Advanced search

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?

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.

SolidGoldBrass Sat 23-Mar-13 10:45:46

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.

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