Becky Watts murder

PlaysWellWithOthers, it makes perfect sense. And I also think women are more harshly judged - considering how harshly mothers are judged for insufficient parenting, while fathers are praised for the smallest effort ... it would be very surprising if women were not very harshly judged for committing "unfeminine" crimes.

The whole case has been horrible, that poor young woman.

However, it's interesting to me that when my friend's mother was battered to death by her lodger and his boyfriend and they bundled her body up together, put it in the car together, went and bought pizza with her in the car, took money out of her bank account to buy sex toys and then threw her body into a river together, and then went back to the house to clean up and have sex, the lodger was found guilty of murder, and the lover only with preventing the legal burial of a body. I wonder how the courts and juries arrive at their verdicts. Monstering women who deviate from accepted social norms is a well known phenomenon and I wonder if that is partly behind the girlfriend in this case being found guilty of manslaughter on fairly similar evidence levels to the lodger's lover in the murder of my friend's mother.

I'm not for one second suggesting that, given the evidence against her, she was innocent, but I do think that often women get more harshly judged for the same crimes as men.

Not sure if that made sense... hope so!

Who knows elendon - her legal team didn't lead specific evidence about that

It could just as easily have been that she didn't want him going off with someone else

Why do we have to assume however that she is a woman, ergo her make partner must have dominated and abused her to make her act in this way. Working on that basis does criminology a great disservice

But your original post was about her conviction for manslaughter

I'm not excusing her actions, but I do understand them. She is not a killer, Matthews is

She hasn't been convicted of murder. There does seem to be evidence that this was a plan that wrong, and had it not gone wrong then she would have been a kidnapper and sex offender. If you are planning to kidnap someone with a knife and a stun gun in order to submit them to a sexual assault then you have to take some responsibility if the person dies. That's why if, for example, a person is shot and killed during a robbery then all the offenders will be charged with murder, not just the shooter. I think she got of lightly.

"would you be saying that gay men are weak individuals who are not ready for equality yet?"

No, but then again I didn't start a thread suggesting it was wrong that "women be associated as a murderer just because they happen to be in a dysfunctional relationship with a man who murders"

The jury, having heard the case, have decided she is a killer, albeit one who hadn't premeditated it.

It does seem odd that her defence didn't attempt to make the argument that she was terrified herself of what he would do if she didn't help him cover it up. The 'didn't know anything had happened' story is obviously a weak one. Which leads me to think that they knew the first version, where she acted out of real fear, wouldn't hold up in court at all and therefore is not true. Not that the second story was either, but that was all they could do.

wannaBe, if you are against feminism, then why do you write in the Feminist chat? Your nonsense arguments are old and boring.
Men are the majority of sex offenders, and there is good reason to question the involvement of the woman if a couple is accused.

Her defence said she had to drop out of college because Matthews was attending classes with her and had accused her of talking to other men.

ThT was background evidence to try and persuade the jury that this was the reason she had sent, frankly, very disturbing texts about clubbing teenage girls over the head and bringing them home to abuse with him - ie she was trying to keep him sweet.

At no time at all was evidence led by the defence to the effect that she was aware of the murder but was too scared to intervene etc. her position always was that she didn't have a clue.

Sorry Vestal: just because we are not equal yet (which I happen to agree) it doesn't give us an excuse to be complicit in murder, dismemberment and disposal of another human being.

"My problem with the headline in my OP link is that both are seen"

She was convicted of manslaughter. She is a killer isn't she?

Her story was full of holes. He said he killed Becky, got her body into a suitcase and got it into the car while Shauna was smoking a cigarette. It doesn't sound hugely likely. If you were planning a kidnap to 'scare' someone, would you take along another adult that you had to keep it secret from? She was on at least 2 trips with him to buy massive amounts of cleaning supplies (to 'sort out the house') including yards of cling film. Nobody buys 3 packs of cling film at a time, then buys more the next day. It took days to cut Becky's body up with a circular saw and Shauna was in the house the whole time 'not noticing'. A blind man on a galloping horse would notice someone dismembering a body in their only bathroom. This was the time she sent the Frozen parody. They had sent messages to each other about kidnapping a teenage girl. I think it's fine that she should be 'associated with a murderer'. She's in it tits deep.

well, fred and rose west murdered people together, as did myra Hindley and Ian Brady, and it was Brady who ended up in broadmoor while she went to prison.

There are many, many couples who live out sexual fantasies of varying degrees, and as long as they're legal we uphold their right to do so on the basis they are adults and capable of consent.

But when those fantasies end up in crimes such as the one above, all the blame is placed on the man while the woman is pitied and assumed to be a poor innocent victim, incapable of her own thoughts because she was being controlled by the man.

If women are such weak individuals then maybe we're not ready for women's equality yet then eh? no, thought not.

"presumably if they planned the murder together and she wasn't there but he carried it out then she would be guilty of manslaughter"

If they'd planned the murder together then she'd be guilty of murder. The manslaughter verdict suggests that the jury believed that Hoare was a co-conspirator in the kidnapping but hadn't intended murder.

wannaBe: Presuming that people are behaving in a sensible way is dangerous. Because often, they don't.

If we assume that women can be just as despicable as men, then there still is the question what a woman who is in a relationship with a man gets out of this man murdering a girl to satisfy his perverted sexual fantasies (whatever they may be, I don't really want to know).

People who murder usually have a motive. And if this woman actively participated in murdering a girl just to keep her man happy, then I strongly doubt that she is this strong, independent woman that grimbletart wants her to be.

grimbletart, maybe you haven't noticed, but the promised equal rights aren't there yet, so ... we get to have both: We get to be oppressed AND judged as harshly as men.

Isn't that just perfect and shows just how strong women are?

presumably if they planned the murder together and she wasn't there but he carried it out then she would be guilty of manslaughter. The jury have the evidence and didn't seem to need much time to reach a verdict, so presumably the conviction has a basis.

Oh for goodness sake. This argument that women are poor vulnerable easily manipulated snowflakes is wearing thin. Either, as adults, we are equal to men and have equal responsibility to behave as normal human beings or we are not. Stop making excuses for her.