlueberry Sat 23-Mar-13 00:01:14

Yes absolutely crackfox.

A man who goes on an all day bender with a young baby is clearly the one who is doing the abuse.

Normal men don't do that.

Smellslikecatspee Sat 23-Mar-13 00:05:15

I read about this earlier, and desperately thought there has to be more to this.

But there isn’t is there?

Just another situation where a woman has been killed.
And its ok ‘cause well she’s just a woman after all.

AudrinaAdare Sat 23-Mar-13 00:06:46

Anyone up to summarising the feelings on this thread so that subsequent posters and readers can just C&P / tweak?

I was very grateful for the people who did this on AmberLeaf's about the autistic young man. It took less than a minute because all the relevant information was there.

AudrinaAdare Sat 23-Mar-13 00:09:18

Sorry, should have said that I'm not able to do it or I would, believe me.

Willing to add my voice though and share it further.

quoteunquote Sat 23-Mar-13 00:14:05

So he will be out with in three years and raising their child.

Her family must be devastated.

Soupa Sat 23-Mar-13 00:17:29

Dreadful dreadful sentencing. The poor family.

I've just seen this and new there'd be a thread about it.
Absolutely horrendous. I have a 17 week old and if DH was out on an all day bender I'd definitely be threatening to leave.
The victim blaming is disgraceful

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Sat 23-Mar-13 01:35:27

I think you can write to the Home Secretary and ask him to review the sentence. I'm going to look into it and do so if my understanding is correct. Maybe we should start a MN campaign if there's enough interest.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Sat 23-Mar-13 01:38:00

[Coughs] Ask "her" to review the sentence. It's Theresa May isn't it? Crap. My feminist credentials are shredded. Never have I wished there was an edit button so much as now.

fuckwittery Sat 23-Mar-13 08:25:42

its the attorney general, dominic grieve, fastida linked above.
appalling. she carried out sustained pyschological abuse? Over the 11 weeks of being a new mother? the change of murder weapon is shocking, I cannot believe the jury acquitted him of murder

Moominsarehippos Sat 23-Mar-13 08:34:15

Who is looking after the baby now? Her family or social services? Poor kid. I hope to god when he gets out (which won't be all that long, let's be realistic) he does not get to be within a hundred miles.

I hope to god he gets his punishment, in this world or the next.

Moominsarehippos Sat 23-Mar-13 08:37:24

If my DH had the 'right' to strangle me every time we had a bad row (and vice versa) he'd have been in the dock years ago.

The only 'grey' area would be if one partner had subjected the other to a long period rape, beatings, financial abuse, threats, fears for their/their child's safety... Not 'fuck off, I'm leaving you'.

meditrina Sat 23-Mar-13 08:55:46

The "cumulative effect" defence/mitigation was long fought for: it is the only means by which a (usually woman) victim of prolonged DV escapes a murder charge as when s/he snaps, even when the straw that broke the camel's back was not a big event. I think it is important that this defence remains, and unless we want to start gendering the murder laws, it must be available to both sexes.

Sentencing policy often leaves me baffled.

But the verdict was reached by a Jury who had heard the full evidence.

thezebrawearspurple Sat 23-Mar-13 09:12:08

Outrageous, how on earth did they find a jury stupid enough to accept a manslaughter verdict when they had her murder on tape! It wasn't self defence overkill or a result of someone losing it and unwittingly lashing out with too much force, he forced his way in and brutally murdered her while he was telling her that he was going to kill her and she was begging for her life. Then he blames her for it! What an evil psychopath, he was the abuser here, how dare they put that on her.

She did not deserve that and not only did she lose her life, her baby lost a loving mother. Seven years is an insult but so is the verdict.

krasnayaploshad Sat 23-Mar-13 09:23:40

I have emailed the attorney general's office as fastidia has suggested.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:25:01

You are so not being unreasonable.

These is the second case I've read about where the sentence for a horrible crime is a fucking joke.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:28:21

There was a thread on here recently from a woman who was upset because her husband had gone out on the lash all night and she was stressed and upset.

A number of posters piled in to tell her off for being controlling and he was probably doing it to get away from her.

So a few like that on the jury, they wouldn't take too much convincing.

bruffin Sat 23-Mar-13 09:34:42

You don't know the full story or the evidence the jury saw.
If it had been reverse and a woman suffering emotional abuse who killed her husband this thread would have been full of disgust that the woman got any sentence at all.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:36:37

Yeah, sure bruffin. Care to back up that fatuous assertion with some evidence?

bruffin Sat 23-Mar-13 09:40:47

Ive been on musket to know exactly what the response would be.
As i said so many on this thread have commented with no evidence other than a snippets in a newspaper.
It's fatuous to write and complain about a sentence on a case you know nothing about.

bochead Sat 23-Mar-13 09:44:51

Part of my pride in being British has always been based on our justice system.

However a young man is burnt alive for the "crime" of being autistic & gay.
A new mother is murdered in front of her child for the "crime" of complaining about the other parent going on a drunken bender?

In neither case is it considered "murder". In both cases the sentences handed down trivialise that gravity of the victims suffering to such a degree that we are all shamed.

Someone needs to assure me that this murderer will not be allowed anywhere near that innocent child, and that her mother's family will be allowed to raise her in peace someplace safe.

If we can no longer trust in the rule of law, then the very foundations of our civilisation are shaken and under threat.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:46:12

Well, if you have evidence to support your opinion then you won't have any problem producing it, will you?

Can you provide an example of a case where a woman has snapped, killed her husband after emotional abuse and received a comparative sentence, or been acquitted?

How the fuck can it not be murder when he changed weapon halfway through because the first one wasn't working????????

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:50:26

I think that's the worst aspectbochead

It's utterly outrageous that you can kill someone and get such a ridiculously lenient sentence.

There was a case recently (linked on here) where a man stabbed his estranged wife to death and was convicted of manslaughter; he only served a few years and was able to return to the family home, with his children.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 09:51:44

Exactly Flouncy

bruffin Sat 23-Mar-13 09:53:44

I don't need to prove anything.
Last post by bochead proves a lot. It assumes this is about a text fight on the day of the murder,when it obviously isn't.
There was a recent case where a woman had made numerous rape allegations and was sentenced, there were a lot of posts claiming she must be mentally ill and didn't deserve a prison sentence.

LovesBeingWokenEveryNight Sat 23-Mar-13 09:55:07

Words fail me. I read this last night and had to put my phone away before I ranted on Fb and got myself into trouble.

To basically say it was her fault is so shocking especially in light of the recording.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:00:15

Which means you can't back up your opinion with fact.

Accusing somebody of a crime they didn't commit, while heinous, is hardly the same as killing someone now is it?

Can you tell us how long the woman got? I wonder how long that compares to the sentences people are talking about on here.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 10:03:13

bruffin, that's an entirely different crime, you are only dragging it in because you are struggling to bolster your very shaky case. It's not just 'snippets from newspapers' it's an actual recording of his tirade of abuse while he was strangling her to death. In front of their baby, FFS.

Re. this horrendous crime - I hate the way bullies and abusers try to claim victimhood for themselves. All that 'poor little me, I'm being so oppressed by these uppity women/black/gay/disabled/older or younger people'. Victims of discrimination make one tiny little bit of progress e.g overturning horrendous sexism in the legal system that said it was excusable for a man to murder his wife because he was provoked, but not OK for a woman, and then the bullies turn it against them, trying to claim they are the victims. It's shameful.

bruffin Sat 23-Mar-13 10:07:45

Flippepda i suspect i have hit the nail on the head from your reaction. I have been on MN for 8 years i know exactly how MN ticks when it comes to men and mental illness. There is zero sympathy.
You have no idea about the relationship between this man and woman other than the newspaper report which has virtually no details.

CecilyP Sat 23-Mar-13 10:08:08

Are you expecting Bruffin to provide you with an entire transcript of the trial, flippinada? While it is hard to imagine what the victim may have done that justified either the verdict or the lightness of the sentence, there is nothing in either of the linked articles about the sustained emotional abuse that was used as the defence. This is what both the judge and jury would have heard that we have not.

LandofTute Sat 23-Mar-13 10:09:20


"Adam Vaitilingam QC, defending, told the court there was psychological bullying in their relationship.

He said: "There was an intellectual imbalance which resulted on Mr Keene being belittled by the deceased.

"We would say this was a period of low-level emotional abuse; it went on for considerable periods. This culminated in the threat to take away a child.

"You saw the text messages passed between them; he was trying to be pleasant and her sending him pretty vile texts in response. This all led to that fatal moment."

The judge said that he accepted the threat to take away the daughter, and the cumulative effect of emotional abuse by Gaby over a significant period, caused Keene to lose control.

After the passing of the sentence, the family of Gaby said there was "no right or wrong" in the decision taken.

A statement said: "We must respect what the justice system has ordered because at the end of the day, each one of us will have to live with the consequences of our own actions."

AmberLeaf Sat 23-Mar-13 10:17:48

There was an intellectual imbalance which resulted on Mr Keene being belittled by the deceased

Aah right, is that like the Dennis Waterman/Rula Lenska method?

If you can't outwit and intelligent woman, you give her a slap to the head instead?

bochead Sat 23-Mar-13 10:22:52

Bruffin the battle of the sexes has it's place to be sure, but it's not here. It's very important to remember there were two victims here.

Noone can convince me that an 11 day old was "abusing" her daddy ffs. The serious long term detrimental mental & emotional impact on the newborn of witnessing her Mum's murder is in no way reflected in the sentence.

The attack was recorded, so we know he had time to go get a second weapon. That's not "snapping" and throwing a single "unlucky" punch - that's inflicting sustained violence & suffering over a period of time in front of his own child. He could have walked away and slept on a park bench ffs or he could have attended his local A&E and informed them he was losing the plot just to mention two of his choices.

(I have a friend whose daughter witnessed her father's murder when she was just before she turned 3. The result has been a lifetime of mental health issues for the witness & she was old enough to articulate some of her distress)

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:25:15

So you suspect and you don't have any evidence, but you know?

Perhaps you should put your case in front of a judge! grin

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:30:10

Cecily I'm going on the evidence (you know...actual "facts" as opposed to supposition, inference and opinion).

That would be the recorded transcript, which shows that he strangled her, then when the object he was using didn't do the job, he went off to get an electrical cord to finish her off.

She begged him "please don't".

meditrina Sat 23-Mar-13 10:32:08

Here's an example of a wife found guilty of manslaughter not murder because of long term abuse. It won't take long on google to find more. And if you include US, there'll be a plethora.

Some posters on this thread clearly have detailed knowledge of what happened at this particular trial. Has a transcript been published, and if so do you have a link?

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:37:37

In the case you've linked, meditrina I'm shocked she was convicted of manslaughter, especially as it's clear from a brief skim read that in fact she was the abuser - so not in fact a victim of long term abuse.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:39:34

Also the facts as described are not in dispute.

He paused, while strangling her, to stop and choose a more effective weapon.

I don't how anyone could justify that as someone snapping.

CecilyP Sat 23-Mar-13 10:40:33

No, you are not, flippinada; you are going on a short snippet, which includes a small part of the trial evidence, as reported in a newspaper. The recorded transcipt of the phonecall, which I agree is shocking, formed part of the prosecution evidence; we have very little detail of the defence evidence.

It is quite possible if we had the full transcript of the trial, we would still either think the jury's decision wrong, or consider the sentence to be excessively light. However, at this stage, we do not have the transcript of the trial.

meditrina Sat 23-Mar-13 10:42:47

Probably not the best example (my apologies); there are others closer to this pattern if you search.

But my blunder does at least show that jury trial outcomes are not predictably gendered.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:44:35

The facts are as above. I don't need to keep repeating them as I think they speak for themselves.

I'm saddened but not remotely surprised that people seek to defend this man or believe his actions were in some way justified.

Over the years there have been lots of cases of men who murder their wives getting lighter sentences because of 'provocation.' The attitude underlying this is that women are men's servants and property, and for a woman to criticise, mock or insult a man is not just 'abuse' but also blasphemy and treason: she's disrespecting her owner and therefore he is entitled to punish her however he sees fit.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:46:13

I shall have a look meditrina

pansyflimflam Sat 23-Mar-13 10:47:24

Yes bu even in that case you have cited, she snapped and stabbed him and instantly regretted it. This guy attacke her for 5 mins and even changed murder weapons when the first wasn't good enough. He then tried to cover his tracks! Honestly it does beggar belief that someone can be out of prison for killing someone (and assuming there are no MH issues - none have been mentioned in the reports).

Mind you I have been abused by my ex who told the judge I was a pain in the ass basically and a difficult person (prob all true as I was living under siege with him for years) and that is why he hit me..... the judge agreed violence had taken place but basically said I had it coming because I was difficult and argumentative in court (I was self repping for 6 years in court against a bloody mad man - I won!) He strangled me, my little dd went to school and told the head what she had seen, I had injuries and a police report and o dice - it was ot good enough so say he had actually done it. But seriously judges can do anything, their personal experiences and prejudices are key. They will direct the jury and the problem is texts are damning aren't they? No one knows what went on before and I personally feel this man has got away with murder.

bruffin Sat 23-Mar-13 10:49:28

Flippenda do you know the case of the burning bed.
That was a woman who after years of abuse waited until her husband went to sleep drunk then set fire to his bed. That was clearly premeditated, but it was one of the first cases of someone who actually got away with manslaughter due to temporary insanity. It was a book i read about 20 years ago so cant remember all the facts. The point the book made was that until this case women are usually at a disadvantage because they are likely to walk away then snap whereas a man is likely to snap and act instantly.
She paused for hours in between the fight and setting fire to the bed and walked away with no sentance. This was hours where she went about feeding the children and packing bags.
But you are obviously a mental health expert as well as an expert in law.
You have no idea of the real relationship between these people but you are going on very little evidence to make your decision.

CecilyP Sat 23-Mar-13 10:50:18

I think it is a reasonable example, meditrina; though the grounds for it being manslaughter rather than murder, was diminished responsibility, rather than provocation.

I assume that the grounds for it being manslaughter in the Buchara case is provocation, although neither newpaper article states that specifically.

zwischenzug Sat 23-Mar-13 10:52:51

I really hope people have not actually emailed the attorney general based on a Daily Mail account of a court case... that would be embarrassing.

You can be fairly certain the proper court records would provide a much clearer justification and context for why the judge said what he did. In almost all of these mis-reported cases in the Daily Mail you can be sure this is the case.

pansyflimflam Sat 23-Mar-13 10:53:53

Bruffin in that case she had been seriously violently and I think sexually abused over many years. I think her children were threatened too. That is different and a few texts are not the whole picture re. their personal situation. Is it possible that this woman was really problematic because she had pnd? That would be tragic wouldn't it? Provocation is the natural fallback for those defending violent and sexually violent men.

HollyBerryBush Sat 23-Mar-13 10:54:35

The Burning Bed _ Farrah Fawcett starred in the film - harrowing story of abuse.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:57:12

I'm not on the jury bruffin, I'm expressing an opinion, which is based on the facts that we have about this case. I'm neither a mental health expert or an expert in law, what gives you that idea?

Also, if you wish to address me directly, could you please use my correct username? Thank you.


flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 10:57:55

Sorry, no idea where that random mm came from!

Machli Sat 23-Mar-13 11:04:44

For all those saying they have a clearer idea what went on hence the manslaughter verdict and pathetic sentencing. What about the 18 year old autistic boy who was set alight with his murderer receiving only a three and a half year sentence. Or the man who murdered his wife and then was permitted to return to the home where he murdered her and continue to raise their children there?

We've read the transcript of her MURDER so we know what happened on the day. The leading detective involved in investigating the case PUBLICLY expressed his frustration at the outcome when the verdict came out. I am pretty sure that the man on the ground probably had a bit more awareness of what really went on.

There's been a screw up. This poor woman got some misogynistic jury members and judge and justice has not prevailed for her or her child.

Kiriwawa Sat 23-Mar-13 11:04:49

It's not just women who are men's possessions, SGB, it's their children too:

'In particular the threat to take away your daughter that you loved and that you would not be a part of their lives.'

The daughter he loved so much he went on an all day bender despite Gaby asking him to come home repeatedly. The daughter that he loved so much that he punched and strangled her mother to death in front of her.


flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 11:05:32

The Daily Mail isn't always a reliable source (that's putting it mildly) but the case has been reported elsewhere.

He didn't just strangle her by the way, she was also punched in the face, and she took 7 minutes to die.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sat 23-Mar-13 11:12:46

It always amazes me how quick people, who have no knowledge of a case other than the snippets they read in a newspaper article, are criticise the decision of a jury; you know the people who heard ALL the evidence and had the task of reaching a verdict.

I have been present in court during a murder trial and seen the newspaper reporting of that day's events. It was like reading about a different trial. Completely biased reporting, all in favour of the prosecution. So many points for the defence did my feature in the article.

Why do newspapers does this? Because it sells papers and it gets people all het out - something which many of you have proved in your comments on here.

Try to take the reporting of these trials with a pinch of salt - you will only ever hear a tiny portion of the evidence presented to a jury. The jury reached their decision after hearing ALL the evidence; in my experience they don't often get it wrong.

zwischenzug Sat 23-Mar-13 11:17:33

I agree, if you are concerned enough about the outcome of a court case you didn't attend, then read the court transcripts... this is the only unbiased account. If you haven't then you are jumping to conclusions based on 2nd hand information. Almost every time I've seen a case reported in the media like this and then seen the court transcript everything becomes so much clearer...

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 11:17:50

People said the same about the original conviction for Meredith Kercher's murder, me included. I was wrong.

Juries are made up of ordinary people who are subjective to the same prejudices and beliefs we all are. Of course they will hear evidence that we don't, but there's no disputing the facts of her death.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:19:24

Dreaming, was the newspaper reporting the prosecution case because that day's proceedings were the prosecution presenting their evidence, by any chance?

Newspapers have to continue to report trials - they can't just report one day's evidence. (They don't have to report every day, but can't just choose one at random, give that day's evidence and then no more until the verdict/sentencing.)

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 11:23:14

Subject, not subjective.

LandofTute Sat 23-Mar-13 11:25:04

I agree with DreamingOf and zwischenzug

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:26:13

'the court heard that it took 75 minutes for Keene to call police' - from the BBC.

The claims of abuse from her towards him are defence allegations - of course the defence is going to make up shit about her, that's the only chance the murderer has to get a lighter sentence. 'Adam Vaitilingam QC, defending, told the court there was psychological bullying in their relationship.'

Even the defence, going all out to get their client off, was only able to claim 'a period of low-level emotional abuse' i.e. made-up shit. 'This culminated in the threat to take away a child'. That's the outrageous defence slur that the uppity woman dared to threaten to leave a man who goes out on an all day drinking binge ignoring his partner and newborn baby.

The idea that the savage, brutal murderer was the victim here is a ridiculous, disgusting slur on a dead woman who is no longer here to defend herself, or care for her poor baby.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sat 23-Mar-13 11:30:13

Edam, they were reporting that day's events, as I believe I said in my post. It was the evidence of a prosecution witness which was reported. He gave both evidence in chief and was cross examined by the defence that day. The newspaper article completely excluded responses from the witness which assisted the defence case and only included those which assisted the prosecution case.

It was done for one reason only, to get the general public wound up about the defendant being a cold blooded murderer - because it makes far better 'news' than actually reporting the actual facts of a case.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 11:30:13

Of course it is edam

Have looked for transcripts but can't find them, don't know if they are published online though; maybe someone can clarify?

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:33:06

Oh, these pathetic exaggerated claims that somehow he's the victim:

From an early BBC story: 'Bristol Crown Court was told there had been constant arguments and Miss Miron-Buchacra had believed her fiancé wanted to take her newborn baby away from her.'

So the claims that she's a nasty uppity woman whose killing isn't important because SHE wanted to leave him are twisting the truth 180 degrees.

'Miss Miron-Buchacra had allegedly tried to stop her fiance, of Bennett Street, from going out with friends and work mates and had accused him of not spending enough time with his family.' - that's the defence claim in an attempt to get their client off, not the objective truth. And even if she wanted him to spend a few minutes here and there with their newborn baby, so what? That's entirely normal and reasonable.

The claims that somehow he was the victim of bullying and abuse are just defence lies, based on nothing more than the murder's say-so. Yet people are incredibly keen to believe a murderer who went out drinking all day rather than support his partner and newborn, came home and strangled the mother of his newborn to death in a sustained attack in front of their baby, ignoring her desperate pleas and stopping to change weapons. Good grief.

From the BBC: 'The court also heard from Miss Miron-Buchacra's aunt, Maria Buchacra-Agiss, who told the jury - in a video link to California - that her niece had called her crying and hysterical.

Ms Buchacra-Agiss said: "She was telling me that Paul Keene said to her he was going to take the baby away from her.

"She told me that two weeks before she found out that she was pregnant that Paul had hit her.

"She said he 'raised his hand', but that means for us that he hit her."'

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 12:56:20

so much mis-information on this thread, jumping to conclusions and twisting the truth from all sides.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:06:46

Please point out the misinformation.

Is it the bit where he battered the door down to get to her, punched her in the face and then strangled her - in front of her eleven week old daughter - pausing to choose a more effective tool to complete the action?

Is it the bit where she is recorded crying and pleading for her life while sounds of choking were heard?

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 13:19:59

The mis-information is reffering to only a part of the news story

Do you know what this couples relationship was like?
Do you actually know if she wasn't abusive?

As has been stated by some posters on this thread you do not have the full information

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:26:46

It's certainly true that I don't have all the details of the trial but then neither does anyone else posting on here.

However, the details of her murder, which I described above, are a statement of fact. The murder was recorded as a message on his friends mobile phone.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sat 23-Mar-13 13:31:55

It's shocking. I don't buy the 'low level psychological abuse' shit brought up by his defence one bit, considering she was the one that suffered a violent death.

But even if she had been emotionally abusive, she didn't deserved that. There is no excuse for such a sustained attack. This was no momentary loss of control - he tried to strangle her with a dressing gown cord, and when that didn't work he got an electrical cord. He talked about killing her while he was punching her.

That's pre-meditated murder in my book.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 13:32:14

Do you actually know she was, Boney? No, you don't. All you have are the smears made by desperate defence counsel. It is for the person making an assertion to produce proof, not for the person questioning it. I'm sure you understand that basic rule of argument and logic, don't you?

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:36:38

Even accepting the "low level emotional abuse" defence (which I don't), his actions are completely out of proportion and despicable.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 13:36:43

and we are back to mis-information,

the jury and the judge know all of the facts and have decided on manslaughter.

Yet they have been described on here as a bunch of misogynists.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:39:12

Please point out the misinformation, Boney. As this read is apparently riddled with it, that shouldn't be too hard.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:39:45

Thread, not read.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 13:42:23

"All you have are the smears made by desperate defence counsel"

I don't know what happened.
I don't know what led up to what happened (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months).

I don't know what happened in the Kercher case.
Or the Mccann case.
Or the Joanne Yeates case.

Nor do I intend to speculate.
Because I don't have the full information.

This poor woman has not had justice.
He changed weapon! He is recorded threatening her. Apparently all that is justified by her saying she would take the baby away - from an abusive, drunken twat - what a bitch! hmm

If I were that baby's family I would go to the ends of the earth before I let that man see that child ever again.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 13:46:18

"riddled" is your word not mine

Stating that he murdered her is mis-information.
Quoting only the parts of the story that you believe does not make it the only evidence.

Repeating them over and over does not make them the truth.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sat 23-Mar-13 13:48:20

I've not read any misinformation on here. I think the misinformation was heard in the trial actually - propagated by the defence counsel, about a woman who is no longer here to defend herself.

That man was in no danger - after an all day drinking session he battered down her front door, violently attacked and murdered her. It was all recorded on a voicemail - his vile threats and violence against her. Then he has the gall to make out he was the victim - and the jury buys it. Makes me sick.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:52:26

Would that be the evidence which was presented at the murder trial about how she died?

That's my opinion, it's established fact. It was recorded on his friends mobile phone.

Are you saying that message was made up, because if so, I'm really confused.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:52:45

Sorry that's "not" my opinion.

JustGiveMeFiveMinutes Sat 23-Mar-13 13:54:39

Please note that defence counsel don't make up stories. They have to put forward lines of defence as instructed by their clients. If they fail to do so they would be severely critisised, in serious breach of their code of conduct and at risk of being disbarred.

They do not spend their time thinking of lies to put to witnesses.

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 13:56:05

Also, why are you bringing up the McCann case? If you mean Madeleine McCann there hasn't been a trial, has there?

Moominsarehippos Sat 23-Mar-13 13:59:07

I don't believe you can 'snap' and launch such a long, calculated attack. A slap, maybe, several, possibly, but to throttle her trice whilst threatening to kill her - no.

I'm suprised he didn't try to claim 'temporary insanity'. No matter what provocation in this case, it was murder. He was not in any physical danger. Did she attack him with a knife? Try to poison him? Aim her car at him? No. Just words.

runningforthebusinheels Sat 23-Mar-13 14:05:58

Even the comments under the article are coming out in support of the victim - putting their usual misogyny to one side for a change. Usually I totally despair after reading the DM comments....

Here are a couple of the green-arrowed comments:

"It was her that was vunerable, she needed help and support with a newborn. If he was a good father he woudn't be drinking at a party. She was right to complain, he was absolutely wrong and so was the Judge. He shouldn't have any excuse for taking a life. Seven years is a joke!"

and: "I once had an abusive partner - when I threw him out lots of friends 'sided' with him because he was so convincing about me being the 'abuser' in the relationship. How can these people sit in court and say that this woman was the emotional abuser when she was not there to defend herself. It come's across that she was complicit in her own death - an outrageous implication. People like this guy are often psychopaths and completely convincing. There is simply no excuse for what he did."

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 14:11:09

Sorry but "he murdered her" is your opinion. They had a murder trial and the outcome was manslaughter.

Why bring up the McCann case? because people still don't know what happened yet people/poosters still spread stories.

I haven't said that the defense council made anything up. I'm saying that we only know some of the information.

JustGiveMeFiveMinutes Sat 23-Mar-13 14:15:11

Where did I say you did BoneyBackJefferson


BoneyBackJefferson Sat 23-Mar-13 14:18:26

sorry just

anyway, stepping away from the thread..

flippinada Sat 23-Mar-13 14:31:29

The McCann "case" is completely irrelevant. A young girl disappeared and nobody knows what happened.

Here, a woman has been murdered and we do know what happened so it isn't remotely similar.

And anyway say he did "snap" - that doesn't tally at all with the prolonged and sadistic attack that we know did happen.

runningforthebusinheels Sat 23-Mar-13 14:57:34

I do think she was totally failed by the justice system. Makes me wonder just what a man has to do for it to be 'murder' when he kills his partner.

2 women a week.

suburbophobe Sat 23-Mar-13 16:41:17

This made me cry.... (reading the link).

That poor poor woman. And the poor baby. Thank god she has a loving family in Mexico who will bring her up.


EntWife Sat 23-Mar-13 22:22:47

I am loathe to add to this thread as it appears full of agendas and pre conceived notions but,
the "all day drinking session" that several people have commented on as being proof of the fathers status as a bad dad was a work event. He worked for an investment firm. Those kind of all day events are very common in financial services. The amount he had to drink over the close of the day does not seem excessive for the type of event.

Secondly, you only have my word for this but I have had several professional dealings with Justice Eder and the man is scrupulous in the way he runs his court room. If he felt defence counsel where gas lighting the jury with allegations against the victim he would not have hesitated to call them on it. I have seen him do it. He is actually a pain in the arse because if he doesn't follow the logic of you're argument he will formally pick it apart. Defence arguments must have had some substance to have made it past his radar.

Kiriwawa Sat 23-Mar-13 22:35:55

I couldn't give a shit about his job EntWife - believe it or not, women regularly get invited to these kind of shindigs. Generally though, especially if we are lowly admin staff as Peter is, we aren't under any great pressure to attend which means that we're able to be at home rather than at work if necessary. Although I expect Gaby wished he'd stayed on his drinking trip rather than smashing in the front door as he did and then hitting her over and over again before strangling her.

Just quoting facts here, not speculation. Obviously

ecclesvet Sat 23-Mar-13 22:55:12

I bet a load of people wondered how the jury could be so stupid as to buy the defence in R v Ahluwalia too. The right for abuse victims to have their provocation recognised was hard won. Of course some internet commenters will always have far more information and common sense than the judge and jury who actually heard the case. hmm

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 24-Mar-13 01:13:51

Sorry, but I don't think that Paul Keene is remotely comparable to Ahluwalia.

Quite offensive to imply that. hmm

LessMissAbs Sun 24-Mar-13 06:43:42

Need to read the case report but in general its become ridiculously difficult in the UK to obtain guilty verdicts for major crimes if the evidence isn't perfect. Evidence is very rarely perfect hence crimes are downgraded to lesser offences to ensure a guilty verdict. Our system is adversarial rather than inquisatorial but very little research is done on the effect of this on justice and rates of recidivism, particularly from a comparitive perspective.

As I have said, I need to read the actual case report, but comments by a judge which appear to open the floodgates are generally unwise - is any show of emotion by a partner now a defence to murder and can this be taken from Elder J's comments as opening the floodgates? I think it requires clarification in law and would hope to see an appeal.

edam Sun 24-Mar-13 09:22:53

Abuse victims don't smash in the front door to get to the abuser. That's the act of an aggressor, not a victim.

ecclesvet Sun 24-Mar-13 10:08:10

When abuse victims 'snap' they often resemble aggressors rather than victims. Fortunately it is for a judge and jury to hear all the evidence to come to a more thorough understanding of the context.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 10:10:57

I can't understand what has happened in this case. It is clearly murder - horrific, brutal, drawn-out murder, I feel sick reading the transcript of the call.

I really feel for the family and the police who must have felt certain of justice given the weight of evidence. I am going to use the link given early in the thread to make a complaint.

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Mar-13 10:13:53

bruffin the case you refer to as the burning bed, is kiranjit Ahluwalia and she was found guilty of murder and went to prison.

There was a massive campaign to free her but it took years.

Posting one or two cases where emotional abuse has actually been an effective defence for a woman, doesn't alter the figures: women get higher sentences on average for murdering their partners (which they do far more rarely by the way) than men do.

I think what this shows is the fact that men can use the defence of "emotional abuse" when their chattels female partners get uppity. That is what is a real danger here - the emotional abuse defence can be a valid one, but I bet you that we are going to see it used more and more successfully by violent men to justify their murders of uppity women. A woman with a new baby who sees her husband behave abusively, will have her wish to set boundaries and possibly take the nuclear option of leaving, be re-defined as emotional abuse and psychological bullying.

And let's make no mistake about this please, a new father who goes on an alcoholic bender is behaving abusively. The ludicrous idea that he's forced to go on a bender for work purposes is just bending over backwards to make excuses for his abusive behaviour. He might have to go and show his face for a bit, but there isn't an employer in the country who force-feeds their workers booze and would look askance at a new father who leaves a social event involving alcohol early in order to be with his child. That's what a normal father would do, the abusive ones stay there, get pissed and claim it's all for work - and there are actually women who buy that and tell other women that we should believe it.

This tendency of violent men to claim that any measure women take to stand up for themselves or set boundaries in our relationships is emotional abuse or psychological bullying, is just the newest tactic in the age old war on women. It sounds so plausible doesn't it? The "women can be abusive too!" crowd will love it - you know, the ones who think a new mother expecting her co-parent to actually do some parenting is controlling and manipulative, while a man who breaks down a door and rejects one murder weapon in favour of a more effective one is actually being oppressed by the unreasonable demands of his victim - I expect to see more and more violent murderers walk free or get reduced sentences in the future as they take advantage of the average jury's misogynist attitudes.

Women, don't you dare threaten to leave an abusive man.

That's emotional abuse, innit. hmm

Moominsarehippos Sun 24-Mar-13 10:16:37

Call me old fashioned, call me sexist, but we were raised to believe that a 'man' never raised his hand to a woman (restrain yes, hit no) and a woman should never raise her hand either.

Strangling (twice) as she begs for her life, hardly an accident is it? Or Red Mist - and I get this (real rages, althgough very very rarely) but have never hurt another human being (a few phones though).

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 10:17:24

Edam, are you an expert on the behaviour of ALL abuse victims?!

Have any of you who have decided that the jury were obviously wrong and that you know better bothered to research the law on loss of control?

No, thought not.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 10:18:23

That is horrendous. The poor woman. What a travesty. Judge is a fool.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 10:21:30

I also don't buy this idea that there was some evidence given in court which would have explained this outcome. When people say that, they are in effect agreeing that the facts we know make the sentence an unacceptable injustice.

What we know is what the judge and jury knew - the murder was horrifically violent and prolonged, the victim was helpless and the defence was 'low-level emotional abuse'. Sickening.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 10:23:41

Please bestow on us your knowledge of the 'law' on loss of control Dreaming.

LandofTute Sun 24-Mar-13 10:29:49

I think some people seem to be unable to believe that a woman could ever be capable of being abusive to her partner. The jury chose to believe that Carmen was a lot more than just "uppity" or "wishing to set boundaries" because they were party to the evidence that we were not. My own mother was bullying and emotionally and physically abusive, so I know only too well that women can be abusive.

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 10:35:24

That is not the case i am referring to at all, but that is beside the point. We know nothing of this couples relationship and everyone on here is relying on a tiny snapshot.There was obviously days of evidence on both sides that the jury made their decision that nobody seemsvthat interested in

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 10:36:25

So given that we have seen the transcript of her murder and the details of the the murderer's defence why do you think there is some other evidence that we don't know Landoftute? The reason we don't know it is because it doesn't exist. That pitifully lame 'evidence' of her 'abuse' that was given in court is the actual evidence the judge and jury used to reach their decision.

Of course women can be abusive and violent but this poor woman wasn't one of them. 'Some people' don't want to believe that those we trust to hand out justice could be so swayed by their own prejudices in the face of plain evidence.

CecilyP Sun 24-Mar-13 10:42:16

Were you in court, moonabove? If not, you do not know detailsof the killer's defence, you have simply read a couple of sentences about it in a newspaper article, that is all.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 10:43:14

I don't need to moonabove when a simple google search would provide people with the info, if they could be bothered. Far easier though to just suggest that it MUST be murder because it wasn't a sudden loss of control or that it was low level abuse.

Clearly the jury, who had all the facts of the case and had the law on loss of control explained to them, thought he had a valid defence. Thankfully it's their verdict and not that of internet forum posters who don't know all the facts, that actually matters.

Lets not forget that a jury is made up of randomly selected members of the public. I bet many of them would have had an opinion on trials they've previously read about in the news and thought the verdicts were wrong. But when sitting on a jury, they base their decision on the evidence they hear in court, which is what matters.

Were the jury just stupid and those of you on mumsnet far more intelligent not to be swayed by the defendant's case?! No, they were in possession of the full details.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 10:49:48

having been in an abusive relationship, the abused one is relieved when the abusive one is out. the abused one does not text the abuser to persuade him to come home. The one who kicks down the door to get in to the house sounds like the aggressor.

If there were more details to explain the sentence, they should be revealed. But even if she were abusive to him confused he wasn't financially dependent.

All this bullshit trotted out in the name of feminism, 'can't you believe a woman could be abusive?'. Yes, i can believe it, but this man was not financially dependent on her. she had just had a baby.

Jury's often are stupid. They have some question put to them by the judge, some 'direction' he wants them to take. He will lead them to believe that although they may believe he is a killer, although they not believehis defence, that that is not evidence. That all the evidence they've processed adn teh conclusions they've reached, that is not proof, and the only thing anybody can be certain of is that nobody else was there that night, oh, and let me show you againt the nsaty texts she sent him.

So, seriously, lol at jurys being even ALLOWED TO MAKE a decision. they are puppets on a string.

Moominsarehippos Sun 24-Mar-13 10:50:24

It's still murder though, isn't it?

Even is this woman was an absolute nightmare, threatened to kill him and the baby, made up stories about him and broadcast them... Why kill? Why not go? Call the police and SS and get custody of the baby?

So the jury had all the facts presented (don't forget she wasn't there to brief her lawyer or put her side across), but why can't the reasons for the outcome be explained?

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 10:54:29

Don't need to Dreaming? Thought not. That would be because a 'simple google search or indeed indepth research would not reveal any 'law' on loss on control because it is too subjective to be quantified into a law. It therefore becomes a matter of judgement which, in this case, has gone completely astray.

Don't you think if the murder victim in this case had been physically violent or had subjected her partner to prolonged mental cruelty that it would have been reported? It would have to have been very serious abuse on her part to explain such a savage murder and sign of it.

You can't explain it because it can't be explained and perhaps you're not interested in explaining anyway, only justifying what can't be justified. Why you feel the need to do that only you would know.

mayorquimby Sun 24-Mar-13 11:01:49

Not going into the specifics of this case as I didn't follow it and also it doesn't seem as though anyone will change their mind but just in relation to this "It's still murder though, isn't it? " just wanted to say that provocation or diminished capacity (not sure what defence they ran with) is a partial defence to the crime of murder only (for all other crimes it goes to mitigation of sentence) which, if successful, would result in a person being not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter

It's a partial defence in that it could not be used to see a person not guilty of all wrongdoing, it just reduces murder to manslaughter

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 11:04:14

Really moonabove? No law regarding loss of control? Try section 54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It was introduced in 2010 and abolished the law on provocation!

Again you mention that it hasn't been reported that the deceased was physically violent so cannot have happened. Perhaps it didn't but so what? The defence in law of loss of control does not require the deceased to have been physically violent!!! For heaven's sake, the jury would have had the law explained to them so that THEY understood it before reaching their decision.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 11:07:23

Of course it becomes a matter of judgement, the Jury would have used their judgement when considering the evidence against the law. Do you really think the jury (all 12 of them) though 'oh she was a bit of a nag so she deserved to die, we better find him not guilty of murder?' Really?

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 11:07:53

Thought not though

edam Sun 24-Mar-13 11:18:26

It's happened before, dreaming. Nagging has been given as justification for the murder of a wife.

You can argue about loss of control all you like, smashing down a front door to get to your victim, a sustained attack over minutes that involves going to get another weapon is not loss of control.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 11:38:01

MayorQuimby, that seems to be happening a lot though. I know you're Irish. You will have heard of the woman who stabbed her partner 60 times and she got manslaughter. Once? ok manslaughter. The next 59 times? And of course, Eamon lillis, hit his wife in the head with a brick til she stopped fighting back and he got manslaughter too. More recently again, there was another woman, it was in the news same week as the first woman who stabbed her partner60 times, she stabbed an xbf who wouldn't be told he was an Xbf 18 times. He had stalked her for months. However she had previously sorted out her disputes with a knife. And that was manslaughter too. So there seems to be a lot of hey let's just call it manslaughter going on. Can you not murder a spouse or an x anymore?!

zwischenzug Sun 24-Mar-13 11:39:10

Don't you think if the murder victim in this case had been physically violent or had subjected her partner to prolonged mental cruelty that it would have been reported?

Newspapers leaving out important information to twist a news story to fit their agenda? Never.

runningforthebusinheels Sun 24-Mar-13 11:39:54

Of course it becomes a matter of judgement, the Jury would have used their judgement when considering the evidence against the law. Do you really think the jury (all 12 of them) though 'oh she was a bit of a nag so she deserved to die, we better find him not guilty of murder?' Really?

I don't know about that - but I really do think that juries can get it very wrong (Vicky Pryce's first trial, anyone??) The majority of juries will follow the judges directions to them - and this judge believed that this woman had emotionally abused this man.

The judge said: "'I accept what caused you to lose self control was the cumulative effect of emotional abuse by Gaby over a significant period.
In particular the threat to take away your daughter that you loved and that you would not be a part of their lives."

Firstly, evidence was heard by the victim's relative that he had 'raised a hand to her' (she clarified this meant actual hitting) early in the relationship - evidence that he was abusive to her, rather that the other way round. Secondly, as Fastidia said above - how can threatening to leave a man, and take your 11wk old baby, be seen as 'cumulative verbal abuse' and mitigation for the horrendous level of violence he inflicted on this woman?

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 11:42:46

Edam, you can argue that it does not fit the definition of 'loss of control' as you would think of it, but the legal sense of the term is different. It does not specify that a person must only kill in a prescribed way such as by lashing out once, which is what you seem to think it should mean.

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 11:45:56

" smashing down a front door to get to your victim,"

He didnt smash down the door, why is that repeated time and time again on here? He threatened to, but nowhere does it say that he actually smashed it down.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 11:47:08

surely losing control should still be punished though.

wrt Gaby, their dd was only 11 weeks old. How long could the threat have been going on for. NOt that long.

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 11:51:56

surely losing control should still be punished though.
It has, he is going to prison.

and who said it was only since the baby came along?

As said too many people making assumptions without knowing the full facts other than the little they have read in the paper.

DreamingOfTheMaldives Sun 24-Mar-13 11:52:52

Running, those remarks by the Judge are sentencing remarks, so made after the verdict. He was bound by the verdict of the jury when passing sentence. I don't believe we have heard anything of his summing up to the jury before they reached his decision.

runningforthebusinheels Sun 24-Mar-13 11:53:16

Also, I agree with pp's that it is absurd to compare this case with that of either Kiranjit Ahluwalia or Francine Hughes.

Both the above had suffered years of physical violence (and in Kiranjit's case sexual abuse) at the hands of their partners.

Comparing those cases to this, with Paul Keene getting maybe a good tongue-lashing, and a few angry texts - which were as a result of him being out drinking (an amount that could floor an ox) all day, when he had left her at home with an 11wk old baby, is unbelievably crass.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 12:02:56

Bruffin, punished appropriately.

The abuse was supposed to have been that she had been threatening to take the child away. How long could that possibly have been going on for when the child was 11 weeks old.

Kiriwawa Sun 24-Mar-13 12:07:13

Yes, he didn't actually smash it down. He threatened to. Apologies.

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 12:11:03

"The abuse was supposed to have been that she had been threatening to take the child away. How long could that possibly have been going on for when the child was 11 weeks old. "

Where does it say it was only since the baby came? the report i read said that was a culmination of long term psychological bullying.

mayorquimby Sun 24-Mar-13 12:16:06

"MayorQuimby, that seems to be happening a lot though. I know you're Irish. You will have heard of the woman who stabbed her partner 60 times and she got manslaughter. Once? ok manslaughter. The next 59 times?"

I sat through a good deal of that trial. It was an horrific matter. She had abused him for years as well, she was a deeply disturbed woman.

I take your point that it does seem you can no longer murder a spouse it's almost always manslaughter, as with so much in matters which go to trial it comes down to the jury and what they accept as fact.
Maybe people find it easier to settle on manslaughter, or maybe (as has been seen on this thread) in matters of spousal/partner killings jurors feel that there will always be more to a story than they are told so convince themselves there is some "grey area"
Without being in the jury room it's very hard to decipher what is behind the trend

runningforthebusinheels Sun 24-Mar-13 12:18:58

Running, those remarks by the Judge are sentencing remarks, so made after the verdict. He was bound by the verdict of the jury when passing sentence. I don't believe we have heard anything of his summing up to the jury before they reached his decision.

I think my major problem with this is the low sentence this man received.

I also think those judge's words, whether used in summing up or in sentencing are very telling - angry texts and threatening to leave a partner - where evidence has been heard that he was actually physically abusive to her - are seen as mitigating circumstances for him to batter down her door and murder her in a most violent way.

Anyone reading the transcript of the recorded voicemail cannot possibly believed that his behaviour was justified?

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 12:35:16

seen as mitigating circumstances for him to batter down her door and murder her in a most violent way.

He didnt bash down the door, and if you are making up facts like that up what else are you making up.

ElegantSufficiency Sun 24-Mar-13 12:41:20

Bruffin, It was mentioned upthread that the judge mentioned that, that that was why the judge understood {?} his loss of control.

flippinada Sun 24-Mar-13 12:47:06

I don't think how he how got in is that relevant really, is it?

I mean, if he opened the door in the normal fashion and then strangled her to death, how does that make it better? In fact if he opened the door calmly and then went about his murderous business that sounds worse as it suggests he was in control.

"what else are you lying about?"

That's just silly.

flippinada Sun 24-Mar-13 12:48:23

So breaking down the door would support the "loss of control" defence.

MayorQuimby those cases referred to above are horrific.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 12:54:23

Thank you Dreaming for that reference to the law on 'loss of control'. Reading it I actually think it proves the point I was making in that 'loss of control' is can not be properly defined.

*Partial defence to murder: loss of control(1)Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if—

(a)D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
(b)the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c)a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.*

Surely (c) would be the strongest element in the judgement? The majority of men in these circumstances would not have reacted in this way. If they did they would be even more murders of women by their partners than the current unacceptable level.

bruffin Sun 24-Mar-13 13:03:51

Flipenda have you just come back on this thread just to have ago at me? lovely hmm

what else are you lying about?"

That's just silly.
No its not, its just proves that people are reading what they wanted to read not what happens

runningforthebusinheels Sun 24-Mar-13 13:08:34

Moonabove - I agree.

Bruffin - she refused to let him in. He threatened to batter down the door - so she opened the door. That better?

He then - and let's be clear here - this was all recorded on a voice-mail, so "lying" really doesn't come into it - unleashes a horrific attack on the mother of his 11wk old baby.

"Mother-of-one Gaby can be heard pleading for her life as Keene punches her, telling her to shut up or 'you will be dead'.

He can be heard snarling: 'Why are you crying?

'What the f* is your problem? What have I done to you today? Carry on like this and I'm going to end up in prison because you will be dead.

'I may kill you because you are a f**** t***.'

During the trial Michael Fitton, QC, prosecuting, told how Keene first tried to strangle Gaby using a dressing gown cord before switching to an electrical cable to ensure her death.

That's a perfectly understandable response is it? How many men do you know who would react like that? hmm

flippinada Sun 24-Mar-13 13:10:00

The short answer to that is no bruffin.

And once again, if you are going to address me directly, please have the courtesy to use my correct username. Thank you.

flippinada Sun 24-Mar-13 13:12:37

Running I think that's the crux of it for me.

The transcript of the attack is just so incredibly disturbing.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 13:18:02

"a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D."

In fact I would argue that even someone who did not have a 'normal' degree of tolerance and self-restraint would not have reacted with the appalling and calculated violence of this man.

The family's reaction is so painfully dignified and restrained. Like them I hope this man will suffer from the consequences of his actions because the legal system has certainly failed to punish him.

TomDudgeon Sun 24-Mar-13 13:26:46

It sounds like the judge thinks a woman being more intelligent than their partner is her being psychologically abusive

flippinada Sun 24-Mar-13 13:32:11

It does read a bit like that Tom.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 13:38:54

The judgement was given in a magistrates court. I see that the link give to complain about low sentences refers to judgements in Crown Court. Would this case apply?

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Mar-13 15:48:27

Actually Tom that is a very good point. Many men do experience the very idea that a woman is cleverer than them as emotional abuse.

And so obviously a male judge will sympathise with that.

Someone else mentioned the dennis waterman view of the world.

It really isn't that unusual.

fuckwittery Sun 24-Mar-13 20:37:36

Moonabove, the reference on the daily mail site to the judgment being given in a magistrates court is incorrect. magistrates don't hear murder trials. the This is Bath website correctly refers to the judgment being given at Bristol Crown Court, so you can use the link given to complain about the sentence.

moonabove Sun 24-Mar-13 20:46:41

Thought it seemed odd - thanks for that.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now