Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Man kills girl after strangling her "by accident"

110 replies

NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 09:42

Apologies for the content of this thread.

This case has got to me somewhat: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40670225

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4714598/Ex-McDonald-s-worker-obsessed-porn-jailed.html

I know people understandably don't like Daily Mail links but there's more detail in that article.

The man in question was convicted of manslaughter but cleared of murder for strangling a girl he'd met earlier on that day. He claimed applying pressure on her neck was consensual but she was proven to be in an extremely intoxicated state, the judge said in her summing up unable to understand what was going on if she was even conscious, had no history of liking this kind of thing, whereas the man was "into" this kind of pornography and had tried it with a former partner. The jury, however, believed his account that he had believed she was consenting to it, only meant it as a "sex game" and was horrified when he found out what had happened (despite the fact he waited over 20 minutes before calling an ambulance after she was dead which the judge herself said was "chilling" in sentencing).

There is more which incredibly troubles me about this case but in short I find it quite disturbing that a man clearly into pornography depicting violence against women, including the very method of violence he used here, can ply a girl (significantly younger than himself) he's just met (through her boyfriend) with drink, "guide" her to his bedroom supposedly to put her to sleep, then do this before showing "no remorse" (investigating police officer's words) can be cleared of murder by a jury seemingly because he claims she initiated "kissing" him (which can't be proven not to be the case as the judge said but it's just his word...I do wonder what motivation he could possibly have for claiming this) then apparently consenting (in an extremely intoxicated state even if this was the case) to having pressure applied to her neck. I've thought for a little while men could start using this kind of defence in a case like this and now it appears to have worked.

OP posts:
JiggyTuff · 21/07/2017 16:48

If they had been two men, he would have been convicted of murder. Because she was female and a slag (what kind of 16 year old goes back to her boyfriend's friend's house with her boyfriend unless she's a total slapper?) and led him on, she deserved it.

And if that beautiful girl initiated kissing that ugly pathetic piece of scum, I'm the Duchess of Windsor

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 15:23

Indeed. I presume they didn't because he's a man and so was taken at his word (never mind his rather clear motivation to lie).

OP posts:
Datun · 21/07/2017 15:16

He also smashed her phone up in this time "because of all the alerts".

What, instead of just turning it off?

If I was a jury member, all these things would be signalling consummate liar to me.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 15:12

I don't think there's been any reference to sexual activity from what I've read - despite it being reported as a "sex game gone wrong" and him having climbed into bed with her uninvited before undressing her. I took the implication to be that he could have been getting his version of events straight in his mind before he called the emergency services - so he had a better chance of getting away with it. He also smashed her phone up in this time "because of all the alerts".

OP posts:
Datun · 21/07/2017 14:57

She also called his conduct after her death in not calling the emergency services for 20 minutes "another chilling aspect".

Did he have sex with this girl? Was there semen? Was that comment meant to imply that he could've had sex with her after she was dead?

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 14:34

Purely from my own interpretation of course but I think from some of the judge's sentencing remarks in this case she was less than impressed with the man's version of events.

Judge Mrs Justice Carr told the court: “You chose to engage in sexual activity which you knew to be dangerous with a very young drunk girl whom you had only met that afternoon and who, as you realised at the time, had never engaged in this type of activity before.

“Hannah was to your knowledge very drunk. She was also very young and vulnerable, and alone in a strange house. Indeed, you accepted in your evidence that you felt responsible for her.

She said that Morton had “enjoyed the domination”, having already tried it with a previous girlfriend.

She added: “I am sure, as the jury was, that Hannah did not give valid and informed consent to this escalated activity in the knowledge that it carried the risk of some bodily injury.

“She was in no position to object, trapped underneath you whilst you strangled her.”

She also called his conduct after her death in not calling the emergency services for 20 minutes "another chilling aspect".

OP posts:
Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 21/07/2017 14:29

I agree stealth

But ours wasnt a rape case and the whole case rested on one date

So something like 'did the defendant decide to do the crime on the 26th of june'

And i agree you still have to do the reasonable doubt thing but some juries are very much led in one direction by the judge

And cases and judges vary

Not sticking up for the jury as i wasnt there and dont know the case, but sometimes its not as simple as a problem with the jury

We all wanted to find our one guilty...as they were guilty

AssassinatedBeauty · 21/07/2017 14:28

I wonder what the response would have been had it been a man strangling a 16 yr old boy in the same circumstances? The same, or different?

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 14:19

That's a good point too Datun - in what other setting would strangling someone to death not be murder? Presumably it only would in this specific kind of case - a man doing it to a woman and claiming it was a consensual sex game - something else juries are more likely to believe not only because of the word of a man meaning so much but also because of mainstream pornography depicting this as something girls and women naturally want.

OP posts:
StealthPolarBear · 21/07/2017 14:15

Rufous I've also done jury service on a rape case and I do agree up to a point. I was quite relieved that the judge spelled out for us the facts and the bits that were for our judgement. But we still had to decide whether some aspects were beyond reasonable doubt or not.

Datun · 21/07/2017 14:12

Rufustherenegadereindeer1

What would have happened if you had decided to not follow the flow chart?

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 21/07/2017 14:12

Done not dine

For goodness sake

I am literate...honestly i am

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 21/07/2017 14:11

I have dine two seperate jury trials

At the end of both the judge was very clear on the procedure for reaching a verdict

Think of a flowchart with very strict branches

The second case we all found the dependent not guilty...because we had no choice but to follow the strictures of a particular date

Datun · 21/07/2017 14:09

She never told him to stop, so he didn't. Stupid, unconscious women.

He didn't strangle her because she said something to him, did something to him, because he wanted to rob her, he strangled her so he could have an orgasm.

I agree nolove. Infuriating.

venusinscorpio · 21/07/2017 14:05

I think people often interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as "beyond all possible doubt whatsoever. It doesn't mean you have to believe any cock and bull story a lying and guilty man dreams up to escape a rape or murder charge. See Ched Evans. See Oscar Pistorius.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 14:04

Quite PolarBear.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 14:03

That's exactly it Assassinated. I'm enraged by it.

Pretty much, I think, Datun. He's claiming he made that completely clear (of course) and she never told him to stop, thus saying she knew exactly what was going on and didn't ask him to stop. Never mind that she was so intoxicated she couldn't have been aware of it and that when you're being strangled though you'd probably not be able to ask someone to stop it'd be made pretty obvious (unless as you said she was so intoxicated she wasn't even conscious). But the word of a man overrides all else.

OP posts:
StealthPolarBear · 21/07/2017 13:59

"The conclusion the jury reached was purely down to his own testimony. If only women were afforded such treatment by juries when they're actually victims."
Indeed. But they're generally thought to be lying unless proved beyond all doubt

Datun · 21/07/2017 13:58

But if he claims his defence was that she would tell him to stop, and she didn't, so he didn't, what does that even mean??

It's her fault?

thereallochnessmonster · 21/07/2017 13:57

Sounds like he raped her as well. Yuk yuk yuk. The whole case is horrible. Poor Hannah.

AssassinatedBeauty · 21/07/2017 13:56

So this man meets a young woman, a 16 year old girl, that he's never met before. He takes her back to his house, plies her with alcohol until she is incapacitated. Then takes her to his bedroom, takes off all her clothes, and then strangled her to death. She would have been too drunk to properly understand what he was doing, if not altogether unconscious.

He is only convicted of manslaughter, because, on his word alone, he claims that he didn't intend to kill her. There is no independent evidence at all to support this.

How in any sane world is this not murder? These are the actions of a cold killer, not a someone taking part in a consensual sex game that went too far. I find it incomprehensible.

Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 13:55

Indeed venus, whilst women who kill violent partners often in self-defence are regularly tried for and often convicted of murder.

OP posts:
Original poster
NoLoveofMine · 21/07/2017 13:54

Exactly Datun. This is why I'm so aggrieved by the jury acquitting him of murder in this case. They've ignored those points simply because of his testimony that she agreed and said she'd let him know if she needed him to stop (despite him being sober and her completely intoxicated to the extent even the judge said in summing she may well have been unconscious). The word of a man accused of murder (so not exactly objective) overrode all of that.

OP posts:
venusinscorpio · 21/07/2017 13:53

Sorry in case not clear I was responding to Bertie's point about what courts allow.

venusinscorpio · 21/07/2017 13:51

You're not supposed to be able to claim "loss of control" as a partial defence when you kill your partner when she says she's leaving you either. There are specific guidelines put in place to stop it happening. But it happens and murder is downgraded to manslaughter.